Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgriculture as Land Use - 1966 Preliminary Report Southold Town Planning Studies ACRICUUAWJRE AS A LA~%~ USE D~vid Jo Allee Cots211 University Agricultural ExTPeriment Station Depart. me.ut of Agric-~iLtural Economics k~ew York State College of A~rieul't.u~re A C~ntract College of the S'~'be Uni'¢er~ity of New York at Cornell Uz,ziversiby Ithaca~ New York This is a part of a larger study financed in part ~uder the Urban P!anr~ng Assistance (701) Program~ and in part from '~aiversity funds, state funds and a contribution from the T~ of Southoldo ~y 11, 1966 Land Use In a "potato area" one would expect to find most of the land being used for potatoes. Such is the case here with three-fourths of the land in this use (see table 1). Strawberries, claiming a modest six percent of the operated land, are next in terms of land use. Cauliflower and brussel sprouts follow using four percent and two percent of the land respectively. About ten percent of all land is devoted to the combLued acreage of cabbage, sweet corn~ onions, string beans, cuc~mmbers~ tomw~oes~ peas, fava and lima beans: and cranberry beans: each being p.!mnted on one percent or less of the totsl land farmed, a very snm~ll acreage -- approx~ ~E~tely two percent -- is double cropped. Table 1 Land Used for Major Crops for Farms Over and Under 100 Acres~ General Factors Acres Operated Cropland 0v---------------~ed Cropland Rented Double Cropping Major Crops Potatoes Strawberries Cauliflower Brussel Sprouts Other Vegetables Southold To~rnship, Long Islands N. Y.~ 1963 Total Acres under ~ Over 100 100 Acres Acres 618o 6956 2608 2778 3619 3550 156 104 4985 ~886 3~8 446 285 242 62 523 847 ,..PereeA~' · A2/ of~%%t le~d farms operated 13136 ~00 5386 41 7169 55 R60 ~ Average Acreage Under Over 100 100 Acres Acres farms 6~ ~6~ s5 63 36 35 81 49 1.5 2.5 L8 9871 75 49 794 6 3.4 476 4 2.8 3O4 2 2.4 1370 t0 5.1 114 68 lO .4 5.5 4.4 3,3 19.7 /~. 5 -2- For the several categories total acreage is about evenly divided bet~,~een the large farms and the small farms. The relative difference becomes greater for sGme of the ~E~ller use categories~ but the absolute acreages involved are small° Since there are less than half as many large farms as small ones (43 to 102), the average acreage on large fats for most categories is a little over t~rice as largs as for small far~s, ~,Yith the exception of potatoes~ wh_fch are gr~ on all but four farms, there is ~ide variation in the frequency ~rith ~nlch auy l~articular land use category is actu~L~y observed on farms. Cons~quently~ a ~ore accurate representation of a "typical" farm in each size group is that given by average acreage in each category of those that actually devoted land to that particular use. Averages calculated on this basis together ~rith the percentage of farms included~ appear in table 2~ And some other operating factors of interest are summarized in table 3. Table Average Acreage and Proportion of Farms Over and Under 100 Acres %~hich Actually Raise Selected Crops~ Southold To,~ns.kip~ Long Island, New 'fork Category Potatoes Strawberries Cauliflower Brussel Sprouts Cabbage S~et Corn Onions String Beans Cucumber Tomatoes Peas Fava & Lima Beans Cranberry Beans Ave~ege Acreage Percent of Farms Per Farm inEach Category in Each Categoz~ Under Over All Under Over All 100 ac 100 ac Farms 100 ac 100 ac Farms 50 119 71 98 95 97 1243 32°7 18.6 28 32 30 5.4 9ol 6.5 52 6.4 9.8 7.7 37 15 27 2.4 6.5 3;9 30 22 26 5J 10.5 9.o o.o 18.8 18.8 o 17 3.4 6.4 5.o 13 2o 4.2 1S.2 7.S 9 15 o.o 3.o 3.o o 2 l 2.0 5°3 3-3 2 7 2.3 6.3 3.7 6 7 6 4.0 8.0 5.1 6 5 5 Ta%le 3 Frequency of Tenure Arrangements and Changes, Selected Land and ~Yater Use Factors for Farms Over and Under 100 Acres~ Southold Township~ Long Island, New York Average Acreage Per Farm in Each Category Percent of Farms in Each Category Category Under Over All Under Over 100 ac 1~0 ac Fgr~.~ 100 ac t00 ac Farms Total Operated 61 169 91 100 100 100 Other Land Owned 8 so 13 95 39 31 Cropland (h~ned ~R 74 51. 60 85 71 Cropland Rented- 46 87 59 76 93 83 Double Cropping 5 20 6 39 23 98 Cropland Added (1964) ll 32 19 13 25 18 Cropland Eliminated (1964) 12 19 !4 zz 5 lO Idle Land 20 7 14 8 12 10 Acre Inches of%~ater Used 125 Acre Inches of ~ter Used per Acre operated 2.05 274 169 1.69 1.87 The percentage in each size group gives the probability of that particular practice or use category being found on any farm ~ithin the size group. A higher percentage in one size group implies that a higher proportion of the farms in that size group participate in that particular activity° On this basis, a higher proportion of large fa~nns o~ cropland~ o~-m other land~ rent croplsmd~ add land and have land idle. Eelatively more of them grow strawberries, onions, string beans~ cucumbers~ tomatoes and peas. Small farms are more likely to have eliminated land and to double crop. More of them gro;¢ cauliflower, brussel sprouts~ cabbage and sweet corn. Nearly everybody in both groups gro~s potatoes o An additional comparison between the ~.~ size groups can be made on the basis of acreage devoted to any particular use category. Making this comparison relative to total acres operated, large farms~ ~n more ~'other land"~ add more land~ and again gr~ more strawberries~ onions~ string beans, cucumbers, tomatoes and peas° ~king the same type of comparisons but using ave_~ .acreage per_. fa~rm rather than total acreages picks up a little more of the behavioral characteristics of the individual farms. This comparison gives essentially the same picture except that when large farms double crop they do so ~,lth more land and when they grow it~ they gro~ r~re cabbage Farm Operator At~.itud~ o__n Changes and N___0n-farm Activity The following is a summary of the responses to several questions dealing with the impact - or lack of it - of urbanization in the ~ith respect to ll '~roposed" innovations, those favored and opposed by the respondents were as follows: 1o Strong!y_ favored (over R/B) a) New high~mys b) ~ore extensive public beaches c) Resort hotel 2. Favored of majority but less than a) New areas zoned for apartment buildings b) Areas zoned for vacation housing c) ¥~nimumsize of home d) Retaining most creeks in present form S. Opposed by ~mjority but less than a) T~water system b) Areas zoned for farming 4o Strongly opposed (over.R/B) a) Se~ge system b) Central school system The large and Sma!~ farms voted together on all issues except 2 (d)~ retaining creeks, and ~ (b), zoning for farming. Small farmers were strongly in favor of retaining most creeks in their present form while just over half of the large farms were opposed. On farm zoning~ large. farms were strongly opposed and .small farms split 51 to 4~ in favor of ~ Specifically~ the question was n?~ber 25 on page 15 of the questionnaire. -7- retaining them as they are. In every case~ when the majority favored a proposal they thought it wottld be successful; and when they were opposed they thought it would be unsuccessful, There was far more unanimity of opinion regarding essentially non- farm questions than on matters one might expect to be closer home, There could be more uniformity of effect on individual farmers of the non-farm related proposals among those strongly favored or opposed, The effect of zoning, for exs~ple, on which opinion was generally divided~ would likely be quite different from farm to farm. The strong opposition of large farms to zoning land for farming possibly reflects the anticipation of land sales for bnilding lots ~ A' large farm could sell part of his holdings and operate about as before. Nearly all, 78 percent and 88 percent for the small and large farms respectively, reported ~dJoining land that was used for non-farm purposes There were a few reports to the effect that such a situation improved stand sales and offered an opportunity to sell farm land (prima_FilM reported by large farms)~ but most~ 74 percent reported no advantage, The majority of those questioned reported no problam~ or disad- vantage associated' with farming near land not also being used for fargo However, in response to specific "suggestions" 15 to 46 percent acknowl- edged that some problem did occasionally arise. There were, in order of frequency reported: 1. Irrigation problems 2. Chemical or other industrial ~,zastes S, Vandalism 4. IIeavy or fast traffic Dust -8- IIigher taxes (small farms only) Vandalism, wastes and traffic problems ~re cited more frequently by the large farms$ irrigation and dust were reported ~.rith about equal frequency. Specifically~ liability risks, water pollution~ ~dralnage problems~ other farm operations~ uudesirable ele~ents~ noise and higher taxes (for large farms) were recognized as problems of only 8 percent or less o~' the farms questioned~ Land Tenure In 196~, there were 1~5 farms in the town ~hich o~ated a total of 12~555 acres with 87 acres being the average size of operation (see table 4)o Less than half -- 43 Percent ~- of the land is actually ~ o~n~ed by the farmer who operates it. Op~eratin~ right~ in land tend to\~\ be held in relatively small parcels of about 30 acres each on the averages In terms oz~ legal ownership~ h~,ever~ the average holding is probably larger° Over half the land is rented and there ~-~uld seem to be no particular reason why one tract of land o~med should not be rented out in several different parcels, thus increasing the number of parcels involved and reducing their average size. All Farms Total Average per Farm Table 4 Parcels and Acres of Cropland ~ned or Rented Southold To~a~shipLong Island~ New York~ 1963. No Parcels of Farms ~ed 145 142 °98 Parcels Parcels Acres Acres Acres Rented Operated Owned Rented Operated ~5 ~37 B374 7181 12,555 2.o3 3.Ol 37 5o 87 Single Propri'~torships Classifying all farms as either single proprietorships or part- nerships places only 20 percent in the latter category. Thus~ the bulk of the farms are one-family operations. Ho~ver~ the partnerships do operate a slightly greater than proportional acreage, which is consistent ~ith the e~0ectations that partnerships would generally be larger operating units. Three-fourths of the single proprietorships operate less than 100 acres, reinforcing the relative imports~uce of small one-family units~ in terms of numbers (see table 5)· Their relative importance fades however~ ~rith respect to land operated due to their s~ll average size. This grouD represents 61 percent of all farms in the to~.n~ but accounts for only 43 percent of the land operated. Its relative importance by either measure will probably decline in the future, but with a greater decline in acres oDerated due to a probable greater overall decline in farm numbers than in acres, and a shifting of land from this to other groups. Table 5 Parcels s~ud Acres of Cropland (~ed s~d Rented by Single Proprietorships, Southold To~.n~ship~ Long Island~ N, Y,~ 1963 Proprietorships Under !00 acres Over lO0 acres Parcels Acres Number of Farms (~med Rented Operated ~med Rented Operated ll6 103 232 335 3907 5074 8981 89 60 151 211 R197 3156 5353 ~7 43 8~ 124 ltl0 ~918 36~8 Between the size groups~ there appear to be a tendenc-~ for the larger farms to rent less land and to rent slightly larger parcels. Perhaps this tendency reflects the predominance of older~ well established operations where the single E~nager ~rlth relatively large holdings of his own feels less pressure to extend his operation into areas of greater uncertainty and risk.. Partnerships Partnership operations presumably~ are meant to provide a living for more than a single family unit (even w~here a father-son partnership is essentially one fsmily in other respects)~ Itence~ one would expect most partnerships to be ~ong the l~rger size operation. A breakdown of the 29 partnerships in the town bet~.~en those over and ur~der 100 acres suggests this to be the case° Ito~.~ver, the ~rgin is quite narrow~ 16 to lB (see table 6)o Some of the 1S s~ll partnerships seem to be in a phase of enlarging their operation; but~ due to lack of capital, available land, or some other reason they have not yet exp~uded beyond the 100 acre mark. Their greater tendency to rent land lends support to this apparent explanation° One additional factor m~y be simple "~rch 15 expediency"~ or the greater accounting flexibility afforded by the opportunity to spread income combined x,ith capital gains and losses. These considerations however, ~ould probably not be sufficient in them- selves to have much effect. Table 6 Parcels and Acres of Cropland Owned and Rented by Partnerships Southold Tcmrnship~ Long Island~ No Y.~ 196~ Parcels Acres Number of Farms O~med Rented Operated Owned Rented Operated P~rtnerships 29 ~9 6~ 102 1467 2107 ~574 Under 100 acres 13 ll 11 22 306 539 845 Over !O0 acres 16 28 52 80 ll61 1568 2729 ~ver~ge Size Single proprietorships on the average are a little less t?~n two- thirds as large as paz~nerships (see table 7). The average acreage rented is greater for both large ~nd small p~rtnershl~s than for proprietor~ ships. Acreage owned on the average is greater also for l~rgepartner- ships, but average acres owned of small farms is the s~me for partners?~ps s_nd proprietorships (2~ and 25 acres)° Partnerships on the whole have a greater tendency to rent land to rent larger sized parcels than do single proprietorships. Pa~bnerships would be expected to be under more pressure to enlarge their operations and renting additional land frequently is the simplest~ perhaps the only way of doing so. Table 7 The Ez"fect of Size on Rental and Ox~ership Patterns of Proprietorships and Partnerships~ Southold To~ship Long Islmud, N. Y~, 1963 Prop~etorships Under lOOacres Over 100 acres Parcels Acres Number of Farms Owned Rented Operated ~ed Rented Operated ~6 .89 2.o6 ~ o8~ S4 4~ 78 8~ °67 1.70 2.~7 25 S5 60 27 ~. 59 3 ~oo 4.59 63 70 133 Partnerships 29 1.34 2.17 3.51 51 73 Under !00 acres 13 .85 .85 1.70 24 42 66 Over 100 acres 16 1~75 3.25 5.00 7~ 100 Returns tc Lan_~ The purpose of this section is to provide an estimate of the returns to land in its normal agricultural use. The procedure essenti~l, ly con- sists of calculating the difference bet~en revenue derived from the use of land and costs chargeable to use in agricultural production. This difference represents an imputed return to land as a factor of production which~ presumably~ is available for the payment of the use of land and under some conditions should approximate the going rental rate. However~ it is ~.t~ost impossible to accurately account for all costs and especially to realistically reflect the management and risk taking factor. The results of these calculations yield an average return to l~d of about $160.00 per acre with there being very little difference be- ween the two size grouDs of farm~ (see table 8). If a flat $5~000 is used as the Value of the operator's and other unpaid lsbor~ large farms show a slightly higher return per acre ($167 vs $156). Ilowever, it seems more reasonable to assume that ~oagement requirements are more demanding on large farms and consequently that some differential should be introduced to reflect this condition. But what differential? In response to the question~ "iIo~.~ much do you think you could earn in some job other than farming?"~ the average figures given were $4900 for the sr~11 f~ and $5600 for the large ones. Usi.~ these amounts, which should reflect some estimate of mangerial ability, rather than 95000, gives a little higher return to land on small farms~ but the t%~ groups are even closer than before. Other estimates of the value of operator labor and w~_uagement might be equally ~ustified. (Note that only about a 50 percent response was obtained on the above question). anything in the neighborhood of ~5000 represents less than 1/6 of all factor costs, thus large changes in this figure ~ld be required to produc~ much effect on the final outcome, 0 ~ 0 0