4 ms·

"In 2011, 96 percent of U.S. crop farms were family farms, and they accounted for 87 percent of the value of crop production." http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/11

"In 2011, 96 percent of U.S. crop farms were family farms, and they accounted for 87 percent of the value of crop production." http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/1156726/err152.pdf http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/1156726/err152.pdf And since the devil's in the definitions: "ERS defines a family farm to be one in which the principal operator, and people related to the principal operator by blood or marriage, own more than half of the farm business" So I think that's valid.

mememememe3 12y ago
The PDF you linked is about how farms are much larger now. The family thing is what you responded to, but the actual pdf does state that small farms have gone or are going away. The previous comments were about small family farms, not just 'family' farms.
- patmcguire 12y ago
  Yeah, you're right, I got caught up in the "operator" language, thought it meant more direct management. I couldn't find any place that did something like cumulative acreage by size that you see with income, i.e. top 5% of farms have half the land.
ghshephard 12y ago
Definitions are everything here - what are considered "smaller farms?" - My cousin in Alberta, her husband, and two kids with occasional contract help farms two sections (1280 acres) of various crops - and his role in the harvest/planter (outside of parking, which is epic when he has a full set of fertilizing tanks connected) seems to be predominantly supervisory - GPS and software-defined systems do most of the actual work now. He even has a mini-fridge in his Air-Conditioned Cab. Would we consider that to be a smaller farm?
Retric 12y ago
4% of crop land is outside of family farms any they produced 13% of crop value? That suggests family farms on average suck. However the definition of "family farm" tends to get stretched a lot. 50,000+ accre "Family Farms" are hardly what most people think of as family farms. Eighty-three percent of cropland was on farms that were larger than the mean size, and 71 percent was on farms that were more than twice (1,100 being the meadean). Also of note, a lot of "Farms" are really only farms in name only. Hay production for example qualifies even if you outsource harvesting to someone else. Happen to own a large field well it's easy to make some money on the side even if someone else does all the work and it barely covers taxes.
- Houshalter 12y ago
  >4% of crop land is outside of family farms any they produced 13% of crop value? That suggests family farms on average suck. No, it means the distribution of crops isn't the same, which isn't surprising. Perhaps corporate farms are more likely to produce profitable crops like vegetables or fruit or something.
bsder 12y ago
From your reference, while there are a ton of small farms (median size 45 acres), the vast majority of cropland is on large farms. Even if I concede less than 100 acres as a "small farm" (and 100 acres is almost twice the median farm size), that represents almost 66.4% of the total number of farms yet only 8.4% of total production. Small farms are not a rounding error, but they sure are headed that direction.
dredmorbius 12y ago
"Family farm" includes large family-owned businesses. Given that some of the largest businesses in the US are privately (largely family)-held, that's a pretty meaningless distinction. Koch Industries, Cargill, and the SAS Institute all come to mind. Forbes has a list of the top 20: http://www.forbes.com/lists/2011/21/private-companies-11_land.html http://www.forbes.com/lists/2011/21/private-companies-11_lan... Far better to classify total land holdings by farm size.
- maxerickson 12y ago
  Census has reports about that stuff: http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/agriculture/farms_and_farmland.html http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/agriculture/farm... 827 is instructive: http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0827.pdf http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0827.p... More than 1/3 of harvested acres come from farms larger than 2000 acres (of which there are ~80). Farms larger than 500 acres account for roughly another 1/3 of harvested acres. Of the remainder, about half of acreage is harvested on farms larger than 260 acres. There are some huge land holders in that top category (the mean harvested acres is 1.5 million, the mean land ownership is ~4x that).
  - bryanlarsen 12y ago
    In some places in the US & Canada, 2000 acres is a pretty small farm. I know a guy in Saskatchewan who farms 1600 acres and holds a full time off-farm job as well. I also know of a family ranch in Saskatchewan that's about 30,000 acres. It's run by a husband, wife and two hired hands.
    - maxerickson 12y ago
      The report I linked distinguishes between acres and harvested acres, except for the 4x, I'm quoting the harvested acres. So I think graze land and such is not going to show up in those numbers. I made a stupid mistake, there are 80,000 large farms, not 80. Damn it. At least that makes a lot more sense.
  - 12y ago

mememememe3 12y ago

The PDF you linked is about how farms are much larger now. The family thing is what you responded to, but the actual pdf does state that small farms have gone or are going away. The previous comments were about small family farms, not just 'family' farms.

patmcguire 12y ago
Yeah, you're right, I got caught up in the "operator" language, thought it meant more direct management. I couldn't find any place that did something like cumulative acreage by size that you see with income, i.e. top 5% of farms have half the land.

ghshephard 12y ago

Definitions are everything here - what are considered "smaller farms?" - My cousin in Alberta, her husband, and two kids with occasional contract help farms two sections (1280 acres) of various crops - and his role in the harvest/planter (outside of parking, which is epic when he has a full set of fertilizing tanks connected) seems to be predominantly supervisory - GPS and software-defined systems do most of the actual work now. He even has a mini-fridge in his Air-Conditioned Cab. Would we consider that to be a smaller farm?

Retric 12y ago

4% of crop land is outside of family farms any they produced 13% of crop value? That suggests family farms on average suck. However the definition of "family farm" tends to get stretched a lot. 50,000+ accre "Family Farms" are hardly what most people think of as family farms. Eighty-three percent of cropland was on farms that were larger than the mean size, and 71 percent was on farms that were more than twice (1,100 being the meadean). Also of note, a lot of "Farms" are really only farms in name only. Hay production for example qualifies even if you outsource harvesting to someone else. Happen to own a large field well it's easy to make some money on the side even if someone else does all the work and it barely covers taxes.

Houshalter 12y ago
>4% of crop land is outside of family farms any they produced 13% of crop value? That suggests family farms on average suck. No, it means the distribution of crops isn't the same, which isn't surprising. Perhaps corporate farms are more likely to produce profitable crops like vegetables or fruit or something.

bsder 12y ago

From your reference, while there are a ton of small farms (median size 45 acres), the vast majority of cropland is on large farms. Even if I concede less than 100 acres as a "small farm" (and 100 acres is almost twice the median farm size), that represents almost 66.4% of the total number of farms yet only 8.4% of total production. Small farms are not a rounding error, but they sure are headed that direction.

dredmorbius 12y ago

"Family farm" includes large family-owned businesses. Given that some of the largest businesses in the US are privately (largely family)-held, that's a pretty meaningless distinction. Koch Industries, Cargill, and the SAS Institute all come to mind. Forbes has a list of the top 20: http://www.forbes.com/lists/2011/21/private-companies-11_land.html http://www.forbes.com/lists/2011/21/private-companies-11_lan... Far better to classify total land holdings by farm size.

maxerickson 12y ago
Census has reports about that stuff: http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/agriculture/farms_and_farmland.html http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/agriculture/farm... 827 is instructive: http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0827.pdf http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0827.p... More than 1/3 of harvested acres come from farms larger than 2000 acres (of which there are ~80). Farms larger than 500 acres account for roughly another 1/3 of harvested acres. Of the remainder, about half of acreage is harvested on farms larger than 260 acres. There are some huge land holders in that top category (the mean harvested acres is 1.5 million, the mean land ownership is ~4x that).
- bryanlarsen 12y ago
  In some places in the US & Canada, 2000 acres is a pretty small farm. I know a guy in Saskatchewan who farms 1600 acres and holds a full time off-farm job as well. I also know of a family ranch in Saskatchewan that's about 30,000 acres. It's run by a husband, wife and two hired hands.
  - maxerickson 12y ago
    The report I linked distinguishes between acres and harvested acres, except for the 4x, I'm quoting the harvested acres. So I think graze land and such is not going to show up in those numbers. I made a stupid mistake, there are 80,000 large farms, not 80. Damn it. At least that makes a lot more sense.
- 12y ago