The Changing
Landscape of
Agricultural
Industry at a Crossroads
Coordinator of Special Program Initiatives
College of Agricultural Sciences
401 Agricultural Administration Building
Telephone: (814) 863-6150
Fax: (814) 865-7776
Internet Address: nmf3@psu.edu
Executive Director
Central Pennsylvania Workforce Development Corporation
Telephone: (570) 568-0800
Fax: (570) 568-0814
Internet Address: wbrock@cpwdc.org
The Changing
Landscape of
The Changing
Landscape of
Agricultural
Industry at a Crossroads
Coordinator of Special Program Initiatives
Internet Address: nmf3@psu.edu
Executive Director
Central Pennsylvania Workforce Development Corporation
Lewisburg
Internet Address: wbrock@cpwdc.org
The focus group interview was determined to be the most effective process for obtaining the needed data. In January and February of 2001, 54 individuals engaged in agricultural production, processing or financial lending, provided input in five separate focus groups or interviews.
The focus group process was selected as the preferred assessment tool because the study was seeking to uncover the perceived barriers that the area agricultural industry faces to remain profitable. The process is a non-directive means by which participants provide information without being directed to answer specific questions (Krueger, 1994).
Participants of three focus groups were individuals from medium-sized farms; defined as ones in which the operator worked full-time in agriculture production that provided his/her major income source, and that had three or fewer full-time employees. Individual participants were selected on the basis of their geographic location and specific to the commodities most prevalent in identified county units. Each group also had an organic producer. Cooperative Extension agents invited the locally identified individuals who met these criteria to participate. The agricultural operators groups’ members were 17 percent female and 83 percent male, and their ages ranged from 26 to 56 years old. Their reported income ranged from $5,000 to over $50,000 per year. Education ranged from a high school diploma to graduate school experience.
Focus groups also were conducted with Amish farmers and a group of agricultural business representatives. The Amish farmer group was comprised of all full-time medium-sized farmers. The agriculture businesses were large firms, reporting annual gross sales of more then $1,000,000 and employing 100 or more workers. The employees typically have GED or high school diploma, range in age from 18 to 45 years olds, and most frequently are white with some minority representation. Financial lenders whose agencies serve the area were individually interviewed by phone.
All of these groupings provided a good cross-representation of the area’s agricultural production entities. Each group participated in two-hour focus groups conducted by the researcher. The group interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim into a written format and coded. The emerging themes were identified using thematic content analysis and summarized.
Participants were asked questions regarding:
·
What assets do
production agriculture offer
·
How has agriculture changed in
· What are the greatest barriers currently facing the profitable of area agriculture?
· Who should address identified barriers and what strategies can be used?
· What roles should local workforce and economic development agencies provide in helping medium-sized production agricultural operations remain profitable?
· What is the future of medium-sized agriculture in the area?
· What are the greatest challenges in the future to earning a profitable living from medium-sized agriculture?
· Who in the future will operate your agricultural business or farm?
Throughout all of the groups, a consistent picture of
agriculture in central
The emerging themes from the focus groups include:
· Changing Agriculture Production
· Urban expansion has increased farmland value.
· Increasing numbers of non-farm residents reduces farmland and impacts farm operations.
· Increasing specialization pressures farmers to expand or remain small with off-farm income.
· Contract production requires more specialization and concentration of farm operations.
· Shrinking business support base increases the stress of farming.
· Farming is becoming less profitable and more demanding.
· Labor Shortages Impact Agricultural Business
· Lack of a consistent and reliable labor supply affects ability to remain in business
· Migrant labor viewed as positive alternative.
· Agriculture employer’s pay is equal to, or above area’s standard wage.
· Most employees lack technical and foundation skills which hampers profitability.
· Changing Community View of Agriculture
· Area residents demonstrate less tolerance of local farming operations.
· Non-farming public view food as a commodity to be purchased at the lowest price.
· Nonfarm residents value green open space, but not agricultural production.
· Large farm operations are viewed as a nuisance by some non-farm residents.
· Outmigration of farming youth deprives rural communities of future farmers.
· Government and Agriculture
· Agriculture needs to be viewed and supported by government as a business that contributes to the local economy.
· Increasing federal, state and local regulation.
· Subsidies are an integral part of farm income.
· Workforce and economic development agencies are not addressing agriculture’s issues.
· New industry is using prime farmland.
· Local farmers lack the skills and commitment to effectively interact with government entities.
· Agriculture’s Uncertain Future
· Few local farmers' children expressed a desire to remain in farming.
· Majority of today's farming family's children leave farming for other careers or jobs.
· Medium-sized farming is mostly at risk from future downsizing and bankruptcy.
· Few individuals can enter farming without inheriting land or equipment.
· Uncertainty is driving local farmers to consider other alternatives for their future.
The qualitative
study confirmed area Cooperative Extension County Agents perceptions of the
changing agricultural community. The
findings provided a means to focus future program planning and delivery. The results assisted area workforce and
economic development agencies in understanding the business pressures that the
agricultural industry currently is experiencing.
Of interest in the study were the responses from participants in the farming county grouping closest to a large expanding urban area. In this area, urbanization of land increased by 62% from 1992 to 1997 (Fulton, Pendall, Nguyen & Harrison, 2001). These farmers were more likely to be considering sale of their farms. They were not considering major expansion. Their changing agricultural practice seemed to be in response to, or in fear of, the ever-growing nonfarm population influx. The “speculative effect,” that refers to farm owners shortened time horizon, appeared to be operating and supporting the “impermanence syndrome” that was reflected in area farmers making decisions to decline or decrease investment in their farm business (Larson, Findeis & Smith, 2001). As agricultural land values increased, the farm support base decreased and farmers’ children or family expressed no desire to continue in farming as a vocation, these farmers' decisions to remain in farming were being negatively impacted.
All of the farm groups expressed a negative perspective about the future of area farming. They generally agreed that their farm operations were becoming less compatible with the increasing suburbanization of their communities. Livestock operations, especially large scale, were especially vulnerable to community criticism. As the community’s negativity increased, the farming community voiced less ability to impact change in that perspective. They surrendered their ability to bring about a change in the non-farm population’s perception of agricultural production. “What’s the use to try, there are many more of them than us, and they have all of the power.”
However, area food processors and manufacturers voiced a positive perspective of their business’s future in the area. Their raw materials were coming less from local farmers, and more from national and overseas suppliers. Cost of doing business was their major concern as slotting fees, meeting government regulations, insurance and marketing costs increased.
The shortage of agricultural labor was the one issue that all of the groups expressed as the most critical constraint to their ability to remain profitable and expand their business operation. All of the groups expressed high-level frustration with their inability to hire a local workforce that would be reliable and committed. All of the groups expressed that migrant labor appeared a viable alternative that would be willing “to do the work and be reliable.” The challenge that all of these groups face is finding strategies to improve the local community’s attitudes toward migrant and seasonal workers populations so that it can become an integral part of the local workforce and economy (Rosenbaum, 2002, Gutierrez, 1995).
Preserving agriculture, both farmland and farmers, in the face of expanding suburbanization is the challenge facing many Northeastern states. The Northeast is consuming land at a much greater rate than it is in adding population (Fulton, Pendall, Nguyen, Harrision, 2001). The land resources transformed to accommodate growing urban sprawl most typically is farmland. With the growth of suburban-style living comes the conflict between the traditional agricultural production practices. As farmers perceive themselves as more isolated and less favorably supported by the remaining community, they frequently develop a shortened time horizon and delay investment into their farming enterprise. Reinforcing their choice to delay investment is the lack of reliable labor and an eroding farm business support system. The one asset that is ever increasing for them is the value of their land. However, increasing land costs limits the availability of the land for farmers to expand. Medium-sized farmers appear to be at a crossroads of change, pressured by many forces out of their control.
http://www.brookings.edu/dybdocroot/es/urban/publications/fulton.pdf
Krueger, R. A.
(1994). Focus groups: A practical guide
for applied research. Second
edition.
Gutierrez,
D. G. (1995). Walls and mirrors:
Mexican American, Mexican immigrants and the politics of ethnicity.
Larson,
J. M., Findeis, J. L. & Smith, S. M. (2001). Agricultural adaptation to
urbanization in southern
30/1, 32-43.
Rosenbaum, R. P.
(forthcoming). The
economic impact of migrant farm workers on southeast
The Changing
Landscape of