Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T18:49:52.411Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An economic comparison of traditional and conventional agricultural systems at a county level

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 October 2009

M.H. Bender
M.H. Bender
Affiliation:
Research Associate, The Land Institute, 2440 E. Water Well Road, Salina, KS 67401 ([email protected]).
Get access

Abstract

In Holmes and Wayne Counties, Ohio, respectively, one-half and one-fourth of the farms belong to the Amish, an agrarian culture whose traditional agriculture has been remarkably successful. In an analysis of the 88 Ohio counties by means of the federal agricultural census, the economic performance of the two counties was examined in graphs of agricultural characteristics and financial indicators, some expressed on a per-ha basis across total farmland, as a measure of the efficiency of land utilization. Their performance was assessed relative to the following three groups of Ohio counties with high per-ha net farm income: those with large mean farm size, a prevalence of nursery and greenhouse production, or mixed crop and livestock agriculture. Belonging to the latter group, Holmes County ranked tenth and thirteenth highest among Ohio counties in per-ha gross and net farm income, respectively, and Wayne County, fifth and sixth. Despite the small mean farm size of 50 and 62 ha for Holmes and Wayne Counties, respectively, they matched counties of large mean farm size in terms of perha net farm income, and among 22 counties with small mean farm size of about 60 ha or less, they were exceeded only by 3 counties based on intensive nursery and greenhouse production. The large incomes were due to high marketed value of animal products. Supplemental feed consumption was 2.0 and 1.3 times the harvested crop production in Holmes and Wayne Counties, respectively, thus indicating large net imports of purchased feed. The large net incomes for the two counties were also a result of low labor costs, partly due to the fact that the Amish do not charge for helping each other on farms. When a conventional charge was applied to Amish labor, Wayne County remained among the highest of Ohio counties in per-ha net farm income, but Holmes County dropped to near the 50th percentile. Nonetheless, for the same decline, Holmes County remained among the highest of the 22 counties of small mean farm size because its initial performance was well above most of these counties. Since this was a study of land use efficiency, some discussion is devoted to farm size and productivity, relative levels of animal production, and cropland requirements to power horses and biofueled mechanical traction, the former an integral component of Amish agriculture. In the latter topic, corn-based ethanol and horse feed would require roughly the same area of cropland for traction to farm the nation's cropland, but on a net energy basis, the former area would be more than twice the latter. Since animal production is a major component of Amish agriculture, the results of the study provide indirect evidence that the small-scale, traditional farming of the Amish contributes substantially to the agricultural economies of Holmes and Wayne Counties.

Keywords

alternative farm powerAmishanimal tractiondraft horsesfarm financial performancefarm sizeland useOhioU.S. agricultural census
Type
Articles
Information
American Journal of Alternative Agriculture , Volume 16 , Issue 1 , March 2001 , pp. 2 - 15
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2001

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Anderson, J.R., Wooten, H.H., and Cooper, M.R.. 1957. Land use, Ch. 1. In USDA. Major Statistical Series of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Vol. 2, Agricultural Production and Efficiency. Agric. Handbook 118. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Washington, DC. p. 1–9.Google Scholar
2.Brady, N.C. 1984. The Nature and Properties of Soils. 9th ed.Macmillan, New York.Google Scholar
3.Brody, S. 1945. Bioenergetics and Growth, with Special Reference to the Efficiency Complex in Domestic Animals. Reinhold, New York.Google Scholar
4.Campbell, J. 1997. The Coming Oil Crisis. Multi-Science Publishing, Geneva, Switzerland.Google Scholar
5.Case, H.C.M., Wilcox, R.H., and Berg, H.A.. 1929. Organizing the Corn-Belt farm for profitable production: Based on studies of farms in east-central Illinois. Illinois Agric. Exp. Sta. Bull. 329. Champaign, IL.Google Scholar
6.Cleveland, C.J. 1995. The direct and indirect use of fossil fuels and electricity in USA agriculture, 1910–1990. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 55:111–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7.Coble, C.G., Sweeten, J.M., Egg, R.P., Soltes, E.J., Aldred, W.H., and Givens, D.A.. 1985. Biological conversion and fuel utilization: Fermentation for ethanol production. In Hiler, E.A. and Stout, B.A. (eds.). Biomass Energy: A Monograph. Texas A&M University Press, College Station. p. 113–173.Google Scholar
8.Crampton, E.W., and Harris, L.E.. 1969. Applied Animal Nutrition; The Use of Feedstuff s in the Formulation of Livestock Rations. 2nd ed.Freeman, San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
9.Craumer, P.R. 1977. Energy Use and Agricultural Productivity: A Comparison of Amish and Modern Agricultural Systems. M.S. thesis. University of Wisconsin, Madison.Google Scholar
10.Craumer, P.R. 1979. Farm productivity and energy efficiency in Amish and modern dairy farming. Agric. Environ. 4:281–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11.El Feki, S. 2000. Survey: Farms and technology. Economist 354(8163):supplement.Google Scholar
12.English, B.C., Maetzold, J.A., Holding, B.R., and Heady, E.O. (eds.). 1984. Future Agricultural Technology and Resource Conservation. Proceedings of the 1982 Resources Conservation Act Symposium. Iowa State University Press, Ames.Google Scholar
13.Fluck, R.C. 1992. Energy of human labor. In Fluck, R.C. (ed.). Energy in Farm Production. Elsevier Press, Amsterdam, p. 31–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14.Goldthwait, R.P., White, G.W., and Forsyth, J.L.. 1967. Glacial map of Ohio. USGS Misc. Invest. Series Map I-316. U.S. Geological Survey, Denver, CO.Google Scholar
15.Hodges, E.F. 1964. Consumption of feed by livestock, 1940–1959. Prod. Res. Rep. 79. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
16.Hostetler, J.A. 1980. Amish Society. 3rd ed.Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD.Google Scholar
17.Hunt, D. 1977. Farm Power and Machinery Management. 7th ed.Iowa State University Press, Ames.Google Scholar
18.Jackson, M. 1988. Amish agriculture and no-till: The hazards of applying the USLE to unusual farms. J. Soil Water Conserv. 43:483–486.Google Scholar
19.Jasny, N. 1938. Research Methods on Farm Use of Tractors. Columbia University Press, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20.Jennings, R.D. 1949. Consumption of feed by livestock, 1909–47; Relation between feed, livestock, and food at the national level. USDA Circ. 836. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
21.Johnson, W.A., Stoltzfus, V., and Craumer, P.. 1977. Energy conservation in Amish agriculture. Science 198:373–378.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22.Logsdon, G. 1988. Amish economy. Orion Nature Quarterly 7(2):22–33.Google Scholar
23.Morrison, F.B. 1950. Feeds and Feeding: A Handbook for the Student and Stockman. Morrison Publishing, Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar
24.Pimentel, D. (ed.). 1980. Handbook of Energy Utilization in Agriculture. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.Google Scholar
25.Rosset, P. 1999. Small is bountiful. Ecologist 29:452–456.Google Scholar
26.Sahr, R. 1999. Inflation conversion factors for dollars 1800 to estimated 2010 [consumer price index conversion factors]. Oregon State University, Dept. of Political Science, Corvallis. Web site http://www.orst.edu/dept/pol_sci/fac/sahr/sahr.htm (viewed 12 February 1999).Google Scholar
27.Shapouri, H., Duffield, J.A., and Graboski, M.S.. 1995. Estimating the net energy balance of corn ethanol. Agric. Econ. Rep. 721. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, National Agricultural Statistics Service, Herndon, VA.Google Scholar
28.Smil, V. 1994. Energy in World History. Westview Press, Boulder, CO.Google Scholar
29.Stephens, P.H. 1933. Farm production costs in Oklahoma, 1931. Oklahoma Agric. Exp. Sta. Bull. 208. Stillwater, OK.Google Scholar
30.Stinner, D.H., Paoletti, M.G., and Stinner, B.R.. 1989. In search of traditional farm wisdom for a more sustainable agriculture: A study of Amish farming and society. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 27:77–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
31.Stout, B.A. 1984. Energy Use and Management in Agriculture. Breton Publishers, North Scituate, MA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
32.Strange, M. 1988. Family Farming: A New Economic Vision. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln; Institute for Food and Development Policy, San Francisco.Google Scholar
33.Tomich, T.P., Kilby, P., and Johnston, B.F.. 1995. Transforming Agrarian Economies: Opportunities Seized, Opportunities Missed. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
34.Torgerson, D., Duncan, J., and Dargan, A.. 1987. Energy and U.S. agriculture: State and national fuel use tables, 1978, 1980, and 1981. Staff Report AGES-861121. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
35.USBC. 1960. Historical Statistics of the United States, Colonial Times to 1957. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
36.USBC. 1989. Census of Agriculture, 1987. Vol. 1, Geographic Area Series. Part 35, Ohio. State and County Data. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
37.USDA. 1922. 1921 Yearbook of Agriculture. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
38.USDA. 1977. Changes in farm production and efficiency, 1977. Statistical Bull. 581. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
39.USDA. 1994. 1992 Census of Agriculture. Vol. 1, Geographic Area Series. Part 35, Ohio. State and County Data. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, National Agricultural Statistics Service, Washington, DC. Web site http://www.nass.usda.gov/census/census1992/agrimenu.htm (viewed 22 February 1999).Google Scholar
40.USDA. 1996a. Agricultural Statistics, 1995–96. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, National Agricultural Statistics Service, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
41.USDA. 1996b. Farm real estate: Historical series data, 1950–95. Updated from Statistical Bull. 855. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Washington, DC. File sb738a.wkl, Web site http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/data-sets/land/86010 (viewed 1 September 1999).Google Scholar
42.USDA. 1998. Agricultural Productivity in the U.S. Agric. Info. Bull. 740. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Washington, DC. Web site http://usda2.mannlib.cornell.edu/data-sets/inputs/98003 (viewed 18 February 2000).Google Scholar
43.USDA. 1999a. 1997 Census of Agriculture. Vol. 1, Geographic Area Series. Part 35, Ohio. State and County Data. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, National Agricultural Statistics Service, Washington, DC. Web site http://www.nass.usda.gov/census (viewed 22 February 1999).Google Scholar
44.USDA. 1999b. 1997 Census of Agriculture. Vol. 1, Geographic Area Series. Part 51, Ch. 1. United States Summary and State Data. National-Level Data. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, National Agricultural Statistics Service, Washington, DC. Web site http://www.nass.usda.gov/census (viewed 12 January 2000).Google Scholar
45.USDA. 1999c. Agricultural Statistics, 1999. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, National Agricultural Statistics Service, Washington, DC. Web site http://www.usda.gov/nass/pubs/agstats.htm (viewed 21 February 2000).Google Scholar
46.Waller, A.E. 1921. The relation of plant succession to crop production: A contribution to crop ecology. Ohio State Univ. Bull. 25(9):1–74.Google Scholar
47.Wyman, C.E., Bain, R.L., Hinman, N.D., and Stevens, D.J.. 1993. Ethanol and methanol from cellulosic biomass. In Johansson, T.B., Kelly, H., Reddy, A.K.N., and Williams, R.H. (eds.). Renewable Energy: Sources for Fuels and Electricity. Island Press, Washington, DC. p. 865–923.Google Scholar
48.Zook, L. 1994. The Amish farm and alternative agriculture: A comparison. J. Sustainable Agric. 4(4):21–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar