Capacity Of Farmers Research Articles

L'abandon de l'espace agricole dans la montagne subméditerranéenne en Espagne (Pyrénées centrales et Système ibérique)

The process of desertion of farmland in two submediterranean spanish mountains : aragonese central pyrénées and iberian system of l,a rloja. The spatio-temporal evolution of the farmland in two Spanish mountain areas (the Aragonese Pyrenees and the Iberian System of La Rioja, Cameros Viejo) is studied with relation to the particular geoeco logical features of each mountain and its capacity for integration into the national economy. A drastic desertion process during the fifties in the Pyrenees and a later slowing down was observed ; Cameros, however, shows a slower farmland reduction in the first stage and an acceleration during the sixties. The original desertions are clearly linked to the farming capacity of the land, whereas the more recent desertions have more to do with their ability to become part of the national economy through pastureland resources and tourism.

Farmer acceptance of alternative conservation policies

Soil conservation policy and the resultant programs of soil conservation may be viewed as efforts of planned change. A major reason for the failure of conservation programs is the assumptions or criteria upon which conservation policy is based that limit the amount of flexibility for application of programs to unusual or unanticipated situations. The assumptions relate to (1) the economic rationality of men, (2) the homogeneous distribution of knowledge and information across a population of farmers, and (3) the indivualism of the farmer in his decision-making and action. These assumptions have serious implications upon a farmer's capacity to implement and maintain conservation practices. The relationship between existing and proposed soil conservation policies and the structure of agriculture are examined, with consideration of these assumptions and the capacity for change. Data on farmer preferences for alternative conservation policies are then examined to determine differential effect by farm structure. Results indicate a definite relationship between farm structure, capacity for change and policy preference.

Does Hedging Increase Credit for Illinois Crop Farmers?

Futures trading has long been championed on the basis that hedging increases the farmer's capacity to borrow. This article reports results from a survey designed to test this hypothesis

Inventory and Critique of Estimates of U.S. Agricultural Capacity

American Journal of Agricultural EconomicsVolume 57, Issue 5 p. 922-928 Specific Session Inventory and Critique of Estimates of U.S. Agricultural Capacity Heinz Spielmann, Heinz Spielmann agricultural economist with the Economic Research Service U.S. Department of AgricultureSearch for more papers by this authorEldon E. Weeks, Eldon E. Weeks agricultural economist with the Economic Research Service U.S. Department of AgricultureSearch for more papers by this author Heinz Spielmann, Heinz Spielmann agricultural economist with the Economic Research Service U.S. Department of AgricultureSearch for more papers by this authorEldon E. Weeks, Eldon E. Weeks agricultural economist with the Economic Research Service U.S. Department of AgricultureSearch for more papers by this author First published: 01 December 1975 https://doi.org/10.2307/1239104AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat Volume57, Issue5December 1975Pages 922-928 RelatedInformation

American Agriculture's Capacity to Meet Future Demands

N EMBARKING upon a topic that is full of uncertainties, the only thing I am sure of is that agriculture's capacity to produce is an important subject to many people. Consumers, shell-shocked by the rise of food prices of the past two years and facing the consequences of a bad drought, would like to know if relief is ever in sight. Concern about inflation of prices in general-not just food-is high; stability of food prices seems a necessary if far from sufficient condition for getting it under control. Faced by prospects of heavy outlays for imports, especially for oil, the nation hopes that high exports of farm products will help to balance its international account. Persons and agencies concerned about sources of food for hungry people in poor countries turn inevitably to the United States, already by far the leading net exporter of food and one of the most promising sources of export expansion. Farmers would like to know future output in order to form better judgments about prospective economic conditions in their industry. Production or capacity figures by themselves are not very meaningful. What one wants to know is how potential production compares with amounts likely to be demanded at specified prices. Consideration of possible demands, however, makes an already complex problem especially difficult, for great uncertainty attaches to demands to be made on American agriculture as well as to agriculture's capacity to produce. Especially for a paper that must be listened to rather than read, it seems necessary to simplify the analysis rather severely. One way to simplify is to focus upon a date sufficiently far in the future so that agriculture's production could be markedly different from its present level. The date should not be so remote, however, that we have no useful ideas about demands to be made on agriculture or about the determinants of farm output. I have chosen 1985 as a convenient target date. Another way to simplify is to choose two contrasting situations that seem enlightening about the many outcomes that might possibly develop. I shall try now to be explicit about the two benchmark situations to which I intend to give special attention.

Cyclopedia of American Agriculture

THE third volume of this important “Cyclopedia of Agriculture”—the volume dealing with animals —reflects in a remarkable manner the varying standards to which agricultural knowledge has attained in individual sections of the subject. In the sections hitherto most amenable to experiment and research a vast amount of information of an accurate and trustworthy character has been accumulated. Much of this information may be beyond the farmer's capacity to utilise; some of it may have been developed on lines which were not always as useful as the experimenters expected and claimed; but time and experience always tend to bring the experimenter in the laboratory and the operator in the field into closer and closer touch, and so to rub off the eccentricities of each. On the other hand, in the sections concerned with breeding and selection, and with the evolution of different types of stock, our knowledge is still in a very nebulous condition, even though in these sections agriculturists have operated with, perhaps, the greatest apparent success. In dealing with such subjects, writers are still too apt to lay the foundations of their work in unquestioned beliefs and unsubstantiated opinions. Such expressions as “it is supposed,” “it is believed,” “it is said,” “it has been thought,” appear in this volume, as in most other books upon the same subject, with too great frequency. It is unfortunate that, instead of emulating the patience and thoroughness of such authors as Youatt and Low, our recent writers on live stock have taken to a style that may be descriptively interesting, but is often inaccurate, sometimes even slip-shod, and leads to no abiding result. Cyclopedia of American Agriculture. A Popular Survey of Agricultural Conditions, Practices, and Ideals in the United States and Canada. Edited by L. H. Bailey. Vol. iii., Animals. Pp. xvi+708. (New York: The Macmillan Co.; London: Macmillan and Co., Ltd., 1908.) Price 21s. net.