xt7h9w08xt1h https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7h9w08xt1h/data/mets.xml   Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station. 1955 journals 029 English Lexington : Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Kentucky Contact the Special Collections Research Center for information regarding rights and use of this collection. Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station Progress report (Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station) n.29 text Progress report (Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station) n.29 1955 2014 true xt7h9w08xt1h section xt7h9w08xt1h Progress Report 29 $¢PI’¢mb6l',I955
_ A Study of Economic Area One
PROPORTION OF THE FARM FAMILY MEMBERS, 14 YEARS OF AGE AND OLDER,
REPORTING VARIOUS ACTIVITIES AS THEIR MAJOR ENTERPRISE DURING 1952
12% 33% A
Q I Q Q Q Q Q
In Labor Force    
Farmer Nonfarm Wage Worker
33% 16% 6%
0 O 0 < O ( {
Not in Labor Force     i
Keeping House Student Disabled or
Retired
i AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION
UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY
LEXINGTON
in cooperation with tho
AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

 Q .9 ll E E II I § . l · ` ~'
· PAGE . A
INTRODUCTION A 1- _
A Sample Population - 7 ,‘ _ ` A. 3 . _
Residence A j l 5
Size of Family I _ , U .” ‘ .
Age of Family Members - 5 ’ d_‘
Major Activity During the Year ‘ ` ~ 6 ‘
_ V Family Members Employed Sometime During the Year 7
FARM FAMILY AND EMPLOYMENT OF THEIR MEMBERS 8 »‘
4 Family Work Patterns on Family Farm - 99
Working on the Home Farm 9 A _
Daily Chores Around the House . 10
Household Tasks ll _
Off—farm Work ll A I
Work on Other than Family Farm i 13 V
Work at Nonagricultural Employment lb
Use of the Farm Labor Force by Size of Farm 16 ’
Days Worked by Member of Farm Families 16
Days Worked Per Farm Family p 17
Exchange Work Per Farm Family 18 _
NONWARM FAMILIES AMD THE EM LOYMENT OF THEIR MEMBERS t 19
Nonfarm Labor Force 19 A
Employment of Nonfarm Family Members - 19
Nonfarm Family Income 20 .
NONAGRICULTURAL WORK EXPERIENCE OF RURAL FAMILY HEADS 22 ‘
Work Experience in 1952 ` 22
Occupational Classification 22
Industrial Classification 23
Work Experience Between 1933 and 1952 2M
Number of Occupations Followed 25
Years Followed One Occupation · 26 A I
SUMMARY Al.) COIICIUSIOIIS 27 _ .
_ APPEUDICES 30
A. Method of Study 30
B, Explanations of Specified Terms Used in Report 31

 EMPLOYMENT QF RURAL MANPOWER IN THE 4
PURCHASE AREA QF WESTERN KENTUCKY
(A Study of Census Economic Area One)
By Robert E. Gallowayl
INTRODUCTION
This is the second of a series of reportsz based on data gathered in a
‘ I study of rural families in the Purchase area3 of western Kentucky, during the
spring of 1953. Information was obtained from 189 rural families which had
lived in the area for at least a year and which consisted of a husband, wife,
and children of school age (6-18 years of age) living at home. This stratum of
rural families was selected because the sample size was limited and it was
A advisable to eliminate transient families from the study.u
With the exception of the Delta section, this is an area of small family-
size commercial, owner-operated, or tenant—operated farms. More than a fifth
of the farms in l9Q9 were less than 30 acres in size; 85 percent were less
than 1MO acres. Until the l920's, the farming economy of the area was generally
P centered around the production of dark tobacco. But when the demand for this
type of tobacco declined and acreage controls were attempted, many of the
farms were too small for effective and economic operation, Many farm operators
got nonfarm employment outside the area, Often their farms were combined with
those of their neighbors in order to effect an economic unit for the more
extensive system of farming,5
l. Social Science Analyst, Farm Population and Rural Life Branch Agricultural
Economics Division, Agricultural Marketing Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.
2, Robert E. Galloway and Irwin T. Sanders, Rural Families gg the Purchase Area
· gf Western Kentucky, Ky. Agr. Exp, Sta. Progress Report, June 1955,
3. The Purchase area (Census Economic Area One) of western Kentucky consists of
eight counties (Ballard, Calloway, Carlisle, Fulton, Graves, Hickman, McCracken,
` and Marshall) lying between the Tennessee and Mississippi Rivers.
4, An explanation of the sampling techniques used in the study is included in
Appendix A.
5. John H. Bondurant and Wendell C. Binkley, Land—Tenure Classification and
4 Areas ip Kentucky, Ky. Exp, Sta, Bul. U21, January l9Q2,

 - 3 -
During 1939-M9, two significant movements occurred in the (
agriculture of the area: (1) some farmers moved out of agriculture,
and (2) those remaining turned to improved farming methods, Among the ,
causes of these changes, were the flooding of the Kentucky Dam reservoir,
loss of farm labor to defense industries, nearness to local nonfarm em- 8
ployment, and the influence of the TVA program of improvement of farm _
practices.6 However, in the sections of poorer land, farms were abandoned
or converted into part-time or residential farm units, The number of farm
operators who supplemented farm income by working off their farms 100 days
or more during the year increased from 1,885 in 1939 to 2,993 in l9b9, or ·
58 percent. During that decade farms decreased in number by 1,210, or 7,Q per-
cent; but the average size increased from 83 to 86 acres,
Accelerated change in agriculture started in 1950 with further de-
velopment of TVA, Kentucky Lake, and industrialization along the Ohio and
Tennessee Rivers, in the northern part of the Purchase area, Industries in
that section took thousands of acres of farm land out of production and
opened up unprecedented nonagricultural employment opportunities,
This study was designed to reveal the extent to which nonfarm in»
dustries in the area has drawn upon the local rural labor force, Special intere ·'
est is manifest in the effect of nonfarm employment of members of farm
families on the utilization of its labor force, One purpose of the study
was to obtain the answer to several questions relative to employment of the
rural family labor force, To what extent are the work patterns of family
8T—_Per8y_ij_iuneyj_Chagges in tgp Lgggl gf Agricultural Production is Selected .
Western Kentucgy Counties lgjjqlggg, Ky, Agr, Exp, Sta, Progress Report 11,
May 1953.,

 - 3 -
o- members affected by the occupation of the head of the family? To what degree
are the adult members of farm families fully employed? What are the work
, patterns of family members at specific chores and household task? Do the work
patterns of heads of full-time farmers, part-time farmers, and heads of non-
'? farm families vary significantly? What was the work experience of the heads
of rural families during tht 29- year period 1933-S2? What was the principal
l occupation of the heads of families in l952?
Sample Population
The study included 93Q members of 189 rural families. Labor force in-
‘ 8 formation was obtained from BU8 members lh years of age and older, and data
about work patterns from the 828 members 6 years of age and older.
l Because of basic differentials in the family work patterns between
farm and nonfarm populations, the basic classification of analysis was resi-
dence (Appendix B). Size of family, age of family members, and the major
activity of each during the year affected family work patterns. An important
variable in the analysis of the use of the labor force on family farms was
size of the farm operation (production manwork unites , Appendix B).
Residence, Families were almost equally divided between farm and
nonfarm residents. Farm families accounted for @9 percent of the survey fami-
lies and nonfarm families the remaining 5l percent. Farm families were further
divided into those on full-time and on part—time farms--based on the quantity
2 of farm products sold and of time spent by the operators at off-farm work
(Appendix B), Farm families were also almost equally divided between part-
' time and full—time farm families, 52 part-time and 48 percent full-time.

 - L4, ..
Size gf Family. Five members was the average size of the survey
family. The number of family members at home ranged from 3 to 12, The
.4.
size of family was relatively high because the study included only
families with school-age children at home. Although farm families are »
generally larger than nonfarm families, in this survey there was no
significant difference in the size of family between the two groups. In
general, rural families in the Purchase area were smaller than rural families
in the state as a whole, According to the 1950 Census of Population, the
average size of household for both rural farm and nonfarm in the area was `
3.5 persons. For the state, rural—farm households averaged Q,l persons
and rural—nonfarm households 3.8 persons,
A greater pygpgytion of farm than nonfarm families had three and
four members and seven or more members, but in the case of five and six-
member families the reverse was true. (Figure l),
3%.
30 l_
Qiénnnn
 EEEE
20   Qassa
5 no     ·‘-· g    E3"` é %
¤— ·.       Filij  :, ·:::
  {=€_·._.    ?   %f_?;‘T. QQ   {lll EEEE
    ‘ él         s;I
0   .r..»rs  7* -;=.;1  A   A  an A is  A ·
    `-’·   z       A
3 `c  4 '·:  5 é 6 ·zj  7 ii  ‘;.; 
8+ '
pqg_ L NUMBER OF FAMHJ’ MEMBERS
Fig. l. Percentage distribution of families
by size and residence.

 - 5 -
Agg gf Family Members, The fact that the families surveyed were
those with school-age children would account for the average age of the
members of these families being much lower than the state average. The
{ median age of the families in the survey was 17.3 years at the time of
` the survey; and for the state as a whole it was 2M,3 years in 1950, But
l in the group lh years of age and older, the difference between average
age of the family members surveyed and that in the state was insignifi-
cant, 37.1 and 37.3 years, respectively. The median age for heads of
· families was @2.2 years (Table 1). For other members lb years of age and
Table 1, Percentage Distribution by Age, by
position in Family
 
 
Age All family Other
(Years) members Heads Wives members
(N—93’+) (11-189) (N-189) (11-556)
 
Percent Percent Percent Percent
All ages lOO 1OO 100 100
Under 6 ll - - 19
6-9 15 - - 26
10-13 15 - — 25
1/4-17 1O - - 18
IB- 19 3 - - 5
20-2M 2 - 2 2
= 25-39 _ 11 19 33 1/
35-MM 17 M3 38 -
M5-5M 11 28 23 1/
55 and over 5 10 4 5
A Number of persons 1Q and over 5¤8 189 189 170
Median age (Years) 17.3 @2.2 39¤O 10;9
 
- lf Iess than 1 percent
N = number of cases

 - 6 , ’
older, the median age was 3107 yearsu Wives of heads of families ‘
were younger, on the average, than their husbandsc The median age of
wives was 39oO yearso Only 28 percent of the sons and ZM percent of e
the daughters of these families who were living at home were lb years e
I
of age or oldera The median age of both groups was slightly more than
lO years. Other members of the household were parents of the family
heads or of their wives, The median age of these persons was 58.1 ·_
years.
Major Activity During Year, Relevant to the study is the
activity in which each family member lh years of age and older was engaged =
during the year ending December Bl, l952¤ Forty-five percent of the
family members le years of age and over were in the labor forces during
the greater proportion of the year [Table 2)u Whereas most all of the
Table 2. Major Activity of Various Family
Members KM Years of Age and Olderg
Daring the Year Ending December jl,
l9§2
Major activity Total population Gthay
lQ years of age Heads Wives members
and over (N a LBQ) (N ¤ l89) (N Z 170)
number Pereent Pereent Fercent Percent .
‘fotal ieo ICU EUG 1OO loo t
ln le be .1; @222. été; EQ     2e
Agricultural work oo li L? e 9
Nonfarm work loo jj TO ll l§
Ne ¤                 ·
KB€;‘lUVlS@ li; Ei - QQ 9
Student QQ it ~ · 5}
Other (rotired~
or divaoleil fo 6 j - In
N ; number of caees - -”ww“—_w"V“Hm"—`"m-—uH_“

 E 7 -
_ family heads were in the labor force, only ll percent of the wives and
13 percent of the children reported employment as their major activity
~ during the year, Although only slightly more than half of the families
‘ were classed as nonfarm, the number of family heads who reported non-
agricultural work as their major activity was two and a half times as
large as the number who reported agricultural work. It is evident that
`U most of the part-time farmers are engaged primarily in nonfarm work and
that they live on farms in the open country. Wives working outside the
_ home reported nonfarm wage work as their primary employment, Other
family members in the labor force worked primarily at nonfarm wage work,
Of family members not in the labor force, family heads so reported were,
either disabled or retired; wives were keeping house; children were in
school; and other members were listed as disabled, retired, or keeping
house.
In many cases, persons not in the labor force most of the year
· did some gainful work. Many of these people contributed substantially to
labor on farms during periods in which they were free from their major
activity. Many school children worked during the summer, and some house-
· wives worked at other than housework a few hours each dayq
Family Members Employed Sometime During_the leap; Many unem~
ployed persons, or persons not in the labor force for the greater part
of the year, did some work, A total of BBQ, or 65 percent, of persons
· lb years of age or older were employed eometime during the year (Table 3);

 - 8 - 1
Table 3. Persons Employed for Various Periods of Time During the Year
Ending December 31, 1952, by Residence
 
Residence Population Persons working 5
lh years of age Any days Less than 150 days
and over 150 days and over A
  (
All classes 548 100 65 23 @2
Farm 280 100 75 B9 Ml
Part-time 153 100 79 39 no
Full-time 127 100 72 29 @3
Nonfarm 268 100 53 10 U3 V
 
The proportion of family members doing some work was greatest for part- A
time farm families and smallest for nonfarm families, 79 and 53 percent, L
respectively. About 72 percent of the members of full-time farm families `
did some work during the year.
Approximately two-thirds of the employed members of the sample
families worked 150 or more days. Members of nonfarm families were more
likely to be employed full time than were those of farm families, Eight
in 10 of the nonfarm family members who were employed worked 150 or more l
days, as did about 6 in 10 members of fu11—time farm families.
About half of the employed members of part-time farm families worked as
many as 150 days. l
EARM FAMILIES AQQ TEE EM LOYMENT QQ TQETR MEMBERS A
Farming tends to be more of a family enterprise than most other s
occupations. Farm children make a substantial contribution to the working
force on farms at a younger age than nonfarm children do to the nonfarm _
working force. Because of the irregularity of the work requirements on
the farm during the year, the farm working force may be fully employed at d
certain seasons and available for additional employment at other times,

 - 9 -
A FAMILX WORK PATTERNS QN FAMILY FARM
Operating the family farm is usually a family affair,
In two-thirds of the farm families, all able family members worked
* at some farm operation. The farm family labor force consisted of
U 211 members or three-fourths of the 28O members lM years of age and
V older living on the 92 survey farms, Part-time farm families had
the largest proportion of their members working. No difference was
found between part-time and full—time farm families in the proportion
_ of members working on family farmso
Working_gn the Home Farm ~ Practically all of the heads of farm
families worked on the home farm during the year, but only slightly more
than half of the other family members 1M years of age and over were so
employed (Table M), Sixty percent of the family heads worked on the
3 Table M, Percentage Distribution of Members of Farm Families 1M Years
of Age and Over Working on the Home Farm a Specified Number
Q of Days During the Year by Type of Farm
 
· Type of farm
Days worked Part-time
All All farms All farms All Full-time
mem- Heads Others mem» Heads Others mem- farms
bers bers bers Heads Others
QN 3280) QN :92) QN1188) QN;153) QN=M8) QN¤1C5)LNZl2[)QN=MM)QN=8§)
— (76) <%> <%> (7%) ($6) <%> <%> (%> <%>
100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
1 None 33 1 M9 33 2 M7 33 - M9
· 1 - 2M in 8 16 18 lM 19 9 -. 18
25 - 7M 12 13 12 1M 23 10 9 2 12
1 75 - 99 6 8 6 10 lM 7 2 · M
- 100 - lM9 6 10 5 9 19 5 3 » 5
150 and over 29 60 12 16 28 12 MM 98 12
 
, N = number of cases

 - l0 -
home farms 150 days or more during the year, as compared with only 12 percent
of other members of the family. Most heads of ful1—time farm families worked
for 150 or more days, but only 1 in 3 of the part—time farm family heads e
were so employed. A slightly higher proportion of the other family members »
of full—time than of part-time farm families worked on the home farm, but
the same proportion of both groups worked 150 or more days on the home farm
during the year,
All farm heads, regardless of type of farm, spend some time at the ‘
farm operation. But wives of part-time farm families were more likely _
to work on the home farm at some farm operation that were wives of other -
farm families, Thirty-eight percent of the wives of part-—time families ·
and 30 percent of the wives of other families did farm work on the home _
farm, Children of part-time farm families were also more likely to work
on the home farm than were those on full—time farms, 63 and 57 percent,
respectively.
Daily Chores Around the House, Chores such as care of the ‘
yard, feeding chickens, and milking were more of a family operation on
part-time farms than on other farms or rural nonfarm places (Table 5).
Table 5. Family Members Doing Specific Chores by Residence ·
 
Family member All families Residence ·
doing chores Nonfarm Part—time farm Other farm
(11:93) §N=1+8) gN=L+L»)
" Number Percent Percent Percent Percent ·
Total 189 100 100 100 100
Head only 8 Q 6 Q 2
Wife only Q 2 1 Q 2 .
Children only 3 2 3 - -
Head and wife 50 27 27 13 Q1
Head and children 6 3 5 - 2 .
Wife and children 13 7 8 8 2 _
All family members 105 55 51 71 50
 
N = number of cases

 - ll -
Farm wives did chores more frequently than nonfarm wives and
part—time farm wives slightly more frequently than those on other
’ farms. Children in part—time farm families were more likely to do
· chores than those in other families.
‘ Household Tasks, Children helped their mothers with the
p household tasks in 63 percent of the survey households. Children
in nonfarm households were more likely to assist in household tasks
than were those in other households (Table 6), Husbands helped their
· wives with the household tasks in only 3 percent of the families.
Table 6. Family Members Doing Specific Household Tasks by Residence
 
Family members Residence
doing household tasks All families Honfarm Part—time farm Other farm
QN Z Q2) QN Z M8) QN = Mb)
Number percent percent percent percent
Total 189 lOO lOO lOO lOO
_ Wife only 70 37 jb M2 39
‘ Wife and Children ll9 63 66 58 6l
 
Four percent of the husbands in nonfarm families, 6 percent of those in
” part—time farm families, and none in the other farm families helped their
wives with the household tasks.
· 1 OFF-FARM WORK
' Because of the seasonal nature of much of the farm operation in
western Kentucky, M5 percent of the members of farm families lh years of
— age and over worked off the family farm for an average of 122 days per
" year. Almost 9 in lO heads of farm families worked off the farm,

 - 12 -
but only 23 percent of other family members were so employed (Table 7), 2 .
By definition, part—time farm family heads were more likely to work off
the farm than were heads of full-time farm families, 96 and 79 percent, ·
respectively, Part-time farm family heads worked off the farm relative-
ly full time. They averaged 225 days work off the farm during the year,
Heads of full-time farm families of course, worked off the farm for
shorter periods; only 35 days during the year. All heads of farm families ‘
who worked off the farm averaged lQ3 days at this type of work during the
year. Not only did a higher proportion of the other family members of part- . V
Table 7, Percentage Distribution of Members of Farm Families lb years of
Age and Over of the Home Farm Specified Numbers of Days During
the Year by Type of Farm
-
Days worked
All All farms All Part-time farms All Full—time farms
mem- Heads Others mem- Heads Others mem- Heads Others
bers bers bers
§N=280) (N=92Q §N=l88) §N=l5§) §N=U8Q QN=lO5) §N=l2Zg{N:MM) {N=8j)
(9%) <%> (9%) (56) 0%) <%> ($5) <%> (%>
lOO lOO lOO lOO lOO lOO lOO lOO lOO
N0- days 55 12 77 52 M 73 60 21 Sl
1 - 211 9 13 7 6 6 6 13 21 lO
25 - 7M 12 23 6 5 — 7 20 Q7 5
75 - 99 3 5 2 1 - 2 5 11 1
lOO — l¤9 3 3 3 5 6 5 - - l
150 and over 18 UQ 5 31 8M 7 2 — 2 U
 
N = number of cases .
time farm families work off the farm, but they also worked for longer periods ·
than did those in full—time farm families. Other members of part-time farm

 - 13 -
families worked off the farm 101 days during the year, those of full-
. time families 68 days,
Wives who worked off the farm were more likely to be employed
· for longer periods than were children and others who lived with the
family. Wives who worked off the farm were also more likely than other
8 members to be working at nonfarm work,
l Work off the home farm by members of farm families consisted
of work on other farms for wages, exchange work on other farms, and
_ work in nonagricultural industries,
_ Wg;k_gn Eagms Qthg; than_§gmg Qagm - Most of the work done by
family members, on farms other than the home farm was exchange work on
neighbors' farms, Heads of families did more than 85 percent of all
such exchange work, Almost no percent of the heads of farm families did
some exchange work during the year, as did ll percent of the other mem-
bers. The median number of days worked on other farms for exchange by
· the heads of farm families was 16 and for other family members the median
was 9 days, Heads of full—time farm families were more than twice
as likely to do exchange farm work than those in part—time farm families
· (Table 8), Other members of part—time farm families, however, were just
as likely to do exchange work on other farms, Heads of fu1l—time farm
- families, Thirty percent of the former, as compared with only U percent
‘ of the latter, worked as many as 20 days at exchange work, There was no
significant difference in the time other members of the two groups of
-' farm families spent at exchange work on other farms,

 - 12 -
but only 23 percent of other family members were so employed (Table 7), H .
By definition, part-time farm family heads were more likely to work off
the farm than were heads of full-time farm families, 96 and 79 percent, ·
respectively. Part-time farm family heads worked off the farm relative-
ly full time. They averaged 225 days work off the farm during the year.
Heads of full—time farm families of course, worked off the farm for
shorter periods; only 35 days during the year. All heads of farm families ‘
who worked off the farm averaged 1Q3 days at this type of work during the
year, Not only did a higher proportion of the other family members of part- . V-
Table 7, Percentage Distribution of Members of Farm Families lb years of
Age and Over of the Home Farm Specified Numbers of Days During
the Year by Type of Farm
`
Days worked
All All farms All Part·time farms All Ful1—time farms
mem- Heads Others mem- Heads Others mem- Heads Others
bers bers bers
§N=280Q (N=92] §N=188) QN=l5§) §N=U8} QN=105) §N=127g{N:MM) §N=8})
0%) (%> <%> (%> (70 <%> 0%) <%> (%>
100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
No. days 55 12 77 52 M 73 60 21 81
1 - zu 9 13 7 6 6 6 13 21 10
25 - 7M 12 23 6 5 — 7 20 Q7 5
75 - 99 3 5 2 1 - 2 5 ll 1 2
100 — l¤9 3 3 3 5 6 5 - - l
150 and over 18 UQ 5 31 BU 7 2 — 2 h
 
N = number of cases .
time farm families work off the farm, but they also worked for longer periods ·
than did those in fu11—time farm families. Other members of part-time farm

 - 13 -
families worked off the farm lOl days during the year, those of full-
T time families 68 days.
Wives who worked off the farm were more likely to be employed
· for longer periods than were children and others who lived with the
family. Wives who worked off the farm were also more likely than other
6 members to be working at nonfarm work.
l Work off the home farm by members of farm families consisted
of work on other farms for wages, exchange work on other farms, and
_ work in nonagricultural industries,
_ !g;k_gn Eagms Qthe; than_Hgmg Egrm - Most of the work done by
family members, on farms other than the home farm was exchange work on
neighbors' farmsc Heads of families did more than 85 percent of all
such exchange work. Almost no percent of the heads of farm families did
some exchange work during the year, as did ll percent of the other mem-
bers. The median number of days worked on other farms for exchange by
· the heads of farm families was 16 and for other family members the median
was 9 days. Heads of full·time farm families were more than twice
as likely to do exchange farm work than those in part—time farm families
· (Table 8), Other members of part—time farm families, however, were just
as likely to do exchange work on other farms, Heads of full—time farm
- families, Thirty percent of the former, as compared with only Q percent
’ of the latter, worked as many as 20 days at exchange work, There was no
significant difference in the time other members of the two groups of
.' farm families spent at exchange work on other farms,

 - lb - I
3
Table 8, Percentage Distribution of Members of Farm Families lb Years
of Age and Over Working on Other Than Home Farm at Exchange ·
Work During the Year by Type of Farm
  I  7
Days Worked All Farms Part-time farms Ful1—time farms
Heads Others Heads Others Heads Others ·
(N=92) (N=188) (N=M8) (N=l05) (NZMU) (N=83)
 
100 100 100 100 100 100
No. days 61 89 77 89 1+3 89 _
1 - L+ 4 2 7 3 2 1
5 - 9 8 M U 3 11 5 -
10 - lb 7 1 6 1 7 l ._
15 - 19 4 1 2 1 7 1
20 and over 16 3 4 3 30 3 -
 
Only 20 of the 280 family members lb years of age and older
worked on other farms for wages in 1952, Members of full—time farm
families worked about twice as many days on an average for wages on
other farms as did members of part—time farm families, 100 and M9 days,
respectively. ‘
Work at Nonagricultural Employment. Most of the off—farm
work done by members of farm families was nonagricultural, More HV
than 90 percent of all off—farm work was of a nonfarm nature. A1-
most two—thirds of the family heads on farms were employed at non-
agricultural work sometime during the year (Table 9). All but two ·
heads of the @8 part-time farm families, and 3 in 10 heads of
the full—time farm families, worked in nonagricultural industries

 Table 9. Percentage Distribution of Members of Farm Families 1M Years of
Age and Over at Nonfarw Work a Specified Number of Days During
the Year by Type of Farm
6    
Days worked All farms Part-time farms Fu1l—time farms
‘ Heads Others Heads Others Heads Others
§N==Q22 §N= 188) §N=I-#8) QN=lO5Q §N=L&»i+} §N=8Q§)
Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent
_ 100 100 100 100 100 100
No. days 37 87 L+ BM 73 93
` 1 - 24 2 1 - 1 5 1
25 - 70 12 2 8 l 16 2
— 75 - 99 3 2 - 2 6 1
100 - lL|»9 3 3 6 5 - 1
150 and over @3 5 82 7 0 2
 
during the year. Members of farm families who worked at nonagricultural
jobs averaged 223 days of such work during the year. Members of part-
time farm families averaged 280 days, and those in fnll—time farm families
doing nonagricultural work averaged only 65 days during the yearn More
. than 8 in l0 heads of part-time farm families worked 150 or more
days during the year,
Not only were other members of full—time farm families less
likely to work at nonagricultural employment than those in part—timr farm
families, but the former worked fewer days at such work than did the
latter,
a

 - I6 -
Slightly more members of farm families working at non-
agricultural work were employed as skilled or semi-skilled workers 2
than were employed as unskilled laborers, 53 and #7 percent, re- .
spectively, About the same proportion of the members of part—time
and full-time farm families worked as skilled and semi—skilled and
as unskilled laborers. _
.lE£9i§.Y.@.E.E£Q E.Q£`£Q}3£§l£§2£E§.YE9·£PiQB_..€Y&ti0¤ p
Generally, it was found that the larger the farm operation lv
the greater was the proportion of farm family members, lb years of
age and older, working on the home farm, and the smaller the ·
proportion of members working elsewhere. Conversely, the smaller
the farm operation the smaller the proportion of farm family mem-
bers working on the home farm, and the greater the proportion of
members working elsewhere.
Qayg Worked by Members gf Eagm Families - Members of farm
families with productive man—work units? for crop and livestock on
the home farm of under 75 and those 306 or more PMWU's were most A
likely to be fully employed (Table 10), Members of farm families U
with labor requirements between the two extremes were not so likely p
to be fully employed as the others,
EI-_liQihiQEive_m ivalent of the labor input of
an adult male in a lO—hour day at farm work. _
v

 - 17 -
Table 10. Farm Family Members Working on Home Farm and Elsewhere and
the Average Days Worked During the Year by Production Man-
work Units Required for Crop and Livestock Production
 
Productive 14 years All work On home farm Elsewhere
· man»work of age Percent Average Percent Average Percent Average
units and over working days working days working days
A11 farms 280 75 177 82 125 45 p 122
_ Under 75 35 71 217 51 46 63 209
75 - 149 68 76 158 59 74 62 166
150 - 299 74 78 165 88 121 50 116
300 and over 103 74 186 62 179 45 57
 
Also the former were employed in larger proportions than the latter, The greater
U the productive man-work unit requirements on a farm the greater the average
number of days family members worked on the home farm and the smaller the
number of days they worked off the farm,
V Qayg Worked Pg; Engg Family. The average number of days worked on
farms by farm family members increased as productive man—work unit
A requirements increased (Table ll), but the reverse was true for work done
, off the home farm. Members worked more days off the farm on the average
_ when unit requirements for the farm operation were less. But, when the
average days of both types of work were combined, average days worked per
- family did not vary progressively according to the labor requirements on
the farms. Farms with the smallest and those with the largest productive
man-work unit requirements had the highest average days worked per family
  '

 - 17 -
Table 10. Farm Family Members Working on Home Farm and Elsewhere and
the Average Days Worked During the Year by Production Man-
work Units Required for Crop and Livestock Production
 
Productive lb years All work On home farm Elsewhere
· manpwork of age Percent Average Percent Average Percent Average
units and over working days working days working days
All farms 280 75 177 82 125 U5 g 122
U Under 75 35 71 217 51 Q6 63 209
75 · 1}+9 68 76 158 59 7M' 62 166
150 · 299 7M 78 165 88 121 50 116
300 and over 103 7M 186 62 179 M5 57
 
Also the former were employed in larger proportions than the latter, The greater
U the productive manpwork unit requirements on a farm the greater the average
number of days family members worked on the home farm and the smaller the
number of days they worked off the farm.
. lng; Worked Pg; Engg Family. The average number of days worked on
farms by farm family members increased as productive man—work unit
A requirements increased (Table ll), but the reverse was true for work done
, off the home farm, Members worked more days off the farm on the average
_ when unit requirements for the farm operation were less. But, when the
average days of both types of work were combined, average days worked per
- family did not vary progressively according to the labor requirements on
the farms, Farms with the smallest and those with the largest productive
man—work unit requirements had the highest average days worked per family
  A

 S 18 Q
Table ll, Farm Families with One or Morf Members Working on the Home
Farm and Elsewhere and Average Days Worked Per Farm Family Y
During the Year by Productive Manework Units Required for
Crop and Livestock Production
y Location of work
Productive Number All work _ on home farm Elsewhere
man—work of Total Average Total Average Total Average
units farms days days days days days days
 
All farms 92 37,350 noe 21,660 235 15,690 171 l
Under 75 13 5,M30 @18 830 6U u,6oo 35M _
75 — l¤9 20 8,