Occupational Immobility: Small Farmers' Persistence - Study by Ruth Gasson, 1969, Lecture notes of Economics

Download Occupational Immobility: Small Farmers' Persistence - Study by Ruth Gasson, 1969 and more Lecture notes Economics in PDF only on Docsity! ISIANNINII FOUNDATION OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS LIBRARY OCCASIONAL PAPERS NO. 13 OCCUPATIONAL IMMOBILITY OF SMALL FARMERS by RUTH GASSON A study of the reasons why small farmers do not give up farming Issued by the FARM ECONOMICS BRANCH DEPARTMENT OF LAND ECONOMY /CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY January 1969 PRICE 5s. 6d. Post Free V V v 47) KNJ V VY rv y V OCCASIONAL PAPERS NO. 13 OCCUPATIONAL IMMOBILITY OF SMALL FARMERS by RUTH GASSON A study of the reasons why small farmers do not give up farming Issued by the FARM ECONOMICS BRANCH DEPARTMENT OF LAND ECONOMY CAMBRIDGE • UNIVERSITY January 1969 Acknowledgements I wish to acknowledge the part played by the National Agricultural Advisory Service in this research project, in providing the sample, undertaking much of the early clerical work and for help and advice in the planning stages. I am most obliged to Mr. Burr, Director of the N.A.A.S. Eastern Region, Mr. Clarke, County Agricultural Adviser for Cambridgeshire and the Isle of Ely, the District Agricultural Advisers of Hertfordshire, the Holland division of Lincolnshire and the Isle of Ely and in particular to Mr. Woolley, who shared the field work. My thanks are due also to Mr. Sturrock, Director of the Farm Economics Branch, Mr. Wallace who initiated the project and helped at many stages, Dr. Turner, a sociologist at the University of East Anglia and to Mr. Hardaker, Mr. Popplestone and Mr. McLeod, all formerly at the Farm Economics Branch. My greatest debt is to the farmers, both in the sample and others, without whose help this survey could not have taken place. Ruth Gasson Contents FOREWORD 3 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 4 CHAPTER 1 THE SMALL FARMER PROBLEM 7 Reasons for Remaining in Farming CHAPTER 2 DESCRIPTION OF THE SURVEY 12 Farming Patterns Contrasts in the Local Economies Numbers of Holdings The Survey and the Sample CHAPTER 3 INCOMES OF SMALL FARMERS 16 Farm Incomes and Profits Reactions to the Farm Income Situation Other Sources of Household Income Costs of Living CHAPTER 4 OCCUPATIONAL IMMOBILITY 20 Age, Training and Experience Choice of Other Occupations Comparisons over Time Locational Aspects CHAPTER 5 PERSONAL IMMOBILITY 24 Family Ties with Farming Ties with the District Local Contrasts Attitudes towards Moving Farms CHAPTER 6 FARMING AS A WAY OF LIFE 29 Farmers' Opinions on Farming Satisfaction with the Present Occupation CHAPTER 7 PLANS FOR RETIREMENT 33 Disposal of the Farm The 'Copper Handshake' CHAPTER 8 GENERATIONAL MOBILITY 36 Means of Starting to Farm The Rising Generation Succession to Farms CHAPTER 9 CONCLUSIONS 40 APPENDIX 1 DESCRIPTION OF THE SAMPLE 42 APPENDIX 2 INFLUENCE OF LOCATION ON POTENTIAL MOBILITY 43 APPENDIX 3 PERSONAL TIES WITH FARMING—SOME LOCAL COMPARISONS 44 5 CHAPTER 1 The Small Farmer Problem The incomes of farmers in this country have been falling in comparison with the rest of the com- munity. This has been shown by BeHerby,' who calculated the income per head of farmers and compared it with the income per head of the rest of the working population.* His index, the 'farmers' incentive income ratio', has been calculated for the post-war period (Table 1).2 It showed that twenty years ago, farmers were earning rather more than the rest of the working population (e.g. 112 in 1948). This declined to 90 in 1959 and after a brief increase has again fallen to 90 in 1966. In other words, the farmer was earning for his manual work and his skill as a manager only nine-tenths as much as the rest of the population. Table 1. Farmers' incentive income ratio in the U.K. Year Ratio Year Ratio 1948 112 1954 99 1949 113 1955 92 1950 110 1956 95 1951 105 1957 94 1952 108 1958 92 1953 104 1959 90 Year Ratio 1960 94 1961 95 1962 95 1963 94 1964 90 1965 92 1966 90 The prospects for raising the incomes of farmers by increasing the share that agriculture draws from the national income are not favourable. The inelastic demand for food and the claims of foreign producers on the home market limit the scope for expanding output. While returns remain fairly steady, costs are rising and the farmer is expected to absorb much of the increase in costs through greater efficiency. Only the technological revolution of the past 25 years has allowed the profitability of farming to rise as much as it has. Inevitably, however, net income, or the difference between the value of output and costs, cannot grow as rapidly in agriculture as in some other industries where there are greater opportunities for expansion and for passing on to the consumer increases in costs. * It should be noted that it is farmers (i.e. employers and self-employed—not farm workers) who are being com- pared with employers and workers in all other industries. 7 Table 3. Changes in the number of holdings in England and Wales 1957 to 1967 Size group Change 1957 Percentage (acres crops and grass) to 1967 change 0-5 —18,934 —25 5-20 —16,524 —20 20-50 —13,388 —21 50-100 —8,421 —14 100-150 —3,529 —12 150-300 —2,184 —7 300-500 1,096 +12 500-1,000 1,293 +39 Over 1,000 426 ±74 All holdings —60,165 —15 Under the 1967 Agriculture Act,7 the Government is encouraging the trend towards amalgama- tion of small farms. In contrast to earlier palliative measures offering grants to increase the size of the farm business, the new Act tackles the problem radically by offering grants towards the cost of amalgamating holdings and pensions or lump-sum payments to those who quit farming. Regional Development Boards, to be set up in problem farming areas, will have the power to buy and hold land in order to improve farm structure. Thus the course appears to be straight- forward. Some farmers, especially those on smaller holdings, should be encouraged to leave farming, in order to raise the incomes of those who remain, rationalise production, make British agriculture more competitive and safeguard the future of the industry. But while economic law dictates that they should leave their farms, many small farmers remain. It is essential, therefore, to discover the real objections to outward mobility, for without such an understanding no programme of action can be effective. REASONS FOR REMAINING IN FARMING Immobility can arise from two causes. Either the farmer has certain reasons for accepting a low income or there are factors which make it impossible for him to leave agriculture, even if he would. The main reasons for accepting the situation, in Bellerby's view,8 are the intangible or 'psychic' attractions of the land, lower costs of living and relative skills in agriculture and industry. Attrac- tions of the land are probably one of the strongest reasons for remaining in farming. Besides the open-air life and contact with nature, independence and freedom are valued highly, and this attitude may not be conducive to 'rational' economic behaviour. The guarantee of employment in times of depression and of being self-supporting in a major war may be strong inducements to farm. There are opportunities, too, for engaging in subsidiary occupations such as forestry, catering or trading which would make for greater financial security. If the costs of living are less on a farm than in other occupations, whether this is due to lower real costs or a more modest standard of consumption, farmers might be better off than at first appears. Moreover, if they believe themselves to be better off, this could be a reason for accepting a lower income. Thirdly, farmers' ideas about their own skills and hence their bargaining position in other jobs, will colour their opinions of the proper relationship between farm and other incomes. In the other category, namely causes of income disparity, Bellerby lists occupational mobility into farming coupled with immobility outwards, personal immobility, inertia and social immo- bility. When agriculture and industry are expanding, the opportunities for leaving agriculture are greater but the incentives are less. In times of depression agricultural incomes are among the hardest hit but it is difficult to find alternative work. Coupled with this are the ease with which newcomers can enter the agricultural industry and the fact that it is traditional for at least one son 10 per farmer to be destined for farming. Once he has entered farming, his lack of other skills and the strength of family ties and eventually his age all help to prevent his leaving. There may not be any other work available locally and disinclination to leave the district may prevent him seeking employment elsewhere. Social immobility arising from differences in background and education, customs and values, might hinder the movement out of farming, but is probably not significant in this age of mass-culture. Inertia may be a more important factor; that is to say, a considerable income disparity may be needed before farmers are aware that there is any problem to overcome. If it is true that farmers have to accept low incomes because they cannot move out of farming, this implies that measures taken to remove these difficulties would encourage greater mobility. On the other hand, farmers may be willing to forgo income because they value life on a farm above higher financial rewards in other jobs. In either case, the 'straightforward economic solu- tion' based on financial incentives is seen to be ineffective. It is by no means certain that to provide higher incomes for fewer farmers would result in a greater sum total of satisfaction. While social issues are less tangible than economic facts, they are nevertheless too important to be ignored. An attempt is made here to shed light on some of the problems associated with occupational mobility of farmers. The investigation was begun with four questions in mind. First, how badly-off are small farmers on the whole, allowing for supplementary income from other sources and possible differences in costs of living? Second, do small farmers with low incomes accept this situation or do they try to improve the position by expanding the farm business, looking for additional means of earning a living or moving out of farming? Third, if farmers are prepared to continue farming for low returns, is this mainly a voluntary decision, or do circum- stances prevent them from moving to another occupation? Last, what recommendations can be made in the light of this evidence, for policy in dealing with the problems of small farmers? Although not all aspects can be quantified, it is hoped that this study will help to qualify the problem and show it in its perspective. REFERENCES 1. J. R. Bellerby, Agriculture and Industry Relative Income, Macmillan: London, 1956. 2. Sources include: Annual Abstract of Statistics. Ministry of Labour Gazette. Agriculture Statistics. Annual Review and Determination of Guarantees. 3. G. H. Peters, Farming as a Successful Business. Paper delivered to the 1966 annual conference of the British Association for the Advancement of Science. 4. See, for example: F. G. Sturrock and D. B. Wallace, The Family Farm. Cambridge University Farm Economics Branch. Occasional Papers number 4, November 1956. M. Carpenter, 'The Small Farmer', Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 13(2), 1958. F. G. Sturrock, 'A Solution for the Small Farm Problem', Westminster Bank Review, May 1965. 5. M.A.F.F., Agricultural Statistics England and Wales. 1957 and 1967. H.M.S.O. 6. D. K. Britton, 'Future Pattern of Farming', Farmer and Stockbreeder, London, 26th September, 1967. 7. Agriculture Act 1967, Farm Amalgamation and Boundary. Adjustments Scheme (Statutory Instrument No. 1608); and Payments to Outgoers Scheme (Statutory Instrument 1609). 8. J. R. Bellerby, op. cit. 11 CHAPTER 2 Description of the Survey FARMING PATTERNS Two contrasting areas within the Eastern Region, the Fens and Hertfordshire, were chosen for the survey.' (Figure 2). The Fens of the Isle of Ely with parts of Huntingdonshire, the Soke of Peterborough and west Norfolk and the silt lands of south Lincolnshire, constitute the richest farming area in the British Isles. Due to its high fertility, level topography and low rainfall, the land is eminently suited to arable cropping, and consequently there is very little grassland and few livestock to be seen. In the Black Fens which include most of the Isle of Ely, about half the acreage is under cereals and one-third cropped with potatoes and sugar beet. Some vegetable crops such as carrots, celery and bulb onions are widely grown on farms. Arable production on the silts to the north, around the Wash and in south Lincolnshire, is even more intensive and might almost be described as industrialised. Potatoes are of major importance on most farms, and besides cereals and sugar beet, a large acreage of vegetables including cauliflower, cabbage, Figure 2. The Eastern Region Hunting:Ion no no Ornt C'bet dge • Bedford • •• •• • . Luton • Hertford .1 • HERTFORDSHIRE! Chelmsford 1 t.‘ Is Lynn Wcti aid - • Greater Lon don 0 10 20 miles 12 Nor:itch $ %•••• Ipswich •‘ the Fens, as Table 5 shows.4 Most small full-time farms in Hertfordshire were between 50 and 300 acres whereas in the Fens, due to the more intensive system of farming, fewer acres were needed to give the same size of business, and most holdings in this category were of less than 50 acres. The small arable farm has been the subject of a number of studies, two of which are listed below.5,6 Table 5. Distribution of holdings in the Fens and Herts by size of business in 1967 Size of Business Number of holdings Proportion S.M.D. Fens* Herts Fens Herts Under 100 3,927 1,060 31 42.5 100-275 2,280 258 18 10 275-600 2,533 340 20 14 600-1,200 1,893 371 15 15 Over 1,200 2,013 465 16 18. 5 Total 12,646 2,494 100 100 * Including Cambridgeshire and Huntingdonshire. THE SURVEY AND THE SAMPLE A random sample of full-time small farms, classified as such on the basis of their 1966 June Returns, was supplied by the Ministry of Agriculture. This consisted of one in five of holdings with 275 to 600 S.M.D. from Hertfordshire and one in twenty from the Isle of Ely and Holland, Lincolnshire. The sample was screened by the N.A.A.S. District Advisory Officers and any holdings known to be parts of larger farms or run in conjunction with another business or as 'hobby' farms were discarded. It was significant that many more were rejected from the Hertford- shire sample. Those remaining were sent an introductory letter and visited during 1967. Sample composition and the response rate are shown in Table 6, whilst more details of the farms are given in Appendix 1. Table 6. Composition of the sample of small farmers Fens Herts Total Number in original sample 72 73 145 Number rejected as unsuitable . . 8 19 27 Contacts refusing to co-operate.. 3 2 5 Contacts found to be unsuitable 2 7 9 Survey completed • • • • 59 45 104 REFERENCES 1. National Agricultural Advisory Service Eastern Region, Agriculture in the Eastern Region 1968, Cambridge, 1968. 2. R. H. Best and R. M. Gasson, The Changing Location of Intensive Crops. Studies in Rural Land Use Report No. 6, Wye College, Dept. of Agricultural Economics, 1966, Chapter 7, pp. 76-77. 3. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, The Structure of Agriculture. H.M.S.0, 1966. 4. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, June 1967 Census Distribution of Holdings by Standard Man-Day and Farm Size Groups, England and Wales, 1968. 5. F. G. Sturrock, The Optimum Size of Family Farm. Cambridge University Farm Economics Branch Occasional Papers No. 9, June, 1965. 6. C. M. Williams and J. B. Hardaker, The Small Fen Farm. Cambridge University Farm Econo- mics Branch Occasional Papers No. 10, issued in conjunction with National Agricultural Advisory Service of Cambridgeshire and the Isle of Ely, September, 1966. 15 CHAPTER 3 Incomes of Small Farmers No financial information ,was collected from the farmers in the survey. Instead, use was made of the data from the Farm Management Survey carried out by the universities in England and Wales. In the latter survey, accounts from a permanent sample of farmers are analysed each year, primarily to show trends in farm incomes. It is assumed that the small full-time farms included in the eastern counties' sample will be representative of other farms of this size in the region. Out of 380 F.M.S. farms in East Anglia in 1964, 75 were estimated to be small full-time businesses, although by 1967 only 58 of the original 75 were left in the sample. These farms averaged 87 acres of crops and grass; working capital amounted to a little over £6,000 per farm and turnover was slightly higher than this. FARM INCOMES AND PROFITS Net farm income, the return to the occupier for management, interest on his working capital and for his own and his wife's unpaid manual labour, averaged £1,485 per farm per annum over the four years. After deducting the elements of interest and wages, the pure profit or 'profit surplus' remaining was £540 per farm. The range of incomes and profits, however, was considerable. One farm in twenty was making a loss whilst one in seventeen made an income of more than £3,000. Table 7. Distribution of small F.M.S. farms by net farm income and profit surplus over the four years 1964-1967 Net farm income Profit surplus £ per farm % of farms % of farms Negative 5 28 0-500 9 23 500-1,000 19 22 1,000-1,500 24 14 1,500-2,000 17 8 2,000-3,000 20 3 Over 3,000 6 2 All farms 100 100 Profit surplus, being a residual, ranged even more widely. As Table 7 shows, more than a quarter of the farms on average made a 'negative profit surplus' each year. In fact in 1967, a good harvest year, one farmer in three made no profit. That is to say, farm income was insufficient to recom- pense them for their manual labour and interest on working capital, let alone provide any re- ward for management. Moreover, the net farm income may not all be available in the form of cash; some may represent an increase in valuations, because the farmer is investing additional capital in the business. REACTIONS TO THE FARM INCOME SITUATION Although incomes on these small farms were not usually below the subsistence level, and some farmers were able to earn a handsome profit, many were making less than they could command as wage-earners. Besides a low income per head, the prospects for a global improvement are not promising. Nowadays, farmers are having to run faster in order to stay in the same place and those who take no action are likely, sooner or later, to have it forced upon them. Are small farmers attempting to raise their incomes or are they mainly content to accept the situation and 16 tighten their belts? Survey results suggest that the reactions are mixed, with some trying hard to improve their position and others preferring the status quo. Three ways of raising farm profits are to enlarge the turnover, increase the acreage or cut costs. Two-thirds of the small farmers in the Farm Management Survey had increased the size of the farm business between 1964 and 1967, by enlarging existing enterprises or moving towards a more intensive system of farming. Increases were twice as frequent as decreases and usually larger. Small farmers visited in 1967 were asked if they had made any changes in the farming system over the past two years. Only half of them recalled any significant alterations over this period, but once again expansion was more common than contraction. (Table 8). Table 8. Changes in size of business among small farmers visited in 1967 Change in size of business 1965 to 1967, measured in Standard Number of farms Man-Days Decreased by more than 10 per cent • • • • • • 13 Decreased by up to 10 per cent • • • • 8 Increased by up to 10 per cent • . • • • • 15 Increased by more than 10 per cent • • • • 21 All farms decreasing . . • • • • • • 21 All farms increasing . . • • • • • • 36 No significant change in size . . • • • • 47 All farms • • • • • • • • • • 104 Most small farmers are anxious for more land. As Table 9 shows, 24 of those visited in 1967 had been able to increase their acreage between 1965 and 1967, while eight more had lost some land. All the losses were in Hertfordshire, usually for some form of urban development. Other Hertfordshire farmers, however, had gained a substantial area, whereas additions in the Fens were normally of a few acres only. Table 9. Acreage changes between 1965 and 1967 on small farms in the survey Acreage lost Number of farms Acreage gained Number of farms (acres) (acres) 21 to 50 2 1 to 5 9 6 to 20 5 6 to 20 8 1 to 5 1 21 to 50 2 more than 50 5 No change 72 All farms 104 The third approach a farmer may use to maintain his income is to try to cut costs. Here the small farmer is at a disadvantage since unavoidable overheads form a large proportion of his total costs. On a small farm where the occupier does most of the manual work himself, there is little opportunity for cutting the labour bill. At most one full-time worker would be employed but more often the farmer makes use of casual, part-time or contract labour, youths, pensioners or occasional help from members of the family. Often, too, small farmers help each other without any money changing hands. The small farmer is tending, however, to economise in paid labour, either by doing more work himself or replacing an employee by a member of the family. On the F.M.S. farms, the value of labour contributed by the farm family was rising each year more rapidly than wages paid to other employees. (Another interpretation might be that, with the present shortage of labour, farmers are having to pay their sOns a realistic wage to keep them on the farm.) The same tendency was found in the small farmer survey. Between 1965 and 1967 there was a net addition of 61 full-time family workers to the labour force on the 104 farms and a net 17 CHAPTER 4 Occupational Immobility* Farmers' ideas on the skills required in farming compared with other jobs and their ability to bargain in the labour market colour their views on the proper relationship between farm and non-farm incomes. Due to their age, lack of qualifications and limited experience in other fields of work, many farmers are deterred from trying to move out of farming and are obliged to accept low incomes in agriculture. The availability of alternative work locally also has a bearing on farmers' occupational mobility. AGE, TRAINING AND EXPERIENCE Whether or not employers are willing to take on ex-farmers, most farmers themselves felt that there was little chance of obtaining a good post after the middle forties. This alone would dis- courage more than half the sample from making a move, as Table 14 shows. Table 14. Age distribution of small farmers in the survey, 1967 Number of Number of Age range farmers Age range farmers Under 30 3 46-50 16 31-40 21 • 51-60 29 41-45 19 Over 60 16 Most of them had received only a minimum amount of education and three-quarters had left school when they were fourteen years of age or earlier. The majority had attended local village schools (Table 15) and this fact, too, would be likely to restrict their choice of occupations. Lack of awareness of other opportunities plays a part as well as the absence of training facilities. Table 15. Last schools attended by survey farmers Proportion offarmers Type of school % Local village/elementary • • 63 Secondary modern/town central 19 Grammar • • • • • • 8 Public, boarding • • • • 10 All farmers • • • • 100 Out of 104 farmers, only one had a university degree in agriculture, 7 others had attended agricultural colleges or farm institutes, two had been farm pupils and one had worked on a dairy farm in New Zealand, making 11 per cent in all. That this is a typical result is confirmed by Table 16. The other farmers had gained experience by working for other farmers and at least one-third of them had worked only on their father's farm before starting on their own. While they would undoubtedly gain valuable knowledge about local conditions of soils and climate, markets and * Occupational mobility may refer to a change of occupations between generations or within the life of one person; here it is used in the latter sense only. 20 labour, and acquire useful contacts in their own areas, it might be difficult to transfer this know- ledge and experience to a different area. A person with a formal qualification in agriculture should have a broader picture of the industry and be able to 'stand back' a little from the individual farm. Table 16. Research worker Chapman' Ashton' Beal' . . Sheppard4 Gasson • • • • • • • • Proportion of farmers with training in agriculture in five surveys in England and Wales Type of training College, Year Size of sample institute, etc. Farm pupil 3 7 4 4 7 11 1944 1,968 1950 147 1960 104 1960 652 1967 104 8 2 Abroad 1 All types 11 8 7 11 11 Surprisingly few farmers had any experience of other work. The great majority were brought up on farms and many of them had left school during the 1920s or early 1930s when unemployment was high and, as they frequently said, 'There was nothing else'. Particularly for those living far from manufacturing towns when there was little public or private transport, unemployment in the towns coupled with the assurance of work and subsistence on the farm, were sufficient to keep many farmers' and farmworkers' sons on the land. As it was also hard to sell farms in the depres- sion, there was an unusually high recruitment of farmers' sons into agriculture at this time. Although this did not show up clearly in the present survey, Ashton found evidence of a higher proportion of farmers' and farmworkers' sons starting to farm in the depressions of 1926-30 and 1936-40.5 In the buoyant periods such as 1921-25 and 1946-50 when more capital was needed to start a farm, more new entrants came from other backgrounds. It was perhaps not surprising that in the present survey, some farmers who had left school between 1925 and 1940, now aged between 45 and 60, regretted having lost the chance to enter other occupations which they felt would have given them greater satisfaction. Such farmers were anxious that their own sons should make the most of the opportunities for technical education open to them nowadays. Two-thirds of the farmers had never worked outside agriculture, apart from National Service in a few cases, as Table 17 shows. Furthermore, of the 36 with experience of other work, only 24 had been in one occupation for more than two years and could expect to use this experience in applying for another job. Table 17. Experience of other work of small farmers in the survey Type of occupation Work on family holding only • • • • Work on other farms, agricultural contracting Farm work and National Service . . • • Other work: . . • • • • • • • • White-collar . . • • • • • • Own business . . • • • • Regular forces, police • • • • Skilled mechanic . . • • • • Building trade • • • • • • Factory work • • • • • • Lorry driving • • • • 6 6 4 4 7 4 5 36 Number of farmers 30 32 6 36 All farmers • • • • • • • • • • 104 CHOICE• OF OTHER OCCUPATIONS When asked what jobs they thought they would take. if they gave up farming now, suggestions ranged widely, from the professions, starting a business, clerical and technical occupations to manual work or remaining on the land as a farmworker. Some had no ideas and a few older 21 farmers suggested retirement, as shown in Table 18. A number would have liked posts as farm managers, advisers or technical representatives but these jobs are harder to obtain nowadays if a man has no formal qualifications. Table 18. Farmers' suggestions of alternative occupations to farming Proportion of farmers Type of occupation suggesting this Professional or other white-collar 18 Own business . . • • • • 18 Manual non-farm work • • 21 • Other farm work • • 13 • Retirement • • • • 11 No ideas . . • • • • • • 19 All farmers • • • • • • 100 Number of farmers • • • • 104 Farmers recognise that if they have been in farming for some years, the range of other occupa- tions open to them is limited. Indeed, jobs such as the professions or skilled trades that they had once considered were no longer feasible and they would have to take unskilled manual work or the lower-paid, routine white-collar jobs. The advantage of working on their own, on the other hand, is that they would possess some capital, enabling them to start another business, as Table 19 shows. Table 19. Alternatives to farming considered once and now Number of farmers Type of occupation Considered once Considered now Profession . . • • • • • • 4 1 Clerical . . • • • • • • 4 3 Service/technical . . • • 7 12 Forces . . • • • • • • 9 1 Own business related to farming 5 10 Own business not related • • 4 8 Skilled manual work . . • • 16 5 Semi-skilled and unskilled • • 12 15 Farm work • • i • • • • 1 13 Other and no deas • • • • 42 36 All farmers* • • • • • • 104 104 Farmers were by no means convinced that they would gain financially by changing their occu- pation. In fact, less than half thought they would be better off and more than a quarter, that they would be worse off (Table 20). Some thought they would have been better off had they entered another occupation earlier but that a move at the present stage would not be to their financial advantage. The 37 farmers with a formal qualification in farming or other work experience were more optimistic about their prospects in another job. Those without qualifications or outside experience were more evenly divided between optimism and pessimism. Table 20. Farmers' views on relative financial position if in another job Farmers with some Farmers with less Views on relative position if not in farming experience of other work % other-work experience All farmers % % Better • • • • • • • • 58 39 46 Same • • • • • • • • 15 31 25 Worse • • • • • • 27 30 29 All farmers • • • • 100 100 100 Number of farmers • • 37 67 104 * From now on, the sign * indicates that distributions are significantly different at the 99 per cent level of X2, and t indicates significance at the 95 per cent level. 22 It is reasonable to suppose that if the farmer's wife comes from a farming background and has never lived in a town or away from a farm, the husband would be reluctant to leave farming. Table 23. Occupation Farm work, at home or elsewhere Domestic or personal service • • Office of shop work • • • • Factory work . . • • • • Teaching or nursing • • • • Other • • • • • • • • Occupations of farmer's wives prior to marriage Wives of small farmers in Fens and Herts 1967 50 8 26 8 8 Wives of farmers in Staffs 1960 55 17 5 17 4 2 All wives • • 100 100 Number of wives . . • • • • 91 145 Farmers' wives from non-farming backgrounds speak enthusiastically about life on a farm and can draw vivid comparisons with their previous existence, but whether or not they are more wedded to agriculture than those brought up to it, is difficult to judge. Of 91 married farmers 25 had wives from towns and at least 35 wives came from farms. The rest were from a rural back- ground, being the daughters of land-workers, blacksmiths and so on. At least half had worked on the land before marriage. Table 23 gives the occupations of farmers' wives prior to marriage, a pattern very similar to that found in Staffordshire in 1960.6 Although some had worked in other occupations, only three had full-time jobs away from the farm at the time of the survey and two- thirds worked at least part-time in the family holding. All these findings suggest that the farmer's personal ties are an obstacle to moving out of agriculture. TIES WITH THE DISTRICT 'Occupational mobility' strictly refers to a change of jobs between generations or between dif- ferent periods in the working life of one person. On both these counts the farmers in the survey were on the whole immobile. A related concept is that of 'geographical mobility', the movement from place to place resulting from a change of occupation. Many people are able to change jobs without moving house but farmers find this more difficult. Besides the dearth of alternative work in a rural area, the farmer may be obliged to surrender the farmhouse when he gives up the occupancy of the land. This means that to leave farming involves not only a change of occupation but also a new home and a breaking of local ties. Farmers in the survey had made few moves. Three-quarters had been brought up in their present county, more than half had always lived in the same parish and 27 had never lived anywhere but on their present farm, as Table 24 shows. Table 24. Geographical background of small farmers in the survey, 1967 Farmer's place of upbringing Number offarmers Same farm . . • • • • 27 Same parish • • • • 25 Other local parish . . • • 21 Elsewhere in survey counties 6 Other eastern counties . . 4 Greater London . . • • 11 Elsewhere . . • • • • 8 Not stated . . • • • • 2 All farmers . . • • • • 104 For the majority, too, most of their close relatives lived in the same district, that is, an area within the sphere of influence of the same local market town. It can be appreciated that farmers are reluctant to break the ties of upbringing and experience, family relationships and associations 25 with a particular locality, by which they are bound to farming. Many had never known anything else, either as a home or as a way of life. In cases where both father and grandfather had had the holding before them, farmers were particularly opposed to a move which would sever the associa- tion. LOCAL CONTRASTS Once again, the Hertfordshire farmers showed themselves to be potentially more mobile than the Fen farmers. In the Fens, as in other isolated rural areas, inter-marriage between farming families is common but unlike other such areas, the profitability of farming remains high and there has been less outward migration. Consequently most farmers in the Fens have many relatives farming locally. Hertfordshire represents a contrast, being close to London and experiencing urban growth at an unprecedented rate since the war. Communications are good, opportunities for employment numerous and farmers form a small minority of the population. Fewer Hertford- shire farmers in the survey came from families closely associated with farming, and fewer of the farmers' close relatives were engaged in agriculture as a whole (though proportionately more were farmers in their own right). Fewer of the Hertfordshire wives came from farms and corres- pondingly more from towns. It was unusual for a Hertfordshire farmer's wife to have worked on the land before marriage, whilst more than half the Fen wives had done so. Besides stronger family associations with farming, the Fen farmers had stronger local connections than the Hertfordshire farmers. All but four had spent their childhood in the Fens and most had never lived away from the area. Only half the Hertfordshire farmers, on the other hand, had been brought up in that county. Naturally, most of the Fen farmer's relatives lived in the Fens while the Hertfordshire farmers' families were more dispersed. These characteristics are shown in Appendix 3. ATTITUDES TOWARDS MOVING FARMS For a number of co-operators in the survey, any move from farming was clearly out of the question. Since answers to purely hypothetical questions are not reliable indicators, it was un- realistic to measure mobility in these terms. Most farmers, on the other hand, have considered the possibility of moving to a larger farm and some have had the opportunity to do so. The co- operators were therefore asked a series of questions to measure their attitude towards a move within agriculture, and it was assumed that this would be related to their potential mobility out of agriculture. The question was asked, 'If you had the chance to move to a larger farm, which of the following considerations would stop you from moving?' Ten possible deterrents to making an advantageous move were suggested and the greater the number of reasons the farmer gave for not moving, the greater was his potential immobility. On average, five conditions were regarded as unfavourable to a move to a larger farm. One farmer in four gave all ten conditions as obstacles to moving; that is to say he would be unwilling to move under any circumstances. Only six farmers .were wholly mobile, seeing none of the conditions as strong enough to prevent an advantageous move. Table 25. Order of importance of obstacles to mobility among farmers Percentage of farmers Condition deterred by this factor Different type of farming • • 68 Borrowing a large sum.. 54 Not such a good house • • 50 Moving from the district 47 Working longer hours .. • • 46 More paper-work • • • • 46 Having to employ (more) labour • • 45 Different type of land .. • • • • 45 Living further from shops and schools 44 Having a farm sale • . • • • • 40 26 The conditions that cause a farmer to reject an opportunity to move to a larger farm suggest possible reasons for immobility (Table 25). Farmers were most opposed to moving to a different type of farm, and they were predictably cautious about taking on a large debt. While these are purely rational business decisions, personal considerations soon enter the picture. A move would be rejected by nearly half the farmers if it entailed having to live in an inferior farmhouse or leaving the district. On the whole, conditions implying more trouble or work for the occupier, suggested by working longer hours, having to do more office-work or employing labour, were of secondary importance. As expected, older farmers were strongly disinclined to make any changes in their way of life whereas the younger farmer, ambitious and with a capacity for many years' hard work in front of him, who might have started in a small way, was naturally keen to expand. Farmers in their late forties also showed considerable willingness to move. It might be that this group had had more time to become established and thus had a secure base from which to expand, while younger farmers struggling in their first years had not the necessary resources to allow them to move. Table 26. Age of farmers and potential mobility between farms Average number Average number Estimated age deterrents to moving Estimated age deterrents to moving Under 30 1-3 51-55 5.6 31-35 1-8 56-60 7•3 36-40 3.6 61-65 8.8 41-45 3.2 Over 65 9.4 46-50 2.6 All farmers 4.8 A number of farmers in the 40-50 age-range, too, were hoping to increase the size of business so that their sons could join them (Table 26). Clearly the turning-point comes at about the age of 50; after this time farmers are progressively less inclined to move. On all grounds the older farmers were less mobile, showing a particularly strong objection to leaving their houses, moving from the district or living in a more remote place. Younger farmers were less concerned with these personal ties, but having had less experience and probably with less capital behind them, they were most opposed to changing their type of farming or having to take a loan, as shown by Table 27. The farmer's background and location did not significantly affect their response to this question. From their attitudes towards a move within agriculture, it is assumed that farmers over 50 years of age will be most unlikely to change their occupation voluntarily. Table 27. Age of farmers and importance of factors deterring a move Age of farmers Under 50 Over 50 Percentage of farmers Condition deterred by following conditions Different type of farming .. • • • • 59 73 Having to borrow a large sum • • • • 36 73 Not such a good house • • • • .. 27 76 Moving from the district .. • • • • 24 73 Working longer hours • • • • 27 67 More paper-work .. • • • • • • 29 64 Employing more labour • • • • • • 27 64 Different type of land.. • • • • • • 22 71 Further from shops and schools • • • • 25 73 Having a farm sale .. • • • • • • 20 62 All factors (average) .. • • • 27 • • 30 69 FARMERS' OPINIONS ON FARMING Are the attitudes towards work, as revealed in these answers, conducive to 'rational economic behaviour?' The small farmers were seen to value their independence, outdoor life and varied work above the opportunities to make more money. Low incomes were of no greater significance to them than worry, risk and uncertainty, which usually represented the vagaries of the weather rather than financial difficulties. As to the attractions of other jobs, working under more congenial conditions would be no great draw and although freedom from worry, a regular wage-packet, shorter hours and annual holidays would be appreciated by some, almost as many expressed dislike of the prospect of regulated hours or holidays. Loss of independence and less satisfying work would be a high price to pay for these benefits. All in all, their attitudes suggested that it would be no easy task to persuade farmers to sacrifice independence and the way of life to which they are accustomed. When the attitudes of various groups of farmers were compared, some differences emerged although the order of preference was generally the same. Most consistent differences appeared to be associated with age and background. Those from farming families held stronger views on the advantages and disadvantages in being a farmer, while those from non-farming backgrounds, often with contacts and experience in other occupations, had more significant views on the pros and cons of other work. Older farmers, too, showed more agreement among themselves than the less-experienced younger group. On the whole, those who had entered farming from other walks of life placed rather higher values on some of the non-material aspects of a farmer's occupation while those brought up in farming were more concerned with factors threatening their financial position. A similar but less marked cleavage was observed in respect of age; farmers under 45 tended to set more store by the intangible assets while those over 45 were, understandably, more anxious about security and maintaining their income. On the advantages in being a farmer, those from a non-farming background scored higher in respect of both independence and open-air life and satisfaction with the work. Variety in the work had more significance for those from farming families; to the others challenge and risk and by a small margin chance of capital gain scored higher. Hence those with a longer association with farming, by upbringing and age, tended to value the work itself, in its variety and outdoor aspects, while those who had chosen to farm more recently were most conscious of the subjective elements of independence and challenge. Younger farmers and those from non-farm backgrounds con- sidered loss of independence and less satisfaction to be severe drawbacks in being an employee, attributes referring to the farmer's own experience in the work. Older farmers and those with a longer association with farming, and hence little non-farm experience, were more disturbed at the threat of being involved in labour disputes and particularly with the risk of unemployment. Farming to them represents security and factors threatening security may be very strong deterrents to outward mobility. Loss of status was not given a high score by any group. Younger farmers in particular suggested that status nowadays is judged on current levels of consumption rather than land ownership. On this scale the small farmer might occupy a very modest position. Respondents with a farm upbringing placed much more emphasis on the economic dis- advantages in being a farmer whereas the physical discomforts seemed more irksome to those from other backgrounds, who were not yet resigned to these conditions. Younger farmers in particular objected to long hours and being tied to the farm and were most strongly in favour of shorter hours and regular holidays in non-farm employment. To summarise: farmers as a whole tended to value the satisfactions derived from their work and their independence above considera- tions of income. Those groups with better prospects of employment outside farming—the younger 30 farmers and those who have not always been in farming, placed relatively higher values on these non-material aspects. In very broad terms, therefore, those who could move out of farming are unwilling to do so; those who are more willing would be less able. SATISFACTION WITH THE PRESENT OCCUPATION Another measure of farmers' satisfaction with their way of life was given by the numbers who thought that if they had to make the decision again, they would still choose to farm (Table 29). Table 29. Farmers' satisfaction with incomes and farming Would not farm again, Financial position in another job Would farm again not stated or unsure All farmers Number Number Number Better . . • • • • • • - 29 14 43 Same • • • • • • 15 9 24 Worse • • • • • • • • 21 6 27 Not stated • • • • • • 3 7 10 All farmers* • • • • • • 68 36 104 Nearly 70 per cent said they would make the same choice and only 23 per cent were dissatisfied and would in retrospect have preferred a different job, the remainder being undecided. Moreover, 29 farmers who thought they would be better off financially in another occupation were neverthe- less prepared to farm over again if the choice were open, indicating that they were willing to sacrifice a certain amount of income to remain in farming. If might be expected that farmers with better prospects of employment outside farming, those who have a higher 'opportunity cost', would be more dissatisfied with the present level and future prospects of incomes from small farms. Those with a low opportunity cost would have a smaller incentive to move and it would be logical to suppose they also had less reason for dissatisfaction. A young farmer, for example, whose family has business connections, who is making £1,200 from a small farm might be able to command £2,000 for shorter hours of work if he were employed in business or industry. On the other hand, a small farmer nearing retirement age, whose net farm income was only £500 might not be able to earn more if he took another job. In theory, the younger farmer should feel more dissatisfaction with his lot. On the contrary, the reverse appears to be the case. In the survey, those who were younger, who were expanding the farm business and were more anxious to move to a larger farm and those from Hertfordshire, from non-farm backgrounds and with experience or training for other work, also seemed to be more satisfied with their present way of life. Those with longer and stronger connections with farming, through upbringing, location and lack of other skills and those who were older, less disposed to move to a bigger farm and who showed no evidence of enlarging the farm business to improve their standing in agriculture, were more doubtful about farming again if they had the chance, as illustrated in Table 30. (To eliminate the effects of interdependence between variables, two-way comparisons were made between each pair of factors and the other five pairs in turn. This in no way alters the above conclusions.) Of 29 farmers who said they would not farm again or were doubtful, 26 lived in the Fens, 25 had static farm businesses, 24 came from farming families, 21 were without experience of other work and 21 were past their middle forties; 23 showed at least four of these characteristics. 31 Table 30. Factors influencing a farmer's satisfaction with his way of life (Percentages indicate proportions of farmers who would choose to farm again) 0/0 % Location Age Herts .. • • • • .. 92 Under 40 • • • • .. 91 Fens „ • • • • .. 56 40-49 .. • • • • .. 63 50 and over • • .. 65 Family background Farm business White-collar .. .. 94 Dynamic • • • • .. 87 Manual • • • • .. 76 Static .. • • • • .. 63 Farm .. • • • • .. 62 Experience of other work Potential mobilityt between farms Some .. • • • • .. 76 High .. • • • • .. 81 None .. • • .. 67 Medium • • • • .. 68 Low .. • • • • .. 61 t High • —0 to 2 objections to moving to a larger farm Medium .. —3 to 5 objections to moving to a larger farm Low —6 to 10 objections to moving to a larger farm. This surprising result challenges the traditionally-held view that farmers with the lowest opportunity cost cling to farming as a way of life. On the contrary, farmers with less chance of taking a different occupation or with less inclination to improve their financial standing within agriculture were less mentally committed to farming and less anxious to repeat the experience. One interpretation is that farmers feel they must justify the choice they have made. Those who have recently chosen to enter farming rather than other occupations, in other words younger farmers, those from non-farming families, with experience or opportunities for other work, are bound to express their satisfaction with the farming life; to do otherwise would be to admit that they had made the wrong decision. Older and more experienced farmers, on the other hand, are cautious of admitting to any satisfaction; the natural optimism of youth and subsequent pessimism may be significant here. Another suggestion is that progress of any sort is encouraging. The younger farmer who' is keen to move to a larger farm or one who is actively expanding the farm business, has a goal before him and will sacrifice present income to achieve it. Although his opportunity cost now may be high, he believes that in a few years his farm income will be higher than the best alternatives. Hence he feels no urge to give up farming. On the other hand, an older farmer may feel deprived of income now, in comparison with his position earlier. A farmer who had been on the same holding for many years, with a static business and no prospect of taking on a larger farm, would probably have been better off during the early 1950s than in the late 1960s relative to other sectors, irrespective of changes in his own real income. This situation could well lead to dissatisfaction, which the farmer expresses by saying that the industry has treated him badly and he would not choose to farm again. The evidence of this chapter gives a new slant to the problem of occupational mobility among small farmers. Those with a better chance of moving show greater devotion to farming as a way of life and say they are prepared to stay even if this involves a loss of income. Farmers less anxious to remain in farming are those with less prospect of moving out, and with little chance of finding a satisfactory alternative. To put it in a nutshell: those who could move will not whilst those who would move cannot. This being the case, there seems to be little scope for attracting the established small farmer out of agriculture into another occupation by financial incentives. Instead, it would be more profitable to consider the movement out of farming by those at the end of their working life and the entry of newcomers to the farming industry. 32 Table 34. Farmers' attitudes towards the 'copper handshake' Attitude Number offarmers Good scheme and considers applying • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 10 Good scheme for other farmers and those retiring anyway • • • • • • • • • • 11 Does not want to retire, not interested, thinks not eligible, plans for son to have farm, etc. 26 Will not attract majority of farmers • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 21 Good farmers do not need a pension • • • • • • • • • • • • 8 Better to sell in the open market . . • • • • • • • • • • • • 9 Insufficient incentive . . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 5 Opposed to Government interference • • • • • • • • • • • • 6 Numbers of farmers expressing views • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 96 A few farmers considered that the sum was insufficient to attract many applicants and others thought they could sell their farms more advantageously without being hampered by the restric- tions attached to the scheme. The condition that the amalgamated holding cannot be broken up for forty years is a heavy handicap, since land use and farming methods can change radically in a much shorter time. (The Minister of Agriculture is now easing this restriction.) It was felt, too, that if it were known that the vendor's pension depended on his selling the farm to a close neigh- bour, he would be in a weak bargaining position. For the two survey areas it is probably true that small farmers could sell their holdings very favourably without becoming involved in the scheme. In the Fens, the pressure for expansion from large, highly-mechanised arable farmers coupled with the very high quality of the land mean that any small acreage will almost certainly command a high price. A number of the older farmers said their land was already bespoken by neighbouring farmers. In Hertfordshire, where there are proportionately fewer small full-time farms, the pressure for land for amalgamation is matched by a strong demand for part-time farms and it may be in the farmer's interest to sell his small holding to a London businessman rather than to another farmer. It would seem that the retirement scheme has far less application in agriculturally-rich areas like the Fens or in the economically-favoured, highly urbanised south-east, than in the remote uplands of the north, west and Wales where it may well meet a real need. Finally there were farmers who resented the retirement scheme on the grounds that it interfered with their rights and independence. Since the scheme is entirely voluntary on the part of both amalgamator and recipient, it can scarcely warrant this criticism. The choice is with the farmer. If he feels it is time to 'give up the unrewarding struggle', the means are available but if he values his independence above all, he is free to remain in farming. The existence of a safety net does not detract from the skill of those who perform on a tightrope. REFERENCES 1. Departmental Committee of Inquiry into Statutory Smallholdings (the Wise Report), Cmnd. 2936, H.M.S.O., March 1966, Part I, Chapter 5. 2. J. Ashton, op. cit. 3. The Development of Agriculture, Cmnd. 2738, H.M.S.O., August 1965. Agriculture Act 1967, 'Payments to Outgoers Scheme', Statutory Instrument 1609, 1967, Chapter 22, Section 27. 4. Farmers' Weekly, London, 6 September 1968. 35 CHAPTER 8 Generational Mobility One of the greatest obstacles to raising farmers' incentive income is the facility with which new- comers can enter the industry. If entrants were limited there would be less competition for holdings and therefore more opportunities for improving farm structure. At present, the entry of outsiders is restricted by the amount of capital needed to buy and equip a farm but this may not apply to farmers' sons. In fact, they may find it easier to stay in agriculture than move to another occupation. It has been traditional for at least one son in a farmer's family to take over the family holding. While the availability of the farm with its associated working capital is a consider- able asset, it may also carry the obligation to work for the father for a number of years and later to provide for his old age. The force of family interests and local expectations may make it hard for the son to refuse. In addition, a farmer's son learns about farming from an early age but may be quite ignorant of the range of alternatives, conditions of work and prospects elsewhere. This tendency to follow on is strengthened where parents, relatives and close acquaintances have never worked outside agriculture. Where the farm is isolated, this might involve a long journey to work or the son's leaving home altogether in order to have another job. All these factors increase the likelihood of the son remaining on the farm.' MEANS OF STARTING TO FARM Between 60 and 80 per cent of the present generation of farmers in England and Wales has originated from farming families, and in this sample the proportion was 65 per cent. As expected, there were more farmers with farming backgrounds in the predominantly agricultural counties than near London. Some information was gathered from the small farmers in the survey on their means of starting to farm. Exactly half had started by taking over from or joining forces with their father (42 farmers) or another close relative (10 farmers). A few had subsequently moved but 49 were still farming land once held by a relative. Roughly half these farmers had had to wait for the death of the previous occupier, suggesting that retirement of farmers was indeed less common in the previous generation than it is now. In a few cases the farmer had joined partnership with the previous occupier or had been given part of his land (Table 35). Table 35. Means of entry to farming for those taking over relatives' farms Means of taking over Number Warmers On death of occupier . . •• •• •• •• 24 On retirement of occipuer • • • • • • • • 20 Joined partnership with occupier •. •• •• 3 Given part of farm • • •• •• •• •• 3 Not known • • • • •• •• •• •• 2 All farmers taking over from relatives • • • • 52 Ashton, in his survey of farmers in Oxfordshire and Warwickshire in 1950, found that farmers' sons started to farm at a significantly earlier age than other sons, because the father had been able to help them become established. Nalson, on the other hand, working in the Pennines, showed that farmer's sons who had to wait to inherit the family holding, started significantly later than other entrants. The evidence of this survey was much closer to Nalson's than to Ashton's and it suggests that whilst larger farmers may be able, or were perhaps able in the past, to start their sons on farms of their own, small farmers' sons have to wait for the father to retire or die before they can start independently. (Tables 36 and 37). 36 Table 36. Farmers' backgrounds and age starting to farm Ashton's survey Age starting to farm Farmers' sons Others0 0 Under 25 25-29 . . 30-39 . . 40 and over • • • • • • • • 209 23 40 8 18 20 42 20 This survey Farmers' sons Others 16 21 29 24 37 37 18 18 All farmers . • • . Number of farmers . . Table 37. 100 100* 102 45 100 100 66 38 " Farmers' age and means of starting to farm Nalson's survey Age starting to farm From parents Otherwise 70 % Under 35 . . 52- 5 71 35 or over • • 47.5 29 This survey From parents Otherwise 53 73 47 27 All farmers . . Number of farmers . . 100 100* 61 111 100 100* 42 62 THE RISING GENERATION In view of the uncertain, if not discouraging, outlook for the small farmer today and the wealth of other opportunities, one would expect fewer farmers' sons to come forward to take over family farms. The survey evidence did not seem to point this way, however, since a high proportion of sons were being recruited for agriculture. Out of 46 sons at work, over half were engaged in agriculture, 20 working with their fathers at home, two employed on other farms and two farming on their own account. The others were divided equally between white-collar and manual occupa- tions. Ashton and Nalson both found about the same proportion of sons working on the family farm, as seen in Table 38, but rather more working for other farmers or farming independently. This reflects the diminishing opportunities in agriculture today and the decline in the size of the labour force. Table 38. Occupation Father's farm . . Other farm • • • • Farming on own account Non-farm work Occupations of farmers' sons in three surveys Ashton Nalson This survey 1967 °A • • 44 4 4 48• • 1950 1960 % 48 40 8 15 17 5 27 40 All sons working . . 100 100 100 Number in sample . . 111 132 46 If a farmer comes from a farming family, his sons are likely to farm also. Nalson found this in his study2 and in the present survey nearly two-thirds of the sons of farmers who were themselves farmers' sons were working in agriculture, as compared with only one sixth of those whose paternal grandfathers were in middle-class occupations or two-fifths from manual-working families (Table 39). Table 39. Farmers' backgrounds and occupations of sons Type of occupation of sons Farm % Farming . . • • • • 64 White-collar • • • • 25 Manual . . • • • • 11 Background of farmers' father White-collar Manual Total Numbers % .% % 17 42 52 24 33 16 24 11 50 42 24 11 All sons . . • • • • 100 100 100 100 46 37 CHAPTER 9 Conclusions Many small farm businesses below commercial size will cease being full-time units over the next twenty years. Most of these will be absorbed into larger farms, become part-time holdings or be transferred to non-agricultural use. This change is taking place already, but not rapidly enough to prevent the incomes of small farmers as a whole from falling. At the present time, some small operators are making strenuous efforts to expand into the 'commercial' range. Others are in- creasing turnover a little or cutting back expenditure, but scarcely fast enough to maintain their incomes, while some are marking time and thus declining relative to other sectors of the economy. Whilst many small farmers are keen to have more land, they can obtain it only at the expense of another holding. When it comes to competing for a vacant holding however, the small farmer is often outbid by the larger operator with more capital and credit. Ways are being sought to reduce the numbers of 'uncommercial' small farmers with the mini- mum of social hardship. The three methods under consideration are, to hasten the retirement of elderly farmers, to encourage established farmers of under 55 to change their occupation and to limit the entry of newcomers. The idea of retiring at 65 is now more generally accepted by farmers but as yet the Government's pension scheme is not popular. Many of the small farmers approached in the survey were tenants of statutory smallholdings and it was not clear whether they would be eligible for the grant. For the owner-occupier, the incentive may not be sufficient, especially in the south-east of England where land commands high prices in the open market. If the scheme gains popularity and hastens by a few years the retirement of small farmers, the effect on farm structure will be favourable but not overwhelming, since these would be farmers who were prepared to retire anyway. It does, however, ensure the disappearance of uneconomic holdings. There seems to be less prospect of encouraging younger farmers to quit farming for other jobs. Far from wanting to give up, the majority in the survey were satisfied with their occupation and keen to expand. Those who were younger, with experience of other work, more training and better chances of finding alternative employment were also likely to be making more progress with the farm. Moreover they set a high store by their independence and other non-material values in farming. Older farmers with static businesses and less inclination to move or expand had often had little experience of other work and would be chary of committing themselves to the untried world of industry. The 'quittance grant' might, however, attract some farmers between these two extremes, those who had entered farming early and had become fully aware of their position rather later in life. Especially if there is no son to follow them, such farmers may become dis- satisfied in their forties and be prepared to change their occupation. By far the best approach of the three would be to tackle the young aspiring farmer before he is committed to farming, while there is still time to train him for another career and before his sturdy independence has had time to harden. It would be preferable not to embark on an ill-conceived career in farming rather than to start and have difficulty in salvaging the capital in five years' time. The problem is mainly one of communications. The entry of newcomers from outside agri- culture is effectively restricted by the very high capital requirements and the shortage of farms to rent. Those with unlimited capital behind them are not prevented from coming but neither are they likely to make a start on farms which are too small. Farmers' sons can slip into farming rather more easily, sometimes for the lack of making any other decision. In the survey, at least a third of the small farmers expected to hand the farms over to their sons. Here those who can influence them—school teachers, Youth Employment Officers, leaders of Young Farmers' Clubs 40 and above all the parents themselves, have a responsibility to make the young aware of the difficulties facing the small farmer today and the probability of his problems increasing. Most farmers in the survey and their wives appreciated their position and had tried to put it across to their sons. Some new entrants attend agricultural colleges, where there is an opportunity for them to be made familiar with the prospects for the uneconomic small holding. Such a campaign needs to be backed up by an introduction to the other opportunities and training facilities available. In training every future farmer, and particularly those with more limited resources, it is impor- tant to show not only the nature of the farming operation but the problem of making a living, the future outlook and the possibility of enjoying a higher income for less effort in another occu- pation. Those who start farming today would still be of working age in the year 2000, by which time the structure of British agriculture may have changed beyond all recognition. More than at any previous time, it is essential that those who launch themselves into farming should do so with their eyes open. Of course, those who are sufficiently keen will always find the means to farm and many will undoubtedly make a success of it. The danger is for those who miss other opportunities and drift into farming by default, only to realise the difficulties when it is too late. 41 Total acreage in all survey farms (acres) Proportion owned by occupiers • • Proportion rented • • • • • • APPENDIX 1 Description of the Sample The average size of all farms was 67 acres of crops, grass and rough grazing. The Fen farms were naturally much smaller, averaging 33 acres compared with 110 acres in Hertfordshire. Half of the latter exceeded 100 acres, (Table A), contrasting with the Fens where the largest farm was only 80 acres. As the size distribution in the sample did not differ significantly from that of all small farms in the areas in 1967, the sample can be taken as representative. Table A. Acreage distribution of survey farms, 1967 Acres crops, grass and rough grazing 1-5 6-20 21-50 51-100 101-150 151-200 Over 200 Fens Herts Total Number of farms 4 5 9 17 4 21 24 6 30 14 5 19 9 9 10 10 6 6 All farms* 59 45 104 Half the total acreage was owned and half rented. Rather more than half was owned in Hert- fordshire, while in the Fens renting of land was more common (Table B). Many of the farms, particularly in the Fens, were statutory smallholdings. Most holdings were run by one man but six in the Fens and seven in Hertfordshire were partnerships, usually of two brothers or a father and son. Table B. Tenure of land in the survey farms Fens Herts 1,956 4,975 32% 53% 68% 47% Total 6,931 47% 53% Two-thirds of the occupiers had come into possession of their holdings after 1951; the rest had started earlier and six had been in occupation since before 1930. Fen farmers had spent more years on their present farms, only 30 per cent having come within the last ten years as against 58 per cent in Hertfordshire (Table C). Table C. Distribution of survey farmers by year of entry to present holding Number of Year first occupying present holding farmers Fens Herts Total % % % 1961 onwards • • • • 22 13 33 22 1956-60 . . • • • • 21 17 25 20 1951-55 • • . . 21 25 14 20 1946-50 • • • • • • • • 17 18 13 16 1941-45 • • • • • • 7 10 2 7 1931-40 • • • • • • 10 10 9 9 1921-30 • • • • • • 4 4 4 4 Pre-1921 • • • • • • 2 3 — 2 All farmers* • • • • 104 42 100 100 100