UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

An economic investigation of part-time farmingin the Fraser Valley of British Columbia Strong, Michael 1973

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1973_A6_7 S77_6.pdf [ 5.2MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0101237.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0101237-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0101237-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0101237-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0101237-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0101237-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0101237-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0101237-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0101237.ris

Full Text

AN ECONOMIC INVESTIGATION OF PART-TIME FARMING IN THE FRASER VALLEY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA by MICHAEL STRONG B.Sc., U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia, 19 70 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE i n the Department of A g r i c u l t u r a l Economics We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming t o the r e q u i r e d s t a n d a r d THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA August, 19 73 In presenting t h i s thesis i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the Library s h a l l make i t f r e e l y available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of t h i s thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by h i s representatives. It i s understood that copying or publication of this thesis for f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be allowed without my written permission. M i c h a e l Strong Department of A g r i c u l t u r a l Economics The University of B r i t i s h Columbia Vancouver 8, Canada Date October 17, 1973 i i i ABSTRACT This study examines the economic and s o c i a l aspects of part-time farming i n two mu n i c i p a l i t i e s i n the Fraser Valley region of B r i t i s h Columbia. The study was undertaken i n 1970 under the auspices of the B r i t i s h Columbia Department of Agr i c u l t u r e and the Department of A g r i c u l t u r a l Economics at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia. The primary purpose of the study was to provide d e s c r i p t i v e information about part-time farmers and to provide some frame-work within which p o l i c y decisions could be made. The study examines the physical c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the part-time farm, the socio-economic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the part-time farm operator and his family, and the f i n a n c i a l aspects of part-time farming. Some analysis i s undertaken with respect to the findings of the survey and, where possible, these are rela t e d to census data for comparison between part-time farms and a l l census farms for the same area. The main conclusions drawn from these analyses were that part-time farmers were only distinguishable from the census population farmers on the basis of d i r e c t f i n a n c i a l aspects of i v . t h e i r farms. This was r e f l e c t e d i n the much lower l e v e l s of farm sales and expenses experienced by part-time farmers. Several c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of both census farms and part-time farms were s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t between the two m u n i c i p a l i t i e s . There were strong indications that neither of the two groups are homogeneous between regions. Consequently, i t i s d i f f i c u l t to envisage a si n g l e d e f i n i t i o n of farming, much less part-time farming, being formulated which w i l l have a p p l i c a t i o n i n such a d i v e r s i f i e d a g r i c u l t u r a l mosaic as i s found i n B r i t i s h Columbia. The study concludes by questioning the v a l i d i t y of a p o l i c y which segments the farm community on the basis of the farm operator having an off-farm job. The study suggests that the only meaningful in d i c a t o r as to whether or not farm land resources are being e f f e c t i v e l y u t i l i z e d i s prod u c t i v i t y as measured by the usual economic c r i t e r i a of gross and net d o l l a r r e c e i p t s . V . T A B L E OF CONTENTS PAGE A c k n o w l e d g e m e n t s . X A b s t r a c t i i i T a b l e o f C o n t e n t s v L i s t o f T a b l e s v i i L i s t o f F i g u r e s i x CHAPTER I . . . . INTRODUCTION 1 C H A P T E R I I . . . . BACKGROUND 7 CHAPTER I I I . . O R I E N T A T I O N OF THE STUDY 14 C H A P T E R I V . . . . THE PROBLEM OF D E F I N I T I O N OF P A R T - T I M E FARMING 18 C H A P T E R V . . . . THE SURVEY 22 1 . The S a m p l e A r e a s 22 2 . T h e Random S a m p l e 23 3 . T h e I n t e r v i e w S c h e d u l e 27 4 . P r o c e d u r e 27 C H A P T E R V I . . . . A N A L Y T I C A L METHOD 29 1 . T h e N o r m a l D e v i a t e ( z ) . . . 29 2 . t S t a t i s t i c 32 C H A P T E R V I I . . . F I N D I N G S AND A N A L Y S I S 34 A. F o r m a n d M e t h o d o f D a t a P r e s e n t a t i o n . . . 34 B . P h y s i c a l C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s 35 1 . ' T h e F a r m s 35 v i . PAGE 2. Land Use 36 3. Area Improved 41 C. Farm Enterprises 45 1. Types of Enterprises 46 2. Livestock Enterprises 47 D. The Part-Time Operator and Family . . . . 49 1. Operator Age 49 2. Schooling 52 3. Previous Farm Experience 52 4. Location of Non-Farm Occupation . . . 55 5. Work Patterns 57 E. F i n a n c i a l Aspects 59 1. Farm Sales 59 2. Farm Income 62 3. Farm Expenses 65 4. C a p i t a l Value of Land and Buildings . 69 F. Reasons for Part-Time Farming . . . . . . 71 G. Summary of Findings 73 CHAPTER VIII. . ... .CONCLUSIONS 76 BIBLIOGRAPHY 81 APPENDIX I .83 APPENDIX II 87 v i i . LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE 1. Area i n Census Farms - B r i t i s h Columbia Census D i v i s i o n 4 4 2. Type of Farms - B r i t i s h Columbia Census D i v i s i o n 4 5 3. C l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f 225 "Farms" S e l e c t e d From A l l "Farms" - Both M u n i c i p a l i t i e s . 27 4. D i s t r i b u t i o n o f Respondents by Number of Acres Owned and Operated by Type o f Farm - Both M u n i c i p a l i t i e s 36 5. D i s t r i b u t i o n o f Farm S i z e by L o c a t i o n -Census Farms 38 6. D i s t r i b u t i o n o f Farm S i z e by L o c a t i o n -Part-Time Farms 39 7. Average Acreage by Land Use Category -Part-Time Farms . 41 8. Area Improved - P a r t Time Farms 42 9. Area Improved - Census Farms 43 10. D i s t r i b u t i o n of Respondents by Main Farm E n t e r p r i s e - Part-Time Farms 46 11. L i v e s t o c k - A l l Farms 48 12. Operator Age D i s t r i b u t i o n - Census Farms 50 13. Operator Age D i s t r i b u t i o n - Part-Time Farms 51 14. D i s t r i b u t i o n o f Respondents by Years o f School Completed - Part-Time Farms . . . 53 v i i i . TABLE PAGE 15. Respondents R e p o r t i n g P r e v i o u s F u l l - T i m e Farming E x p e r i e n c e - Part-Time Farms. . . 54 16. L o c a t i o n o f Non-Farm Occupation - P a r t -Time Farms. . 56 17. Average Hours Worked Per Week i n Off-Farm and Farm Jobs - Part-Time Farms 58 18. Farm S a l e s D i s t r i b u t i o n - Census Farms. . 60 19. Farm S a l e s D i s t r i b u t i o n - Part-Time Farms 61 20. Farm S a l e s D i s t r i b u t i o n - Both M u n i c i p a l i t i e s 6 3 21. Average Farm Income by Source -Part-Time Farms 64 22. Average Farm Operating Expenses - Census Farms 66 23. Average Farm O p e r a t i n g Expenses - P a r t -Time Farms 67 24. Average C a p i t a l Value of Land and B u i l d i n g s A l l Farms 70 25. D i s t r i b u t i o n of Main Reasons Given f o r Part-Time Farming 72 26. D i s t r i b u t i o n o f Secondary Reasons Given f o r Part-Time Farming 73 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1 VANCOUVER AND THE FRASER VALLEY. X ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS T h i s study was made p o s s i b l e by the p r o v i s i o n of funds, made a v a i l a b l e t o the Department of A g r i c u l t u r a l Economics by t h e S o c i a l S c i e n c e s Lead Committee o f the B r i t i s h Columbia A g r i c u l t u r a l S e r v i c e s C o o r d i n a t i n g Committee of the B r i t i s h Columbia Department o f A g r i c u l t u r e . Acknowledgement i s g i v e n to Dr. Ian W i l l s , f o r m e r l y of t h e Department of A g r i c u l t u r a l Economics and to Dr. P.L. Arcus x o f the Department o f A g r i c u l t u r a l Economics, both o f whom o f f e r e d a s s i s t a n c e d u r i n g the study's p r o g r e s s . The author wishes to express g r a t i t u d e to h i s committee a n d the members of the s t a f f of the Department o f A g r i c u l t u r a l Economics. Thanks are extended t o B r i t i s h Columbia Department o f A g r i c u l t u r e s p e c i a l i s t s , Mr. George Cruikshank, Mr. P e t e r Ewart, Mr. J . H a l l , Mr. E.C. Hughes, and Mr. D. Ormrod and to far m e r s Mr. Ralph B a r i c e l l o and Mr. Robert Reynolds, a l l o f whom o f f e r e d guidance i n fundamental a s p e c t s of the study. Chapter I INTRODUCTION The Fraser V a l l e y i s i n the southwestern portion of: B r i t i s h Columbia and i s the most densely populated area of the province accounting for approximately 55 percent of the province's population. Land use i n the Fraser Valley i s changing r a p i d l y due to the s t e a d i l y increasing demand on land brought about by the growth of population and Metropolitan Vancouver. H i s t o r i c a l l y , the functional and a r e a l expansion of Vancouver occurred i n three phases. "The i n i t i a l phase ended i n 1910 when Vancouver f i r s t assumed metropolitan functions. At that time, Vancouver came to have over 30 percent of the province's population compared with f i f t e e n percent a decade e a r l i e r . The following phase from 1911 to 1940 was characterized by the expansion of the metropolitan area to include the two secondary nodes of New Westminster and North Vancouver. This phase can be i d e n t i f i e d as one of i n t e r n a l expansion as the growth was confined mainly within Burrard Peninsula. In the f i n a l , and present phase, external growth and the upsurge i n the economy induced by war-time a c t i v i t y has attracted a re-newed in-migration into the metropolitan area. External growth 2. a c c e l e r a t e d i n the 1950's and r e s u l t e d i n a c o n f l i c t w i t h the F r a s e r V a l l e y proper as the suburbs spread i n t o the Surrey uplands and onto L u l u I s l a n d . T h i s p e r i o d has been c a l l e d the Development o f the Inter-Urban Complex." 1" S u b d i v i s i o n of farm lan d i n t o r e s i d e n t i a l l o t s r e a l l y began w i t h the s u b d i v i s i o n boom of the l a t e 19 50's. M u n i c i p a l p o l i c i e s were n o n r e s t r i c t i v e d u r i n g t h i s p e r i o d . T h i s , coupled w i t h the automobile, the d e s i r e f o r home ownership, the lower l a n d v a l u e s away from the M e t r o p o l i t a n c o r e , and the d e s i r e f o r the s o - c a l l e d freedom of the c o u n t r y s i d e , a l l combined to c r e a t e a mass exodus to the suburban f r i n g e . During the 1950's and 60's p r o p e r t y t a x a t i o n p o l i c i e s emphasized "improvements" and de-emphasized " l a n d " which enabled long-term l a n d h o l d i n g w i t h very low taxes. As a consequence s p e c u l a t o r s moved i n and h e l d land which caused many s u b d i v i s i o n s to be o n l y p a r t y b u i l t up w i t h homes. T h i s p a t t e r n s t i l l e x i s t s i n many p a r t s of Richmond and Surrey. 1941 marked the h i g h t i d e i n a g r i c u l t u r e i n the F r a s e r V a l l e y . In 1941, 330,000 acr e s were occupied as farmland. By Howell-Jones, G . I . , "The U r b a n i z a t i o n o f the F r a s e r V a l l e y " , i n Lower F r a s e r V a l l e y (Siemens, A.H. (ed), T a n t a l u s Research L i m i t e d , Vancouver, 1966), p.141 1951, t h i s had d e c l i n e d to 304,000 and by 1971, o n l y 247,000 ac r e s remained. Thus something i n the order of 3,000 acres p er year has been l o s t to a g r i c u l t u r e . Such l o s s e s may appear to be the i n e v i t a b l e consequence of growing urban c e n t r e s , b u t i n f a c t , t h e r e i s a tendency f o r unchecked urban sprawl t o d i s p o s s e s s much more farmland than i s needed f o r a suburban d o r m i t o r y . T a b l e I i n d i c a t e s v a r i o u s changes i n the amount of l a n d i n a g r i c u l t u r e i n the F r a s e r V a l l e y over the 30 year p e r i o d 1941 t o 1971. While the t o t a l area of census farms has d e c l i n e d , i t has n o t been a t the expense of improved a g r i c u l t u r a l l a n d acreage. However, the amount of unimproved l a n d on farms d e c l i n e d from 134,064 to 56,747 ac r e s over the 30 year p e r i o d . During the p e r i o d 1956 to 19 66, the number of p a r t - t i m e farmers i n Census D i v i s i o n 4 remained almost c o n s t a n t a t s l i g h t l y more than 3,000 (see T a b l e 2). A break-down of census farms i n t o p a r t - t i m e and f u l l - t i m e farms was not a v a i l a b l e i n the 1971 census. T a b l e 1 AREA IN CENSUS FARMS'3, - BRITISH COLUMBIA CENSUS DIVISION 4 1941 - 1971 •• 1941 1951 1956 1961 1966 c 1971 TOTAL AREA IN CENSUS FARMS (ac.) 330,259 304,291 294,033 274,588 256,235 247,076 Improved lan d (ac.) 196,195 202,089 204,016 198,458 202,096 -Unimproved lan d (ac.) 134,064 102,202 90,017 76,130 54,139 — T h i s term i s d e f i n e d i n the 19 66 Census as an a g r i c u l t u r a l h o l d i n g o f one a c r e o r more w i t h s a l e s of a g r i c u l t u r a l products, d u r i n g the 12-month p e r i o d p r i o r t o the census, of $50. or more. Census D i v i s i o n 4 covers the F r a s e r V a l l e y and a d j o i n i n g areas eastward to the muni-c i p a l i t i e s of C h i l l i w a c k and Kent, and a l s o the M u n i c i p a l i t y o f Squamish. Breakdown of area i n t o improved and unimproved l a n d not a v a i l a b l e a t time of w r i t i n g . Table 2 TYPES OF FARMS - BRITISH COLUMBIA CENSUS DIVISION 4 1956 - 1971 1956 1961 1966 1971 TOTAL CENSUS FARMS 8,005 7,369 6,904 6,421 Number of Part-time Farms 3,199 3,196 3,215 a Percentage part-time farms of t o t a l census farms 40.0 43. 4 46.6 Part-time farms not distinguished i n 1971 census. 6 . In 1966, 3,215 (46.6 percent) of 6,904 census farms i n 2 census d i v i s i o n 4 had p a r t - t i m e o p e r a t o r s and 930 (27.3 percent) o f 3,409 farms w i t h g r o s s a g r i c u l t u r a l p roduct s a l e s over $2,500 had p a r t - t i m e o p e r a t o r s . A s u b s t a n t i a l p r o p o r t i o n of farm o p e r a t o r s spend more than seven months of the year working o f f t h e i r farms; more than one o p e r a t o r i n f o u r i n the case of a l l census farms and one i n e i g h t i n the case of farms w i t h a g r i -3 c u l t u r a l s a l e s of $2,500 or more. The i n c i d e n c e of p a r t - t i m e farming i s thus seen to be s i g n i f i c a n t i n the Lower F r a s e r V a l l e y . I t has been the purpose o f t h i s study t o examine these farms i n g r e a t e r d e t a i l . A p a r t - t i m e o p e r a t o r was d e f i n e d i n the 19 66 census as b e i n g the o p e r a t o r of a census farm but who earned more than $70. from o f f - f a r m work, or who worked more than 75 p e r c e n t o f f h i s farm. Dominion Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s , Census of Canada, A g r i c u l t u r e , B r i t i s h Columbia, Ottawa, 1966 Chapter II BACKGROUND The incidence of part-time farming can be traced to the I n d u s t r i a l Revolution. During this period of rapid i n d u s t r i a l change, many people migrated to urban areas to obtain jobs. Many of these people retained t h e i r land holdings i n the country and divided t h e i r time between the farm and the c i t y . The pr a c t i c e of part-time farming became more prevalent during the depression of the nineteen t h i r t i e s when many c i t y dwellers were forced into subsistence farming to supplement t h e i r meagre earnings. The motivation for part-time farming seems to have changed . 4 over the l a s t f o r t y years. Loomis has suggested three cate-gories of reasons for part-time farming: 1. As a way of getting into f u l l - t i m e farming, 2. As a way of getting out of farming and into non-farm employment, 3. As a permanent way of making a l i v i n g . Loomis, Ralph A., A p r o f i l e of part-time farming i n the  United States. (Michigan State University A g r i c u l t u r a l Experimental Station, Research Report #15, East Lansing, 1965) 8 . 5 Hoover & Crecink use e s s e n t i a l l y the same categories. They divide the career patterns of part-time farmers into two d i s t i n c t types: 1. farmers who take up a non-farm job to supplement t h e i r farm work, and 2. non-farm workers who become farmers while continuing t h e i r non-farm work. Each of these career types i s r e a d i l y i d e n t i f i e d and, i n turn, e a s i l y divided into two subclasses - those i n d i v i d u a l s who expect to make a l i f e - t i m e career of part-time farming, and those who simply use part-time farming as an intermediate step to f u l l non-farm or f u l l - f a r m employment. Hoover & Crecink suggest that a primary motiviation for part-time farmers i s the opportunity to own and manage farmland on a small scale while assessing the advantages of expansion. Part-time farming may be viewed as a point of t r a n s i t i o n between f u l l - t i m e farming and retirement from farming. Those indivi d u a l s involved i n part-time farming either intend to expand t h e i r operation or Hoover, H., & Crecink, J . , Part-Time Farming, i t s Role and  Prospects i n the C l a y - H i l l s Area of M i s s i s s i p p i , ( M i s s i ssippi A g r i c u l t u r a l Experiment Station, B u l l . No. 627, State College, M i s s i s s i p p i , 1961) 9. eventually leave a g r i c u l t u r e . Duvick^ suggests i n his study on part-time farming i n Southern Michigan, that the majority of current part-time farmers do not intend to farm f u l l - t i m e . In his study, only eleven percent of the sample interviewed intended to eventually operate on a f u l l - t i m e basis. How do people i n i t i a l l y get involved i n part-time farming? . 7 Fuguitt i n a study of urban influence and the extent of part-time farming, found that part-time farming was part of a career pattern i n which i n d i v i d u a l s f a l l into one of two types: 1. Farmers who take a non-farm job to supplement t h e i r farm incomes. 2. Non-farm workers who become farmers while continuing t h e i r non-farm work. Ag r i c u l t u r e i s more l i k e l y to be central to the careers • of farmers who take up non-farm work, than that of non-farm Duvick, R.D., Part-Time Farming i n Two Areas of Southern  Michigan (Michigan A g r i c u l t u r a l Experimental Station, Quarterly B u l l . 49 (1) Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, 1966) Fuguitt, Glen V., Urban Influence and the Extent of Part-Time Farming, i n Rural Sociology [23(4)], University of Wisconsin, 1958. 10. o workers who take up fanning. Examples of both categories of motivation can be found i n the l i t e r a t u r e on thi s subject. Motivation seems to vary as a fun c t i o n of many c r i t e r i a . One va r i a b l e that appears to i n -fluence the establishment of part-time farms i n p a r t i c u l a r i s a c c e s s a b i l i t y to urban centers. Research has shown that the more accessible an urban center i s i n r e l a t i o n to a farm, the greater the l i k e l i h o o d of part-time farming. S p e c i f i c a l l y , i f the urban area i s large enough to support professional ser-v i c e s , many professionals and business executives w i l l invest 9 i n farms. This a t t i t u d e i s echoed i n the United States as we l l , but the bulk of the l i t e r a t u r e indicates that the former category, i e . farmers who take a non-farm job to supplement t h e i r farm Fuguitt, Glen V., Career Patterns of Part-Time Careers and  t h e i r Contact with the A g r i c u l t u r a l Extension Service, Rural Sociology, 30 (1), 1965. Gasson, Ruth, Some Economic C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of Part-Time Farming i n B r i t a i n , Journal of A g r i c u l t u r a l Economics, 18 (1), 1967. Harrison, A., The Farms of Buckinghamshire, University of Reading, Department of A g r i c u l t u r a l Economics, 1966 11. incomes are more predominant. 1^ A l v i n B e r t r a n d 1 1 has observed that part-time farmers i n the United States describe t h e i r motivations i n e s s e n t i a l l y the same way as part-time farmers i n Great B r i t a i n . Bertrand also concluded that the future of part-time farming i n the United States i s assured because, by combining farm and non-farm work, ind i v i d u a l s are able to express deeply i n t e r n a l i z e d values which they hold. Bertrand states that for those who wish a r u r a l farm-type of l i v i n g and, at the same time wish to achieve a decent standard of l i v i n g , part-time farming i s the only way out. Research has demonstrated a r e l a t i o n s h i p between part-time farming and economic e f f i c i e n c y - the scale and type of Loomis, Ralph A., Farmers i n the Nonfarm Labor Market (Michigan State University A g r i c u l t u r a l Experimental Station, Research Report No. 24, East Lansing, 1963). Sargent, Charles, Part-Time Farming i n Southeastern Indiana (Purdue University A g r i c u l t u r a l Experimental Station, Re-search B u l l . No. 794, Lafayette, 1965). Gasson, Ruth, Occupational Immobility of Small Farmers (Farm Economics Branch, Cambridge University, Occasional Papers No. 13, Cambridge, 1969). Duvick, Richard D., Part-Time Farming i n Two Areas of Southern  Michigan (Michigan A g r i c u l t u r a l Experimental Station, Quarter-l y B u l l . 49 (1), 1966). Bertrand, A l v i n , Research on Part-Time Farming i n the United States, i n Sociologia R u r a l i s , [7(3)], 1967. farming under part and f u l l - t i m e conditions. Gasson has shown that part-time farmers tend to sel e c t those enterprises which required less d a i l y attention. In addition to th i s re-la t i o n s h i p , Gasson also concluded that the p o t e n t i a l output per acre on holdings belonging to part-time farmers was usually below that of f u l l - t i m e farmers. In comparable s i t u a t i o n s , the f u l l - t i m e operators appeared to follow systems of farming which would allow them to produce a higher value of output (expressed as standard output per acre) than the part-time farmers. Part-time farmers also tended to choose simpler farming systems and combinations of enterprises than f u l l - t i m e farmers on holdings of the same s i z e and type, i . e . part-time farmers are motivated by d i f f e r e n t ends. However, even though part-time farmers u t i l i z e less of the i r holdings, they often are responsible for the development of new techniques. Compared with f u l l - t i m e farmers on a technical basis, the part-time farmer fares much better. The proximity of urban development and the incidence of part-time farming i s a predictable phenomenon. The hypothesis that part-time farming i s d i r e c t l y related to off-farm oppor-t u n i t i e s and i s inversely r e l a t e d to opportunities i n a g r i c u l t u r e Gasson, Ruth., 1967, op_. c i t . 13. has been supported by r e s e a r c h . ^ ' D u v i c k , i n h i s study of p a r t - t i m e farming i n Michigan, compared two d i s t i n c t areas and found t h a t one area had s i g n i f i c a n t l y more p a r t - t i m e farmers i n p r o p o r t i o n t o the number o f farms than d i d the o t h e r . There was a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between p a r t - t i m e farmers i n the two areas i n the average d i s t a n c e t o non-farm work. F u g u i t t ^ , i n h i s r e s e a r c h on urban i n f l u e n c e and the e x t e n t o f p a r t - t i m e farming, reached a s i m i l a r c o n c l u s i o n . T h i s c o n c l u s i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f u r t h e r examination o f the a s s o c i a t i o n between urban i n f l u e n c e and p a r t - t i m e farming where the p a r t - t i m e farms are grouped a c c o r d i n g t o the s i z e o f the o p e r a t i o n . Regardless o f the m o t i v a t i o n behind p a r t - t i m e farming or the c h a r a c t e r of p a r t - t i m e farms, the i n c i d e n c e of p a r t - t i m e farming c o n t i n u e s t o grow. In many areas o f the U n i t e d S t a t e s , the p r o p o r t i o n o f p a r t - t i m e to a l l farmers has reached 40 p e r -cent. 16 The same t r e n d can be observed i n Canada as noted i n Chapter I I . i 3 Sargent, C h a r l e s , Part-Time Farming i n Southeastern I n d i a n a Purdue U n i v e r s i t y A g r i c u l t u r a l E x p e r i m e n t a l S t a t i o n , L a f a y e t t e , I n d i a n a , Report No. 794., 1965. 14 15 Duvick, R., 1963, op. c i t . F u g u i t t , G., 1958, op. c i t . 1 6 U n i t e d S t a t e s Census Data of A g r i c u l t u r e , 1950-1970 Chapter III ORIENTATION OF THE STUDY The broad purpose of the study i s to provide information about part-time farming i n the Fraser Valley which w i l l serve as a basis for future p o l i c y decisions a f f e c t i n g part-time farming. The phenomena of part-time farming has important imp l i -cations f o r the a g r i c u l t u r a l industry and society as a whole. F i r s t l y , while part-time farmers are included as part of the a g r i c u l t u r a l industry they are, i n many ways, i n c o n f l i c t with f u l l - t i m e commercial farmers. Most f u l l - t i m e farmers are concerned with economic e f f i c i e n c y and maximizing returns from a l l given resources. Maximum p r o f i t s are not necessarily the f i r s t consideration for most part-time farmers, many of whom tre a t farming as a recreation rather than a business. Since the part-time farmer may regard farming as a recreation, the opportunity cost of his own labour and fi x e d c a p i t a l may be very low. The part-time farm operator may be s a t i s f i e d i f he has some return on his working c a p i t a l or i f the farm does not lose too much. Such part-time farmers are l i k e l y to adopt less i n tensive systems of farming than t h e i r f u l l - t i m e neighbours. Because they are not wholly dependent on ag r i c u l t u r e , they can subsidize t h e i r farm with off-farm earnings. They may also be w i l l i n g to pay r e l a t i v e l y high prices f o r a g r i c u l t u r a l land, thus encouraging subdivision of large economic farm units into small farm units which are non-viable as commercial operations. Secondly, given society's desire for cheap a g r i c u l t u r a l produce, plus i t s concern with the problems of low incomes i n the a g r i c u l t u r a l sector and with ensuring the "best" use of the scarce land resources around our large c i t i e s , the most im-portant p o l i c y decisions a f f e c t i n g part-time farming appear l i k e l y to be directed toward society's goals i n these areas. These p o l i c y decisions w i l l be f a c i l i t a t e d i f we can learn more about: 1. the economic reasons f o r the establishement of part-time farms (the r e l a t i v e importance of farm income, off-farm income, taxes and other economic factors i n various cases), and 2 . the r e l a t i v e importance, i n terms of a g r i c u l t u r a l output, numbers of people, and area of land involved of d i f f e r e n t types of part-time farms distinguished according to the operator's motivation, type of enterprise and other i d e n t i f i a b l e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s . Some s p e c i f i c applications of the r e s u l t s of the study are improved bases for defining who i s and who i s not a farmer for the purpose of deciding p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n p a r t i c u l a r a g r i c u l t u r a l programmes or access to. s p e c i a l services or benefits provided to farmers. For example, p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n orderly marketing 16. programmes or support-price programmes, e l i g i b i l i t y for a g r i -c u l t u r a l c r e d i t assistance and feed-freight assistance, access to extension services and e l i g i b i l i t y for s p e c i a l treatment by the Department of National Revenue i n the areas of income taxes and c a p i t a l gains taxes, and by l o c a l governments i n the area of land taxes. Other applications of the re s u l t s are improved bases for land-use planning i n the Fraser Valley and, i n p a r t i c u l a r , for determining appropriate lev e l s of r e a l property taxes and . appropriate zoning c r i t e r i a to be used by regional and l o c a l government bodies. This study emphasizes those factors which are f e l t to be relevant to the above applications and w i l l cover the f o l -lowing major topic areas: 1. Farm operations and land use. 2. Operators and t h e i r f a m i l i e s . 3. Present farm income and expenses. 4. Present off-farm employment and income. 5. C a p i t a l value of property. 6. Reasons for part-time farming - advantages and disadvantages of multiple job-holding. 7. Future plans of part-time farmers. 17. 8 . Determination of homogeneity between farming i n two areas of the Fraser V a l l e y . Chapter IV THE PROBLEM OF DEFINITION OF PART-TIME FARMING Each writer on the subject of part-time farming has tended to use a d e f i n i t i o n which s u i t s his p a r t i c u l a r research problem. Two broad classes of d e f i n i t i o n s commonly used are reviewed below. F i r s t i s a d e f i n i t i o n designed simply to i d e n t i f y a class of i n d i v i d u a l s who are part-time farmers. A t y p i c a l example i s : "A part-time farmer i s one who l i v e s with his family on his farm - usually a small farm -but gets a big part of his income from sources other than his farm."-'-"7 This type of d e f i n i t i o n i s usually too vague and i n d e f i n i t e to be of much use i n empirical studies. A census d e f i n i t i o n i s another way to i d e n t i f y part-time farmers. To i l l u s t r a t e the a r b i t r a r i n e s s of the c r i t e r i a used, the Canadian and American Census d e f i n i t i o n s are compared: 1 7 Farmers' B u l l e t i n No. 2178, Part-Time Farming., U.S. Department of Agr i c u l t u r e , Washington, D.C., 1961. 19. A. U n i t e d S t a t e s Census of A g r i c u l t u r e 1959, 1961: "A p a r t - t i m e farm i s one which has a gross v a l u e of farm s a l e s of $50 to 2,49 9 p r o v i d e d t h a t : 1. the farm o p e r a t o r was under 65 years of age, and, 2. r e p o r t e d 100 or more days of work o f f the farm and/or the non-farm income r e c e i v e d by him and the members of h i s f a m i l y was g r e a t e r 18 than the t o t a l v a l u e of farm products s o l d . " B. Census of Canada, 1966: "A p a r t - t i m e farm i s one on which the income r e c e i v e d from n o n - a g r i c u l t u r a l and a g r i c u l t u r a l work o f f h i s h o l d i n g s , d u r i n g the 12 month p e r i o d p r i o r t o June 1, 19 66, was $750 or more o r t h a t the t o t a l number of days the o p e r a t o r worked o f f h i s h o l d i n g a t a g r i c u l t u r a l and n o n - a g r i c u l t u r a l work d u r i n g the period p r i o r to June 1, 19 66 was 75 days or more." There a r e always problems a s s o c i a t e d w i t h d e f i n i t i o n s based on a r b i t r a r y s t a n d a r d s . Most of these problems can be l i n k e d t o the i n c l u s i v e n e s s of the d e f i n i t i o n . The Canadian Census d e f i n i t i o n does not d i s c r i m i n a t e between any farm owner who earns over $750 per ye a r i n non-farm work or who works more than 75 days away from h i s farm. The d e f i n i t i o n does not com-pen s a t e f o r wide v a r i a n c e s i n non-farm e a r n i n g s , the p r o d u c t i v i t y U.S. Bureau of the Census, U.S. Census of A g r i c u l t u r e , Washington, D.C. S t a t i s t i c s " C a n a d a , op. c i t . 20 . of the farm land currently u t i l i z e d , the s i z e of the farm holdings, or the number of non-farm days worked greater than 75. The /American d e f i n i t i o n does not discriminate between farm owners who market less than $500 worth of product per year and those who meet the f i r s t c r i t e r i a , yet earn a t o t a l income (farm and non-farm) of much'greater s i z e . The Census d e f i n i t i o n creates an a r i t i f i c i a l l i n k between low-income and part-time farming. For the purpose of t h i s study i t was f e l t to be appropriate to make the d e f i n i t i o n as broad as possible. The nature of th i s study i s larg e l y investigatory where the emphasis i s upon learning more about multiple job-holding by farm operators. To ensure f u l l coverage of the a g r i c u l t u r a l land-holders i n the Fraser V a l l e y , few r e s t r i c i t i o n s were imposed. The c r i t e r i a used i n t h i s study for i d e n t i f y i n g part-time farmers were as follows: 1. A s i z e of operation of 2 acres or more; 2. that a g r i c u l t u r a l products had been produced for sale during the two year period p r i o r to the survey. 3. that the operator worked off his holding during the 12 month period p r i o r to the survey or had a substantial and stable income from investments or retirement pension. The t h i r d c r i t e r i o n simply separates farmers who are wholly dependent on t h e i r farm operation for a l i v e l i h o o d , i . e . f u l l - t i m e farmers, from those who are not, i . e . part-time farmers. Chapter V THE SURVEY The Sample Areas The s e l e c t i o n of two areas for the survey was based on a s p e c i f i c s e t of c r i t e r i a . The f i r s t c r i t e r i a was that the sam-p l i n g areas should each contain not less than 50 percent of census-defined part-time farms. 1966 Census data d e f i n i t i o n s of "farm" and "part-time farms" were used to s e l e c t the areas. The second c r i t e r i a excluded those areas having a Canada Land Inventory a g r i c u l t u r a l land use ra t i n g of V to VII i n c l u s i v e on the grounds that they do not constitute p o t e n t i a l farm land, at l e a s t i n the short run. A t h i r d c r i t e r i a s t i p u l a t e d that those areas which were l a r g e l y urban i n character would be ex-eluded on the grounds that they do not constitute p o t e n t i a l farm land. The use of census data, s o i l maps, and municipal records f a c i l i t a t e d s e l e c t i o n of possible sampling areas based on the foregoing c r i t e r i a . The mu n i c i p a l i t i e s of Langley, Matsgui, Chilliwhack, and Maple Ridge each met a l l the c r i t e r i a . In order to make e f f i c i e n t use of resources a v a i l a b l e , the survey was l i m i t e d to the mu n i c i p a l i t i e s of Langley and C h i l l i -whack p r i m a r i l y because i t was f e l t that Langley, on the urban f r i n g e , and Chilliwhack, beyond the range of the Vancouver commuter, would provide some i n t e r e s t i n g contrasts with respect to part-time farming. The locations of these two m u n i c i p a l i t i e s within the Lower Fraser Valley are shown i n Figure 1. Langley municipality, i n the c e n t r a l portion of the v a l l e y , has an undulating topography and genrally poor to moderately good s o i l (Class III to VI according to C.L.I, c l a s s i f i c a t i o n ) . Farming i n t h i s municipality i s mixed, with beef c a t t l e and the production of tame hay predominating. V i r t u a l l y the whole municipality i s within 50 minutes t r a v e l time from c e n t r a l Vancouver and consequently the municipality tends to be oriented towards the metropolitan centre. Chilliwhack municipality, at the eastern end of the Fraser V a l l e y , constitutes one of the r i c h e s t farming areas i n the region. Due to i t s high f e r t i l i t y , l e v e l topography, and moder-ate r a i n f a l l , the land i s eminently suited to arable cropping and dairy farming. The Random Sample The sampling frame used i n the survey was municipal r e a l property records. The population included a l l holdings defined by the S A R I B A L D I N C I A L F i g u r e 1 municipality as "farms" with the following exceptions: 1. those areas of the municipality which were p r i m a r i l y urban or suburban i n character and 2. those areas of land which constitute part of the Fraser River flood p l a i n . The remainder of each municipality c o n s i t i t u t e d the sampling universe and amounted to 1,0 39 holdings i n Langley and 1,46 3 holdings i n Chilliwhack. Using a random number scheme a sample was drawn from each of the two municipal property tax assessment r o l l s . These samples included both part-time and f u l l - t i m e farm operations as no d i s t i n c t i o n i s made by the m i n i c i p a l governemnts. Full-time farmers were l a t e r eliminated from the sample by means of a telephone c a l l i n which they were questioned i n accordance with the c r i t e r i a established above defined a part-time farmer f o r the purpose of t h i s study. The remaining sample contained only part-time farmers and was approximately f i v e percent of the farm population i n each municipality. This involved 45 part-time farmers i n Langley A d e f i n i t i o n of a "farm" as used by the M u n i c i p a l i t i e s of Langley and Chilliwhack i s reproduced i n Appendix 1. and 50 i n Chilliwhack (see Table 3). 21 The Interview Schedule The interview schedule was designed with a view to obtaining a maximum amount of information v i a a personal interview which would not exceed 90 minutes. This was f e l t to be the maximum time that respondents would t o l e r a t e . A t o t a l of three drafts of the schedule were required before ambiguities and i r r e l v a n c i e s were eliminated. At each stage the drafts were checked and c r i t i c i s e d by d i s t r i c t a g r i -c u l t u r a l i s t s and s p e c i a l i s t s working with the B r i t i s h Columbia Department of A g r i c u l t u r e . The second d r a f t was tested on nine randomly selected part-time farmers and, apart from minor changes, was found to be s a t i s f a c t o r y . Procedure The interviews were conducted between mid-June and mid-August of 19 70. In addition to the author, one part-time i n t e r -viewer was employed to conduct the interviews. Due to the pre-occupation of many of the operators i n the sample with harvesting, many interviews were not obtained on the f i r s t attempt. Many The interview schedule i s reproduced i n Appendix I I . Table 3 CLASSIFICATION OF 182 "FARMS" SELECTED FROM ALL "FARMS"a - 2 MUNICIPALITIES Type of Farm Langley Number % Chilliwhack Number % 2 M u n i c i p a l i t i e s Number % Full-time farms 1 3 33 42 .3 54 51. 9 87 47.8 Part-Time Farms 0 45 . 57 .7 50 48. 1 95 52.2 Tota l "Farms" 78 100 .0 104 100. 0 182 100.0 Holdings defined by the municipalities as farms Farmers who do not have an off-farm job and who are not r e t i r e d . Part-time farms as defined i n thi s study. 28. required a second or t h i r d v i s i t . The interview schedules were checked i n the f i e l d to de-termine whether any reinterviewing was necessary. Also the returned schedules from each of the two interviewers were checked against each other r e g u l a r l y to ensure compatibility. F i n a l l y , the returned schedules were coded and keypunched i n preparation f o r analysis which was done u t i l i z i n g the f a c i l t i e s of the Computer Center of the University of B r i t i s h Columbia. Chapter VI ANALYTICAL METHOD S t a t i s t i c a l analysis of the data obtained from the survey was performed using two t e s t s . 1. The Normal Deviate ( z ) , which determines the s i g n i f i c a n c e of the d i f f e r e n c e between two independent proportions. Two assumptions underlie the s t a t i s t i c : The d i s t r i b u t i o n of the data base must be normal and the samples from which the data i s drawn must be independant of each other. Where t h i s s t a t i s t i c a l method i s employed, the assumptions are presumed to hold. In cases where the method has not been applied, reference i s made to the v i o l a t i o n of the assumptions. In the terminology of s t a t i s t i c s , the data are comprised of two samples drawn inde-pendantly. Of the N-^  members i n the f i r s t sample,, f ^ (frequency one) have the a t t r i b u t e A. Of the N 2 members i n the second sample, f 2 have the a t t r i b u t e A. The proportions having the at t r i b u t e s i n the two samples are f^ = p^ and f 2 = p 2 . Nl N 2 Is p^ s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from p 2? To determine the answer to t h i s question, we turn to the standard formula for the calcu-l a t i o n of the s t a t i s t i c z (the normal deviate). 30. Associated with the value of a proportion i n a d i s t r i b u t i o n of data i s error - primarily error which r e s u l t s from sampling inconsistancies. This error must be included i n the s t a t i s t i c a l assessment of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the independent properties The standard error of a s i n g l e proportion i s given by: S P I = P j q i , N i . : where p^ = sample value of a proportion q x = 1 - P x The standard error of the difference between two proportions i s estimated by S P l " P2 = pq ( 1 + 1 ) N l N 2 where p = estimate of the two samples combined. p = f l + f 2  N l + N 2 and f a n d f2 are the two observed frequencies i n the samples. Combining data from the two samples to get a s i n g l e estimate of p can be j u s t i f i e d on the following basis: we assume the n u l l nypothesis. ( i . e . no difference exists i n the population propor-tions) . As the two populations are i n i t i a l l y assumed to be homogeneous, i t i s j u s t i f i a b l e t o combine t h e i r d a t a . The s t a t i s t i c z i s then c a l c u l a t e d . z compares the two p r o p o r t i o n s f o r s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s . The v a l u e of z may be i n t e r p r e t e d as a d e v i a t e of the normal curve, p r o v i d e d p i s n e i t h e r too s m a l l or too l a r g e and and N 2 are of r e a s o n a b l e s i z e . Ferguson suggests a r u l e t o be used to determine whether the d i s t r i b u t i o n u n d e r l y i n g the data i s normal: i f the s m a l l e r v a l u e of p or q m u l t i p l i e d by the s m a l l e r v a l u e of N exceeds 5, then the r a t i o i s accepted f o r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n w i t h r e f e r e n c e to 22 the normal curve u s i n g the z s t a t i s t i c . The s i g n i f i c a n c e of z may be determined i n two ways: 1. by r e f e r e n c e to a c h a r t r e l a t i n g o r d i n a t e s ( i n terms of stan d a r d d e v i a t i o n s u n i t s ) and areas under the normal curve, and Ferguson, George A., S t a t i s t i c a l A n a l y s i s i n Psychology  and E d u c a t i o n , McGraw-Hill, Toronto, 19 66 32. 2. by reference to a chart depicting c r i t i c a l 23 values of Chi square. 2. t - S t a t i s t i c . The t s t a t i s t i c i s i n common use and has many appl i c a t i o n s . Because of i t s prevalence, i t w i l l only be b r i e f l y described here. The t s t a t i s t i c allows the comparison of the means of two independant samples with the i n c l u s i o n of an unbiased estimate of the variance associated with the means, (standard error of the difference of the means). This unbiased estimate of the population variance i s the quotient r e s u l t i n g from the d i v i s i o n of the sums of square of deviations about the means of the two samples by the number of degrees of freedom associated with the c a l c u l a t i o n of the where s = unbiased population variance estimate. The unbiased variance estimate i s used to obtain an estimate of standard error of the difference between the two means given by In cases where one degree of freedom (d.f.) i s involved, a simple r e l a t i o n s h i p exists between the normal deviate z and X . Chi square i s equal to the normal deviate squared. Therefore . sample means: N x N 2 33. The t r a t i o i s then obtained by d i v i d i n g the difference of the means by the standard error of t h i s d i f f e r e n c e : SXi ~ 5?2" The t t e s t assumes that the d i s t r i b u t i o n s of the variables i n the populations from which the samples are drawn are normal. I t also assumes that these populations have equal variances. Sig n i f i c a n c e of t r a t i o s can be ascertained by reference to a table of c r i t i c a l values of t. In the r e s u l t s which follow, differences s i g n i f i c a n t at the .95 l e v e l of p r o b a b i l i t y are noted with one a s t e r i s k (*), those s i g n i f i c a n t at the .99 l e v e l of p r o b a b i l i t y with two asterisks (**), and at the .999 l e v e l with three asterisks (***). I n s u f f i c i e n t data f o r testing i s denoted i n the r e s u l t s by a dash (-) . Chapter VII FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS A. FORM AND METHOD OF DATA PRESENTATION The data presented below has been assembled into three groups f o r comparative purposes. These are "part-time farms", "census farms", and " a l l farms". The f i r s t group i s comprised of the part-time farm survey r e s u l t s , the second of 1971 Census of A g r i c u l t u r e data, and the t h i r d includes both of the above groups. In each of these categories, data i s presented separately for each of the two mu n i c i p a l i t i e s and also i n a form combining both m u n i c i p a l i t i e s . These categories are i d e n t i f i e d by the labels "Langley", Chilliwhack", and "Both m u n i c i p a l i t i e s " . Comparisons are made between part-time farms and census farms by municipality and i n t o t a l . Also, comparisons are made between m u n i c i p a l i t i e s for both part-time and census farm groups. B. PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS 1. The Farms The part-time farms surveyed were located i n the municipal-i t i e s of Langley and Chilliwhack. An i n i t i a l sample s i z e of f o r t y - f i v e f o r Langley and f i f t y for Chilliwhack was obtained. Thirty-nine of the f o r t y - f i v e part-time farmers were i n t e r -viewed i n Langley and forty-one of the f i f t y i n Chilliwhack. In each municipality there were part-time farmers i n the i n i t i a l sample who were not avail a b l e for interviewing due to vacations or were not av a i l a b l e for other reasons. Table 4 indicates that the larg e s t number of part-time farms surveyed were i n the 10 to 69 acre class and represented 59.0 percent of the aggregate sample of both m u n i c i p a l i t i e s . S i m i l a r l y , the 19 71 census, data shows that the 10 to 69 acre cl a s s predominates with 54.7 percent of the farm population i n both m u n i c i p a l i t i e s . The next most important s i z e class for both part-time farms and census farms was 3 to 9 acres with 39.7 percent and 27.1 percent respectively f o r both m i n i c i p a l -i t i e s . T a b l e 4 DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY NUMBER OF ACRES OWNED AND OPERATED BY TYPE OF FARM - BOTH MUNICIPALITIES Census Number Farms % P a r t - t i m e Number Farms % 1 2 acres 127 5.8 0 0.0 3 9 acres 593 27.1 31 39 .7 10 - 69 acres 1,194 54.7 46 59.0 70 - 129 acres 200 9.2 1 1.3 130 - 179 acres 38 1.7 0 0.0 180 - 239 acres 17 0.8 0 0.0 240 and over 16 0.7 0 0.0 n = 2,185 100.0 n = 78 100.0 While i t was not possible to perform a t e s t of these two sets of data, inspection indicates s i m i l a r i t i e s between the two.^ However, i t i s d i f f i c u l t to state with any certainty that a difference e x i s t s between these two groups. The d i f -ference i n sample sizes also tends to d i s t o r t the comparison. The above data on census farms and part-time farms were analysed f o r differences between municipalities using the z t e s t , with one degree of freedom, = z^. The data and r e s u l t s appear i n Tables 5 and 6. In the census data covering a l l farms, there was found to be a s i g n i f i c a n t difference between the two municipalities i n the number of farms i n the 1 to 2 acre, 10 to 69 acre and 70 to 129 acre classes. There was no s i g n i f i c a n t difference between m u n i c i p a l i t i e s i n the three to nine acre c l a s s . Farms i n Langley tend to be larger than those i n Chilliwhack. The major factors which do not peruit s t a t i s t i c a l analysis to be performed on comparison between the census data and the survey data are twofold. F i r s t l y , the census data comprises the whole farm population of which the surveyed part-time farms are a sub-set. Secondly, the data from which the census means and d i s t r i b u t i o n s were derived, are not currently a v a i l a b l e , hence the standard errors can not be calculated. Table 5 DISTRIBUTION OF FARM SIZE BY LOCATION - CENSUS FARMS Langley Chilliwhack Number % Number % Z 1 2 acres 40 3.5 87 8.4 5.00*** 3 9 acres 309 26.8 287 27. 5 .35 10 - 69 acres 691 60.0 503 48.7 5.28*** 70 - 129 acres 75 6.5 125 12.1 4.52*** 130 - 179 acres 23 2.0 ' 15 1.5 -180 - 239 acres 7 0.6 10 1.0 -240 and over 7 0.6 9 0.9 -n = 1,152 100.0 n = 1,033 100.0 Table 6 DISTRIBUTION OF FARM SIZE BY LOCATION - PART-TIME FARMS Langley Chilliwhack Number % Number % Z 1 2 acres 0 0.0 0 0.0 -3 9 acres 9 23.7 22 55.0 -10 - 69 acres 28 73.7 18 45.0 2.57** 70 - 129 acres 1 2.6 0 0.0 -130 - 179 acres 0 0.0 0 0.0 -180 - 239 acres 0 0.0 0 0.0 -240 and over 0 0.0 0 0.0 -n = 38 100.0 n = 40 100.0 40. There i s only one s i g n i f i c a n t difference i n the s i z e of part-time farms i n the two m u n i c i p a l i t i e s for the 10 to 69 acre c l a s s . Part-time farms i n Langley are larger than those i n Chilliwhack. 2. Land Use The t s t a t i s t i c was used f o r analysing part-time farm land use. Data and r e s u l t s are shown i n Table 7. Only improved grazing showed any s i g n i f i c a n t difference between the two m u n i c i p a l i t i e s with a t value of 2.70 i n d i c a t i n g a s i g n i f i c a n c e at the .01 l e v e l . The l a s t four designations i n Table 7: unimproved grazing, other crops, cleared with no production, and uncleared land, were a l l found to be non-significant i n r e l a t i o n to differences i n acreage between the two m u n i c i p a l i t i e s . The number of obser-vations was very low and may have resulted i n a non-normal dis t r i b u t i o n . 3. Area Improved (Tables 8 and 9) A number of acreage groups were not included i n the analysis of census farm data. A l l categories from 70 to 400 acres and over did not have a normal d i s t r i b u t i o n . The difference i n area Table 7 AVERAGE ACREAGE BY LAND USE CATEGORY - PART-TIME FARMS Land Use Category Both Mu n i c i p a l i t i e s N = 80 Mean Std. Dev. Langley N = 39 Mean Std. Dev. Chilliwhack N = 41 Mean Std. Dev. Improved Grazing 11.16 9.94 13.46 11.74 8.98 7.36 2.70** Unimproved Grazing Other Crops 2.22 1. 89 6.89 6.61 2.56 6.52 0.46 2.01 1.90 3.24 7.36 8. 87 Cleared with No Production 0.82 2.36 1.15 3.25 0.51 0.90 Uncleared Land 2.69 8.13 4.08 8.02 1.31 8.11 TOTAL FARM SIZE 15.57 15.52 20.15 19.18 11.22 9.29 2.57** T a b l e 8 AREA IMPROVED - PART-TIME FARMS Langley Number % C h i l l i w h a c k Both M u n i c i p a l i t i e s Number % Number % 0 acres 1 - 2 acres 3 - 9 acres 10 - 69 acres 70 - 129 acres 130 - 179 acres 180 - 239 acr e s 240 - 399 acres 400 and over TOTAL 2 1 15 21 0 0 0 0 0 39 5.1 2.6 53.9 53.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 2 2 22 15 0 0 0 0 0 41 4.9 4.9 53.7 36.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4 3 37 36 0 0 0 0 0 80 5.0 3.8 46.3 45.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 Table 9 AREA IMPROVED - CENSUS FARMS Langley Number % Chilliwhack Number % Both M u n i c i p a l i t i e s Number % 0 acres 1 - 2 acres 3 - 9 acres 10 - 69 acres 70 - 129 acres 130 - 179 acres 180 - 239 acres 240 - 399 acres 400 and over 47 115 382 539 48 12 6 2 0 4.1 10.0 33.2 46.8 4.2 1.0 0.5 0.2 0.0 28 123 283 477 99 9 8 3 3 2.7 11.9 27.4 46.2 9.6 0.9 0.8 0.2 0.2 75 238 665 1016 147 21 14 5 3 •J . 3. 4 10.9 30.9 46.5 6.7 1.0 0.6 0.2 0.1 2.51** TOTAL 1152 100.0 1033 100.0 2185 100.0 improved between m u n i c i p a l i t i e s i n the three to nine acres group was s i g n i f i c a n t at the .01 l e v e l . This indicates that more of the Langley farm population have improved land i n t h i s bracket than do the farm population i n Chilliwhack. While d i s t r i b u t i o n of the data available for census farms of 1 to 2 and 10 to 69 acres was normal, the difference between muni c i p a l i t i e s of farmers with improved land was not s i g n i f i c a n t . An inspection of Tables 8 and 9 shows some consistancy between the census data and the survey data.. Observed d i f -ferences are f a i r l y small except among 54 percent of Chilliwhack part-time farmers who have three to nine acres of improved land contrasted with 27 percent of the census farm population i n that c l a s s . No s t a t i s t i c a l analysis was performed on the part-time farm data because the frequencies of observations were not high enough to warrant analysis. C . FARM ENTERPRISES 1. Types of Enterprises Five types of farm enterprises were discovered on the part time farms i n the survey. They were: hay, butcher hogs, raspberries, beef c a t t l e and veal calves. A si x t h category was made up of the aggregate of less frequently found enterprises. Due to the very small numbers i n f i v e of the above categories, s t a t i s t i c a l analysis was not performed on these. This leaves only beef c a t t l e where the c r i t e r i o n for normality was met. Differences i n the frequency of t h i s enterprise between munici-p a l i t i e s i s not s i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 or .01 e l v e l . I t was s i g n i f i c a n t at a 10 percent l e v e l , which may be interpreted as i n d i c a t i v e of a considerable difference between the two mu n i c i p a l i t i e s for thi s e n t e r p r i s e . 3 ^ General observations on Table 10 indicate that after beef c a t t l e production, which accounts for 53.8 and 39.0 percent of production i n Langley and Chilliwhack respectively, rasp-berry production i s the next most important s i g l e enterprise. Amongst the part-time farms surveyed, those i n Chilliwhack The value of z calculated accounts f o r approximately 82 percent of the area under the normal curve. Table 10 DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY MAIN FARM ENTERPRISE - PART-TIME FARMS Both Mun i c i p a l i t i e s Langley Chilliwhack Enterprise Number % Number % Number % Hay 4 Butcher Hogs 5 Raspberries 11 Beef C a t t l e 37 Veal Calves 5 Other 18 TOTAL 80 5.0 2 6.3 3 13.8 0 46.3 21 6.3 3 22.5 10 100.0 39 5.1 2 4.9 7.7 2 4.9 0.0 11 26.8 53.8 16 39.0 7.7 2 4.9 25.6 8 19.5 100.0 41 100.0 s i g n i f i c a n t at the .10 l e v e l . accounted f o r a l l the raspberry production with 26.8 percent of the Chilliwhack respondents having t h i s as t h e i r main enterprise. 2. Livestock Enterprises Because of the u n a v a i l a b i l i t y of the standard error for the census data means for census farms, i t was not possible to calc u l a t e t values. Furthermore, the d i s t r i b u t i o n underlying the part-time farm data i s not normal. In view of these l i m i -t a tions, no s t a t i s t i c a l analysis was c a r r i e d out with respect to various l i v e s t o c k enterprises. However, by observation of Table 11, one may conclude that there i s a higher incidence of steer r a i s i n g on part-time farms than i n the census farm popu-l a t i o n . In both hog and sheep production, the part-time farms were w i l l below that of census farms. In general terms, Langley part-time farmers had greater numbers of l i v e s t o c k i n a l l of the categories examined than did those i n Chilliwhack. Table 11 LIVESTOCK - ALL FARMS Cens-us Farms Part-time Farms Both Muni- Both Muni-Langley Chilliwhack c i p a l i t i e s Langley Chilliwhack c i p a l i t i e s (average no. of animals per farm) (average no. of animals per farm) To t a l C a t t l e Steers Pigs Sheep 15.9 1.39 7.06 2.45 24.75 0.68 3.16 0.98 20.11 1.06 5.22 1.76 2.69 2.50 1.53 1.70 0.73 0.00 2.20 1.98 0.77 Number of Farms 1152 1033 2185 39 41 80 49. D. THE PART-TIME FARM OPERATOR AND FAMILY 1. Operator Age For the census farm data, a l l age groups were analysed separately. No s i g n i f i c a n t difference was evident between the two m u n i c i p a l i t i e s on the age of the farm operator. In-spection of Table 12 shows that approximately 54 percent of a l l farm operators i n both m u n i c i p a l i t i e s were'34 to 54 years of age with only 10 percent beyond normal retirement age. Analysis by inspection was performed on the area differences f o r part-time farmers because of the low frequencies of the data within each c e l l . Inspection of Table 13 indicates a very large d i f f e r e n c e between the two m u n i c i p a l i t i e s i n the 35 to 44 age c l a s s . Over 41 percent of the Chilliwhack sample were i n t h i s c l a s s while i n Langley the sample was much more evenly dispersed over a l l age classes and the modal age s l i g h t l y higher i n the 45 to 54 age c l a s s . Inspection of the census farm data and part-time farm data f o r both m u n i c i p a l i t i e s , with respect to operator age, shows very l i t t l e d i f f e r e n c e between the two groups and i t may be i n f e r r e d that the census farmers and part-time farmers are homogeneous with respect to age. Table 12 OPERATOR AGE DISTRIBUTION - CENSUS FARMS Langley Chilliwhack Both M u n i c i p a l i t i e s Number % Number % Number % less than 25 years 11 1.0 10 1.0 21 1.0 25 - 34 years 151 13.1 130 12.6 281 12.9 35 - 44 years 313 27.2 284 27.5 597 27.3 45 - 54 years 308 26.7 295 28.6 603 27.6 55 - 59 years 141 12.2 113 10.9 254 11.6 60 - 64 years 102 8.9 102 9.9 204 9.4 65 - 69 years 67 5.2 62 6.0 129 5.9 70 and over 5 9 5.1 37 3.6 96 4.4 TOTAL 1,152 100.0 1,033 100.0 2,185 100.0 Table 13 OPERATOR AGE DISTRIBUTION - PART-TIME FARMS Langley Chilliwhack Both M u n i c i p a l i t i e s Number % Number % Number % Less than 25 years 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 25 - 34 years 4 10.3 3 7.3 7 8.8 35 - 44 years 8 20.5 17 41.5 25 31.3 45 - 54 years 10 25.6 9 22.5 19 23.7 55 - 59 years 6 15.4 8 19.5 14 17.5 60 - 64 years 5 12.8 2 4.9 7 8.8 65 - 60 years 4 10.3 1 2.4 5 6.3 70 and over 2 5.1 1 2.4 3 3.8 TOTAL 39 100.0 41 100.0 80 100.0 52. 2. Schooling With respect to the number of years of school completed by the part-time farmers surveyed, the r e s u l t s of the area anal-y s i s are not s t r a i g h t forward. Table 14 indicates that only one category of school years completed discriminated between respon-dents of the two m u n i c i p a l i t i e s . In the range 9 to 11 years of school completed, the z value calculated was 1.16. This value accounts for 75 percent of the area under the normal curve. In other words, the n u l l hypothesis would be rejected i n c o r r e c t l y 25 percent of the time. On the basis of t h i s , i t may be said with some degree of caution that the proportion of respondents with at l e a s t 9 years of education and less than 12 years i s somewhat higher i n Langley than i n Chilliwhack. The other ranges of educational l e v e l were not suited for analysis. 3. Previous Farm Experience (Table 15) F u l l y two thi r d s of a l l the part-time farmers surveyed reported that they had never at any time farmed on a f u l l - t i m e basis. The remaining one t h i r d reported that they had farmed f u l l - t i m e . Many of these people had r e t i r e d from f u l l - t i m e farming at a r e l a t i v e l y early age. However, most of these indivuals had not farmed f u l l - t i m e i n the Fraser Valley but rather i n the p r a i r i e provinces. Table 14 DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY YEARS OF SCHOOL COMPLETED - PART-TIME FARMS Langley Chilliwhack Both M u n i c i p a l i t i e s Years of School Number % Number % Number % z Less than 9 8 22.2 16 39 .1 24 31.2 -9 - 1 1 16 44.5 13 31.7 29 37.7 1.16 a 12 10 27. 8 6 14.6 16 20 . 8 -more than 12 °2 5.6 6 14.6 8 10.5 -TOTAL 36 100.0 41 100.0 77 100.0 a Accounts for 75 percent of the area under the normal curve T a b l e 15 RESPONDENTS REPORTING PREVIOUS FULL-TIME FARMING EXPERIENCE PART-TIME FARMS Langley C h i l l i w h a c k Both M u n i c i p a l i t i e s Number % Number % Number % F u l l - T i m e Farming 12 30.8 13 32.5 25 " 31.6 Background No F u l l - T i m e 27 69.2 27 67.5 54 68.4 Farming Background TOTAL 39 100.0 40 100.0 79 100.0 T h e r e w a s n o s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n r e s p o n d e n t s i n C h i l l i w h a c k a n d L a n g l e y o n t h e b a s i s o f p r e v i o u s f u l l - t i m e f a r m i n g e x p e r i e n c e . N e i t h e r w a s t h e r e a n y s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n r e s p o n d e n t s r e p o r t i n g n o f u l l - t i m e f a r m i n g e x p e r i e n c e . T h e t w o p o p u l a t i o n s a p p e a r t o b e h o m o g e n e o u s i n t h i s r e s p e c t . 4. L o c a t i o n o f N o n - F a r m O c c u p a t i o n ( T a b l e 16) O f a l l p a r t - t i m e f a r m e r s r e s p o n d i n g , 1 8 . 8 p e r c e n t c o m m u t e d t o t h e c i t y o f V a n c o u v e r f o r t h e i r m a i n o c c u p a t i o n w h i l e t h e r e m a i n i n g 8 1 . 3 p e r c e n t o f t h e r e s p o n d e n t s w e r e e m p l o y e d a t o t h e r V a l l e y l o c a t i o n s . O f t h e L a n g l e y r e s p o n d e n t s , 38 p e r c e n t c o m m u t e d t o V a n c o u v e r w h i l e o n l y 3 p e r c e n t o f C h i l l i w h a c k r e s p o n d e n t s c o m m u t e d t o V a n c o u v e r . A C h i s q u a r e a n a l y s i s w a s a p p l i e d t o t h e d a t a o n n o n - f a r m o c c u p a t i o n l o c a t i o n . A h i g h l y s i g n i f i c a n t f i g u r e o f X ^ = 1 2 . 8 1 w a s t h e r e s u l t . T h i s f i n d i n g i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e r e i s a v e r y s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n t h e n u m b e r o f p e o p l e i n L a n g l e y a n d C h i l l i w h a c k who l i v e i n t h e s e m u n i c i p a l i t i e s b u t w o r k e i t h e r i n M e t r o p o l i t a n V a n c o u v e r . F r o m t h e d a t a i t c a n b e r e a d i l y s e e n t h a t t h i s d i f f e r e n c e i s d u e t o t h e h i g h p r o p o r t i o n o f L a n g l e y p a r t - t i m e f a r m e r s who g a v e V a n c o u v e r a s t h e i r p l a c e o f n o n - f a r m w o r k a s o p p o s e d t o t h e C h i l l i w h a c k r e s p o n d e n t s who i n d i c a t e d t h e i r p l a c e o f w o r k w a s n o t i n t h e M e t r o r e g i o n b u t i n o t h e r V a l l e y l o c a t i o n s . Table 16 LOCATION OF NON-FARM OCCUPATION - PART-TIME FARMS Location Langley Chilliwhack Both M u n i c i p a l i t i e s Number % Number % Number % Metropolitan Vancouver 11 37.9 2.9 12 18. 8 12.81*** Other V a l l e y Locations 18 62.1 34 97.1 52 81.3 TOTAL 29 100.0 35 100.0 64 100.0 This seems reasonable when the r e l a t i v e distances from Vancouver to Langley and Chilliwhack are considered. Langley and Chilliwhack are approximately 35 and 65 miles east of Vancouver r e s p e c t i v e l y . 5. Work Patterns Respondents with off-farm occupations worked an average of 41 hours per week i n t h e i r main occupation. Both Langley and Chilliwhack respondents worked s i m i l a r hours i n this respect. Analysis indicates that there i s no s i g n i f i c a n t difference between the Langley and Chilliwhack groups for hours worked at an off-farm job. Table 17 shows that the number of hours worked on the farm by both respondent and spouse i s low. Only an average of 12.8 hours was spent i n farm work by the respondent and 19.9 hours by the spouse for both m u n i c i p a l i t i e s . t value of .70 and .20 indicated that there was no s i g n i f i c a n t d ifference between mu n i c i p a l i t i e s with respect to hours worked on-farm. Table 17 AVERAGE HOURS WORKED PER WEEK IN OFF-FARM AND FARM JOBS PART-TIME FARMS Langley Chilliwhack Both M u n i c i p a l i t i e s No. Mean Std. Dev. No. Mean Std. Dev. No. Mean Std. Dev, Off-farm job of respondent 33 40.79 11.49 40 41.52 8.69 73 41.19 9.99 Farm work of respondent 39 11.21 9.30 41 14.33 7.87 80 12.77 8.59 Farm work of spouse 26 20.27 12.74 27 19.59 11.25 53 19.92 11.89 59. E. FINANCIAL ASPECTS 1. Farm Sales For the analysis of the census farms, each class of farm sales receipts was analysed separately. Table 18 indicates a s i g n i f i c a n t difference i n the number of farms reproting sales of less than $2,500 per year between Langley and Chilliwhack farms. Values of z=6.86 f o r t h i s range indicated s i g n i f i c a n c e at the .001 l e v e l i n d i c a t i n g that there are r e l a t i v e l y more census farms i n Langley having sales of $2,500 or l e s s . The diff e r e n c e between the two mu n i c i p a l i t i e s for census farm sales receipts i n the $2,500 to $9,000 range was not s i g -n i f i c a n t while sales receipts of $10,000 and over did show s i g -n i f i c a n t d i f f e r a n c e s . A value of z=7.71 indicated a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e at the .001 l e v e l with the Chilliwhack farmers reporting sales at t h i s l e v e l proportionately more numerous than those i n Langley. No analysis of the part-time farm d i s t r i b u t i o n of sales re-ceipts was attempted for leve l s of sales exceeding $2,500 due to the low frequency of responses i n each range above th i s l e v e l . The re-s u l t s of the analysis on the $2,500 and less range indicate there were not s i g n i f i c a n t differences between mu n i c i p a l i t i e s at even the .05 l e v e l . However, at the .20 l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e there i s an i n d i c a t i o n that "more of the part-time farms sampled i n Langley s e l l l ess than $2,500 worth of produce per year than do the farms sampled i n 60. Table 18 FARM SALES DISTRIBUTION - CENSUS FARMS Langley Chilliwhack Number % Number % z less than $50 0 0.0 0 0.0 $ 50- 249 177 15.4 138 13.4 $ 250- 1,199 326 28.3 207 20.0 $ 1,200- 2,499 167 14.5 107 10.4 Less than $2,500 670 58.2 452 43.8 6.86*** $ 2,500- 3,749 64 4.5 66 6.4 $ 2,750- 4,999 46 4.0 41 4.0 $ 2,500- 4,999 110 9.6 107 10. 4 $ 5,000- 7,499 42 3.7 22 2.1 $ 7,500- 9,999 38 3.3 32 3.1 $5,000- 9,999 80 6.9 54 5.2 $ 6,000-14,999 55 4.8 51 4.9 $15,000-24,999 68 5.9 133 12.9 $25,000-34,999 42 3.7 92 8.9 $35,000-49,999 38 3.3 74 7.2 $50,00 0 and over 87 7.6 70 6.8 $10,000 and over 290 25.2 420 40.7 7.7.*** 61. Table 19 FARM SALES DISTRIBUTION - PART-TIME FARMS Langley Chilliwhack Number % Number % Less than $50 9 23.1 8 19.5 $ 50- 249 3 7.7 4 9.5 $ 250- 1,199 13 33.3 12 29.3 $ 1,200- 2,499 8 20.1 6 14.6 Less than $2,500 33 84.6 30 73.2 1.25a $ 2,500- 3,749 2 5.1 3 7.3 $ 3,750- 4,999 0 0.0 3 7.3 $2,500 - 4,999 2 5.1 6 14.6 -$ 5,000- 7,499 2 5.1 0 0.0 $ 7,500- 9,999 0 0.0 2 4.9 $ 5,000- 9,999 2 5.1 2 4.9 -$10,000-14,999 2 5.1 3 7.3 $15,000-24,999 0 0.0 0 0.0 $25,000-34,000 0 0.0 0 0.0 $35,000-49,000 0 0.0 0 0.0 $50,000 and over 0 0.0 0 0.0 $10,000 and over 2 5.1 3 7.3 a S i g n i f i c a n t at the .20 l e v e l . 62. Chilliwhack. In Table 19 the value of z = 1.25 would indicate a l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e of .20. Inspection of Table 20 shows that over h a l f of the census farms i n both m u n i c i p a l i t i e s had gross farm sales of less than $2,500 while the number of part-time farms i n both areas with t h i s low l e v e l of sales exceeded three quarters of those surveyed. In the farm sales ranges between $2,500 and $10,0 00 l i t t l e d i f f e r e n c e i s noted between the census farm and part-time farm data. However, i n the range $10,000 and over, the census farm data shows 33 percent of the farms to be i n that range while a mere 6 percent of the part-time farmers interviewed had sales i n excess of $10,000. 2. Farm Income Gross farm income of census farms shows that average gross farm income i n Chilliwhack exceeds that of Langley farmers by approximately nine percent. Among the part-time farmers surveyed, the gross farm income of Chilliwhack farmers was $3,617, exactly double that of Langley respondents. Calculations employing the data f o r both m u n i c i p a l i t i e s i n Table 21 shows part-time farm gross incomes as being approximately 17 percent of that of census farms. 63. Table 20 FARM SALES DISTRIBUTION - BOTH MUNICIPALITIES Census Farms Part-Time Farms Number % Number % Less than $50 0 0.0 17 0.0 $ 50- 249 315 14.4 7 8.8 $ 250- 1,199 533 24.4 25 31.3 $ 1,200- 2,499 274 12.5 14 17.5 Less than $2,500 1,122 51.4 63 78. 8 $ 2,500- 3,749 130 6.0 5 6.3 $ 3,750- 4,999 87 4.0 3 3.8 $ 2,500- 4,999 217 9.9 8 10.0 $ 5,000- 7,499 64 2.9 2 2.5 $ 7,500- 9,999 70 3.2 2 2.5 $ 5,000- 9,999 134 6.1 4 5.0 $ 6,000-14,999 106 4.9 5 6.3 $15,000-24,999 201 9.2 0 0.0 $25,000-34,999 134 6.1 0 0.0 $35,000-49,999 112 5.1 0 0.0 $50,000 and over 157 7.2 0 0.0 $10,000 and over 710 33.0 5 6.3 Table 21 AVERAGE FARM INCOME BY SOURCE - PART-TIME FARMS Langley Chilliwhack Both M u n i c i p a l i t i e s Source No. Mean Std. Dev. No. Mean Std. Dev. No. Mean Std. Dev. $ $ $ $ $ $ Gross Farm Income 39 1809 3846 41 3617 8324 80 2735 6559 Gross Margin 38 445 1728 41 2821 7956 79 1862 5920 Perquisites 39 278 137 41 363 464 80 310 208 The value of farm produce consumed i n the home (perquisites) averaged $310 for a l l part-time farms surveyed and $278 and $363 for Langley and Chilliwhack res p e c t i v e l y . Gross margin f o r a l l part-time farms averaged $1,862. This value f o r Langley respondents was $4 45 while i n Chilliwhack the gross margin was approximately s i x times t h i s amount with an average of $2,821. 3. Farm Expenses (Tables 22 and 23) The larg e s t single operating cost for a l l farmers was the purchase of feedstuffs and the o v e r a l l average f o r t h i s item among census farms was $5,116 and $779 for a l l part-time farms surveyed. Langley part-time farm respondents, with t h e i r greater stress on beef c a t t l e production, spent an average of $1,10 7 on feedstuffs i n the year p r i o r to the survey while those part-time farmers i n Chilliwhack spent $466. Likewise, among census farms, those i n Langley spent appreciably more on feedstuffs. Analysis between m u n i c i p a l i t i e s confirmed that there i s a s i g n i f i c a n t difference for both census farm populaiton and 3 3 Gross margin, f o r the purpose of t h i s study, was caluclated by adding the gross farm income and the value of the perqui-s i t e s and subtracting the t o t a l operating expenses. Table 22 AVERAGE FARM OPERATING EXPENSES - CENSUS FARMS Langley Chilliwhack Both M u n i c i p a l i t i e s Source Number Mean Number Mean Number Mean $ $ $ Wages 1152 1301 1033 1466 2185 1379 F e r t i l i z e r 1152 110 1033 335 2185 216 Feedstuffs 1152 6138 1033 3975 2185 5115 Table 23 AVERAGE FARM OPERATING EXPENSES - PART-TIME FARMS Source Langley Mean Std. Dev. N = 39 Chilliwhack Mean Std. Dev. N = 41 Both M u n i c i p a l i t i e s Mean Std. Dev. N = 80 Wages F e r t i l i z e r Feedstuffs Custom Work TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSE 403 1392 68 176 1107 .2 2421 97 133 1677 3144 190 39 466 91 796 407 76 626 185 887 29 4 53 779 94 1226 1013 134 1767 161 2313 .94 1.64* 1.84* 68. part-time farm samples. A value of t =1.64 indicated s i g n i f i -cance at the .05 l e v e l for purchases of feedstuffs by part-time farmers. The second most important operating cost for a l l farmers was wages paid to non-family labour. An average of $l r379 was spent on wages i n both areas by the census farm population and Langley and Chilliwhack part-time farm respondents reported average wage expenditures of $294. Much of the wage labour employed by part-time farmers i n Langley was casual labour used p r i m a r i l y for fencing and b u i l d i n g r e p a i r s while in. Chilliwhack, most labour was employed to harvest the raspberry crop. Analysis of the diff e r e n c e i n wages paid by part-time farmers i n the two m u n i c i p a l i t i e s showed there was no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between these two areas. F e r t i l i z e r purchases both by the census.farms and the part-time farm sample were comparatively low r e l a t i v e to other oper-ating expenses. The former groups spent an average of $216 and the l a t t e r $53 on t h i s item. There was no s i g n i f i c a n t difference i n f e r t i l i z e r purchases between the two m u n i c i p a l i t i e s as evidenced by a value of t = .94. Total operating expenses of part-time farmers was found to be s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t between the two m u n i c i p a l i t i e s . However, these r e s u l t s are influenced to a large degree by two very high reported expenses o r i g i n a t i n g i n the Langley data. 4. C a p i t a l Value of Land and Buildings Table 24 indicates that the difference between the value of land and buildings for part-time farmers i n Langley and Chilliwhack i s s i g n i f i c a n t at a 10 percent p r o b a b i l i t y l e v e l . Of the 39 farmers interviewed i n Langley, only 21 f e l t confident about estimating the value of t h e i r property while i n Chilliwhack only 11 out of 41 respondents could give such an estimate. The r e s u l t s are further d i s t o r t e d by the wide variance of values of the farms. Three of the 21 part-time farmers interviewed i n Langley, valued t h e i r land and buildings at over $100,000. One was valued at $225,000. The census farm population means for the value of land and buildings shows very l i t t l e difference between the two areas. Table 24 AVERAGE CAPITAL VALUE OF LAND AND BUILDINGS - ALL FARMS Langley Chilliwhack Both M u n i c i p a l i t i e s Number Mean Number Mean Number Mean t Census Farm Population 1,152 74,926 1,033 72,015 2,185 73,550 Part-Time Farm Respondents 21 58,904 11 32,000 32 49,656 1.47' s i g n i f i c a n t at the .10 l e v e l . '71. F. REASONS FOR PART-TIME FARMING Respondents were asked t o l i s t , i n o r d e r of importance, what they f e l t to be f a c t o r s which caused them to o p e r a t e a farm w h i l e working a t a job o f f - f a r m . The primary and secondary reasons are g i v e n i n T a b l e s 25 and 26 The l a r g e s t s i n g l e reason g i v e n f o r p a r t - t i m e farming was t h a t the respondents enjoyed having a farm and t h i s was p r i m a r i l y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h a e s t h e t i c s and r e c r e a t i o n . For a l l farms s u r -veyed, 27 p e r c e n t of the respondents gave t h i s as the main r e a s o n f o r farming and 36 p e r c e n t as a second most important r e a s o n f o r p a r t - t i m e farming. These responses were f a i r l y con-s i s t e n t f o r both m u n i c i p a l t i t i e s . The second most f r e q u e n t main reason r e p o r t e d was t h a t p a r t -time farming was a means of supplementing o f f - f a r m income. T h i s r e a s o n was g i v e n by 24 p e r c e n t of a l l p a r t - t i m e farm respondents and was g i v e n by 17 p e r c e n t as a second most important reason. T h i s response was f a i r l y e v e n l y d i s t r i b u t e d a c r o s s both m u n i c i p a l i t i e s . T h i r t e e n p e r c e n t of a l l respondents surveyed r e p o r t e d t h a t they o p e r a t e d a farm because i t p r o v i d e d a p l e a s a n t environment f o r r a i s i n g a f a m i l y . T h i s reason was most important f o r 24 p e r c e n t of the C h i l l i w h a c k respondents but f o r o n l y 3 p e r c e n t Table 25 DISTRIBUTION OF MAIN REASONS GIVEN FOR PART-TIME FARMING Langley Chilliwhack Both M u n i c i p a l i t i e s Reason Number % Number % Number % A. Economic Supplement income 9 24.3 9 23.7 18 24.0 As an investment 2 5.4 3 7.9 5 6.7 Reduce municipal tax 2 5.4 1 2.6 3 4.0 Guard against complete - 0 0.0 2 5.3 2 2.7 loss of income B. Non-Economic Enjoy having a farm 11 29.7 9 23.7 20 26.6 Pleasant family environment 1 2.7 9 23.7 10 13.3 To get into farming f u l l - t i m e 6 16.2 2 5..'3 8 10.7 Have always farmed 1 2.7 0 0.0 1 1.3 Other 5 13.5 3 7.9 8 10.7 TOTAL 37 100.0 38 100.0 75 100.0 Table 26 DISTRIBUTION OF SECONDARY REASONS GIVEN FOR PART-TIME FARMING Reason Langley Number % Chilliwhack Number i Both M u n i c i p a l i t i e s Number % A. Economic Supplement income As an investment Reduce municipal tax Guard against complete loss of income Reduce taxable income 4 1 2 0 1 13.8 3.4 6.9 0.0 3.4 6 2 0 1 1 20.0 6.7 0.0 3.3 3.3 10 3 2 1 2 16.9 5.1 3.4 1.7 3.4 B. Non-Economic Enjoy having a farm Pleasant family environment To get into farming f u l l time To prepare for retirement Other 0 3 31.0 17. 2 13.8 0.0 10.3 12 2 0 40.0 20.0 0.0 6.7 0.0 21 11 4 2 3 35.6 18.6 6.8 3.4 5.1 TOTAL 29 100 .0 30 100.0 59 100.0 of the respondents i n Langley. This reason was given frequently as a second most important reason and accounted for -19 percent of a l l respondents and was f a i r l y consistant f o r both m u n i c i p a l i t i e s . G SUMMARY OF FINDINGS This study has examined part-time farming as i t r e l a t e s to the census farm population and has examined two areas where part-time farming i s prevalent. I t has been one of the major purposes to analyse, s t a t i s -t i c a l l y where possible, the degree of homogeneity between the t o t a l population of what are defined as census farms and a alrge sub-set of t h i s population which have been defined as part-time farms. The other major purpose has been to examine the homogeneity of part-time farms between two areas: one on the urban fringe of Metropolitan Vancouver, within easy commuting distance of the c i t y , and the other, a predominantly r u r a l area beyond reasonable commuting range to the City of Vancouver. S i g n i f i c a n t area differences which were evidenced i n the study for both census farms and part-time farms were: 1. The average s i z e of farms i n Langley tend to be larger than those i n Chilliwhack and the average area of im-proved land per farm i s larger on Langley farms. 76. 2. There are more beef c a t t l e raised per farm i n Langley than i n Chilliwhack. 3. There are more Langley farms with farm sales less than $2,500 than i n Chilliwhack and more Chilliwhack farms with sales of over $10,000. 4. Expenditures on feedstuffs per farm are much higher i n Langley than i n Chilliwhack. S i g n i f i c a n t differences which were i n evidence by part-time farmers alone were: 1. Langley part-time farmers have the greatest amount of improved grazing land per farm. 2. Part-time farmers i n Langley produce more steers per farm than part-time farmers i n Chilliwhack. 3. Langley part-time farmers are s l i g h t l y older than t h e i r Chilliwhack counterparts. Chilliwhack part-time farmers are heavily concentrated i n the 35 to 44 year range whereas Langley farmers are f a i r l y evenly d i s -persed throughout a l l age ranges. 4. Langley part-time farmers have had a s l i g h t l y higher l e v e l of education. 5. Average gross farm sales per farm were considerably higher i n Chilliwhack. 6. Langley had a larger proportion of farms with farm sales of less than $2,500. The difference i n the f i n a n c i a l aspects between the part-time farms and census farms was quite evident for a l l the variables analysed. The d i s t r i b u t i o n of farm sales for both groups indicated that there was no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e i n the number of farms with gross sales of less than $2,500. However, i t should be remembered that t h i s gross farm sales class i n the census farm group probably includes a l l the part-time farms i n the survey group. Hence, i n comparing the two, there are some d i s t o r t i o n s . I t i s i n the higher ranges of the farm sales d i s t r i b u t i o n where the differences between the two groups becomes evident. Thirty-three percent of census farms had farm sales of over $10,000 i n 1971 i n both of the areas studied while a mere six percent of the part-time farms surveyed were i n t h i s range. S i m i l a r l y , the average gross farm income of part-time farmers surveyed was only 17 percent of that indicated by 1971 census farms. As might be expected, census farmers have higher operating expenses, e s p e c i a l l y for animal feedstuffs where expenditures were approximately seven times that of the part-time group. Also wage b i l l s f or non-family farm labour and f e r t i l i z e r purchases were higher among the census group with expenditures of four and 78. one h a l f and t h r e e times as much as t h a t of p a r t - t i m e farmers r e s p e c t i v e l y . These f i n d i n g s i n d i c a t e a l a c k o f homogeneity among both p a r t - t i m e farms and census farms and i t i s e v i d e n t t h a t r a t h e r a r b i t r a r y d e f i n i t i o n s o f p a r t - t i m e farming which are based on s i z e and o p e r a t o r s ' o f f - f a r m work o r numbers o f animals per acre are not adequate. Furthermore, because o f the l a c k o f homogeneity amongst a l l farmers, i t i s d i f f i c u l t t o d i f f e r e n t i a t e between groups. Other than on the b a s i s o f farm s a l e s as a measure of e f f i c i e n c y , i t i s q u e s t i o n a b l e as t o whether farmers should be d i s t i n g u i s h e d on the b a s i s o f any o t h e r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s f o r purposes o f p r o v i n c i a l farm p o l i c i e s or m u n i c i p a l farm p o l i c i e s . Chapter V I I I CONCLUSIONS The f i n d i n g s of t h i s study have been grouped i n t o four s e c t i o n s : p h y s i c a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , farm e n t e r p r i s e s , the 34 operator and h i s f a m i l y , and f i n a n c i a l aspects. A general overview of these four aspects of farming which came out of t h i s study shows t h a t only on the b a s i s of f i n a n c i a l aspects can p a r t - t i m e farms be r e a d i l y d i s t i n g u i s h e d from census farms. The study has e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t , w h i l e there i s l i t t l e d i f f e r e n c e i n the p a t t e r n of farm s i z e between census and p a r t -time farms, there are c o n s i d e r a b l e d i f f e r e n c e s i n terms of income and expenditures. Therefore, i t i s f e l t t h a t the only r e a l d i s t i n c t i o n of economic importance i s i n terms of income and t h a t other f a c t o r s such as s i z e of farm, whether or not the operator has an o f f - f a r m j o b , and other s o c i a l aspects, are not good c r i t e r i a f o r d i s t i n g u i s h i n g who i s and who i s not a bone-f i d e farmer. A n a l y s i s of d i f f e r e n c e s a t t r i b u t a b l e to l o c a t i o n , i n terms of d i f f e r e n c e s between farms i n Langley and farms i n C h i l l i w h a c k , P a r t i c u l a r s on the operator and h i s f a m i l y , w i t h the exception of age, were not a v a i l a b l e from the 1971 census and no analy-s i s was p o s s i b l e . However, from a farm p o l i c y standpoint, i t i s debatable whether personal and s o c i a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the operator and h i s f a m i l y are r e l i a b l e g u i d e l i n e s . 80. in d i c a t e d that several differences do occur which were s i g n i f i -c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from a s t a t i s t i c a l standpoint. However, the usefulness of such analysis should perhaps be thought of i n terms of emphasizing the lack of homogeneity of farms, not only among part-time farms but also census farms which i s l a r g e l y a r e s u l t of such factors as proximity to markets and varying land c a p a b i l i t y . On the basis of these findings, i t i s evident that rather a r b i t r a r y d e f i n i t i o n s of part-time farming which are based on s i z e and operators off-farm work or numbers of animals per acre, as are currently used, for example, by S t a t i s t i c s Canada and municipal governments, are not adequate. Furthermore, because of the lack of homogeneity amongst a l l farmers, i t i s d i f f i c u l t to d i f f e r e n t i a t e between groups. Other than on the b a s i s of farm sales as a measure of productivity, i t i s question-able as to whether farmers should be distinguished on the basis of any other c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s for purposes of p r o v i n c i a l farm p o l i c i e s or municipal farm p o l i c i e s . 81. BIBLIOGRAPHY Bertrand, A l v i n , Research on Part-Time Farming i n the United States, i n Sociologia Ruralls,([7 (3)], 1967). Dominion Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s , Census of Canada, Agriculture;  B r i t i s h Columbia, (Ottawa, 1966) Duvick, R.D., Part-Time Farming i n Two Areas of Southern  Michigan, (Michigan A g r i c u l t u r a l Experimental Station, Quarterly B u l l , 49 (1) Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan 1966) Fuguitt, Glen V., Career Patterns of Part-Time Careers and Their Contact with the A g r i c u l t u r a l Extn-sion Service i n Rural Sociology,(30 (1), 1965). Ferguson, George A., S t a t i s t i c a l Analysis i n Psychology and  Education, (McGraw-Hill, Toronto, 1966). Gasson, Ruth, Occupational Immobility of Small Farmers, (Farm Economics Branch, Cambridge University, Occasional Papers No. 13, Cambridge, 19 69). Gasson, Ruth, Some Economic C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of Part-Time Farming i n B r i t a i n , i n Journal of A g r i c u l t u r a l Economics, (18 (1), 1967). Harrison, A. , The Farms of Buckinghamshire, (University of Reading, Department of A g r i c u l t u r a l Economics, 1966) Hoover, H. & Crecink, J . , Part-Time Farming, i t s Role and  Prospects i n the C l a y - H i l l s Area of M i s s i s s i p p i , ( M i s s i ssipp i A g r i c u l t u r a l Experiment Station, B u l l No. 627, State College, M i s s i s s i p p i , 1961). Howell-Jones, G.I., "The Urbanization of the Fraser Valley" i n Lower Fraser Valley (Siemens, A.H. (ed.) Tantalus Research Limited, Vancouver, 1966) 8 2 . Loomis, Ralph A., A P r o f i l e of Part-Time Farming i n the  United States. (Michigan State University A g r i c u l t u r a l Experimental S t a t i o n , Research Report #15, East Lansing, Michigan, 1965.) Loomis, Ralph A., Farmers i n the Nonfarm Labor Market (Michigan State University A g r i c u l t u r a l Experimental Station Research Report No. 24, East Lansing, Michigan, 1963). Sargent, Charles, Part-Time Farming i n Southeastern Indiana (Purdue University A g r i c u l t u r a l Experimental Station, Research B u l l . No. 794, Lafayette, 1965). United States Bureau of the Census, United States Census  of A g r i c u l t u r e , (Washington, D.C.) United States Department of Agr i c u l t u r e , Part-Time Farming, (Farmers B u l l e t i n No. 2178, Washington, D.C, 1961). 83. APPENDIX I MUNICIPALITY OF LANGLEY  MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR FARM LAND CLASSIFICATION Basic Rules of Thumb;- THE SIZE OF OPERATION NEEDED TO QUALIFY. (This does not r e f e r to what the land w i l l produce) (1) Stock Raising (c a t t l e & horses) 1 head per acre (This w i l l r e f l e c t a Net return to the property of approximately $50 to $75 per acre) Just going out and buying enough animals to come up to the one head per acre would not be considered unless adequate housing and feeding accommodation i s also provided. We are t a l k i n g about a farming u n i t . (2) Sheep 3 ewes per acre - This represents a crop of 5 lambs and the wool. A net return of approximately $50 per acre. Propert accommodation i s also needed. (3) Mink - 250 Minimum. (4) Chickens (layers) for market from 2,000 and up (hatching eggs) Minimum on 5 acres of 400 to 500 ($2,00 per b i r d Net return to owner) (5) B r o i l e r s : Most b r o i l e r operators w i l l be on a quota and having t h i s would q u a l i f y . 84. (6) Strawberries and Small F r u i t : On small acreages a minimum of 25 percent of the To t a l Acreage on larger holdings 18 to 20 percent i n f r u i t . (7) Hay: A minimum of 75 percent of acreage i n actual hay production: Must be a c t i v e l y farmed, i . e . : proper f e r t i l -i z a t i o n program - drainage etc. (2 to 3 tons per acre) Just holding the land and s e l l i n g wild hay as standing crop or on share basis without the c u l t i v a t i n g - r e p l a n t i n g program would not q u a l i f y . Properly u t i l i z e d the hay would or should return Net to owner $50 to $75 per acre per year. (8) Pigs: Areas f o r piggeries have been established and once operator has complied to Public Health standards for b u i l d -ings and i s i n operation c l a s s i f i c a t i o n would be allowed. By-Law allows 4 pigs without going into piggery standards: 4 pigs on 5 acres, would not c l a s s i f y . Usually t h i s type operation i s i n conjunction with beef r a i s i n g and the combin-ation of stock and pigs would be considered on the r u l e of thumb of 1 head per acre or $50 to $75 return per acre. (9) Leased Land: Normally land leased to a bonafide farmer and i s used i n conjunction with his operation w i l l c l a s s i f y . However, where the lessee i s not ac t u a l l y renting but just making a p a r t i a l use of the land, c l a s s i f i c a t i o n would not be granted. Our ru l e of thumb would apply, i . e . Net return to the owner 85. of $50 to $75 per acre per year. There have been many cases of new owners, (purchasing on speculation or at l e a s t not for t h e i r own immediate use), who allow a neighbor to run a few head of stock or take the hay and expect c l a s s i f i c a t i o n . Unless the neighbor a c t i v e l y uses t h i s land, to a degree as great as the "rules of thumb", c l a s s i f i c a t i o n would not be allowed. A proper lease showing the minimum net return i s suggested. The owner would then be assured that the lessee would a c t i v e l y use the land. (10) Dairying: A l l operators milking and s e l l i n g on either Non Quota or Quota market could c l a s s i f y . This industry by i t s own endeavours has ruled out the borderline operator. (11) The operation which was once a bonafide farm and i s now gradually phasing out farm operations (usually due to age or sickness factors) would be allowed a phasing out period of about 3 to 5 years but would not q u a l i f y beyond t h i s point i f the minimum "rule of thumb" standards are no longer met. 8 6 . MUNICIPALITY OF CHILLIWHACK 3 4 . MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR FARM LAND CLASSIFICATION I. Basic 'Requirements 1. Generally, the minimum parcel s i z e that may q u a l i f y for farm status i s 5 acres. However, parcels of 2-5 acres w i l l be considered i f more than half of the earned income of the operator i s received from the sale of farm produce produced on his land. I I . Secondary Requirements 2. Stock Raising Either 20 percent of the land holding should be used for t h i s purpose or, a l t e r n a t i v e l y , a minimum of 5.acres cleared and seeded - whichever i s greatest. Land w i l l usually be assessed as farmland i f there i s a minimum of 1 head of c a t t l e per acre. 3. Sheep Three ewes per acre plus "proper" accommodation. 4. Chickens Layers - a minimum of 2000 laying b i r d s . B r o i l e r s - Small operations cannot e x i s t due to the quota requirements which, e f f e c t i v e l y , eliminates small operators. 34. The Municipality of Chilliwack's requirements for farm land c l a s s i f i c a t i o n are largely derived from those of . Langley Municipality. Furthermore, several meetings of the r u r a l assessors i n the Fraser Valley have been c a l l e d i n an attempt to es t a b l i s h uniformity between m u n i c i p a l i t i e s with respect to requirements f o r farm c l a s s i f i c a t i o n . 8 G a 5. Mink 250 minimum. 6. P i g s C h i l l i w h a c k has adapted Langley M u n i c i p a l i t y ' s requirement f o r p i g g e r i e s to q u a l i f y f o r farm assessment. 7. Small F r u i t s The requirement i s t h a t a minimum of 20 p e r c e n t of the p a r c e l s h o u l d be producing s m a l l f r u i t s . 8. Hay P r o d u c t i o n A minimum of 70 p e r c e n t of the p a r c e l s i z e s hould be i n hay p r o d u c t i o n . There should be an a c t i v e f e r t i l i z a t i o n and drainage program f o r land under hay p r o d u c t i o n to q u a l i f y f o r farm assessment. 87. APPENDIX II INTERVIEW SCHEDULE A Study of Part-Time Farming i n the Fraser Valley The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia Department of A g r i c u l t u r a l Economics Respondent's Name Respondent's Number " Location T e l . No. Data Check 88. 1. Sex of household head. 1. Male 2. Female 2. What i s your marital status? 1. Single 2. Married 3. Widowed, divorced, or separated 3. What i s your age: 1. 21-30 2. 31-40 3. 41-50 4. 51-60 5. 61-70 6. over 70 4. How many years of schooling did you complete? 1. 5 or less 2. 6-8 3. 9-11 4. 12 5. 13-15 6. degree or above 5. Did you have any t r a i n i n g since you l e f t secondary school? IF YES, what were you trained in? 6. Does your spouse have any p a r t i c u l a r s k i l l s or training? IF YES, what i s he/she trained in? 7. What i s your spouse's age? 8. Do you have any ch i l d r e n l i v i n g at home? IF YES, 1. How many are not yet of school age? 2. How many are attending school? (a) primary (b) secondary 3. How many have completed school and are l i v i n g at home? 8 9 . 9 . How long have you l i v e d i n t h i s municipality? 1. Less than 1 yr, 2. 1-5 yrs. 3. 6-10 yr s . 4. 11-20 yr s . 5. 21-30 yrs. 6. A l l of l i f e • 10. Where d i d you l i v e before coming to t h i s municipality? 1. Urban, outside Fraser Valley 2. Rural, outside Fraser V a l l e y 3. Urban, Fraser V a l l e y 4. Rural, Fraser V a l l e y IF RURAL LOWER MAINLAND, 11. Were you ever engaged s o l e l y i n farming as a f u l l - t i m e occupation? IF YES, 1. How long ago was t h i s . 2. Where did you farm f u l l - t i m e ? 1.2. How many acres of this u n i t do you and "your family 1. rent? 2. own? 13. Do you, or any members of thi s household own or rent any other land i n thi s municipality or neighbouring municipality? IF YES, 1. How many acres? 2. What do you use i t for? ' 14. Of a l l the acres you own and rent: 1. How many acres are used for grazing or f o r producing hay or silage? 1.improved 2.unimproved 2. How many acres are used i n other crops? , 3. How many acres are not used i n a g r i c u l t u r a l production? 1. cleared 2. not.cleared 15. Do you rent land to others? 90. IF YES, 1. How many acres have you rented out? 2. Do you know what this land i s being used for? IF YES, for what purpose? 16. Has the acreage of the land you operate changed i n the l a s t 5 years? IF YES, 1. By how much did i t change? 2. What caused th i s change? a. buying land? b. s e l l i n g land c. renting i n d. renting out e. Other (specify)_ 17. What i s your main occupation (including retirement)? 18. How many hours do you work at th i s occupation each week? IF ANSWER TO #16 IS "FARMING" PROCEED TO #22 19. Are you self-employed i n this occupation? 20. How long have you been working i n this occupation? IF LESS THAN 1 YEAR, 1. What was your previous occupation? 2. How long were you working at that occupation? 21. Where i s your present occupation located? 22. How much time do you spend t r a v e l l i n g (both ways) to your place of work each day? 23. Do you have a second occupation? IF YES,1. What do you do i n this occupation? 2. How many hours do you work at this occupation each week? 91. IF ANSWER TO #23 IS "FARMING" PROCEED TO #28 IF ANSWER TO #23 IS " NO " PROCEED TO #29 24. Are you self-employed i n this occupation? 25. How long have you been working at this occupation? IF LESS THAN 1 YEAR, 1. What was your previous occupation? 2. How long were you working at that occupation? 26. Where i s your rpesent second occupation located? 27. How much time do you spend t r a v e l l i n g (both ways) to t h i s job each day? 28. Do you have any other occupations? IF YES, specify, 1. Type of work 2. Hours of work 3. Location of work 29. Have you been unemployed or out of work during the past year? IF YES, 1. What time of year was i t ? 2. What was the reason for this? 3. How long were you out of work? 30. Does your spouse work o f f the farm? IF YES, 1. What does he/she do? 2. How many hours a week does he/she work? 3. Where i s his/her job located? 31. Does your spouse work on the farm? IF YES, approximately how many hours per week? IF NO CHILDREN OR RELATIVES OF WORKING AGE LIVE IN HOUSEHOLD, PROCEED TO #34 (see #8) 92. 32. Does anyone else l i v i n g i n your household help on the farm? IF YES, approximately how many hours per week? 33. Do any other members of this household have jobs? IF YES, 1. What type of work? 2. Where i s the job located? 3. How many hours per week does he/she work? 34. What was your income from sources other than what you earned from your farm l a s t year? 1. 1st off-farm job 2. 2nd off-farm job 3. Other job 4. Spouse's income 5. Other dependents 6. Pension 7. Welfare payments 8. Workmen's Compensation 9. Custom work and machine r e n t a l 10. Other sources (rent, dividends, etc.) 35. What was the value of your gross farm sales l a s t year? 36. What was your net farm income l a s t year? 37. W i l l you produce any farm products for sale t h i s year? 93. 38. What i s the value of produce grown or reared by you and consumed i n the household each year? 1. Approximate t o t a l value? 2. Approximately how much: a. m i l k d . eggs b. butter e. vegetables c. beef f. other 39. What i s the main farm product you well (that i s , the product from which you obtain the greatest return) 40. Approximately how many acres/head of this product do you produce i n an average year? 41. What sort of gross returns did you get from t h i s produce l a s t year? 1. per acres CASH OR PHYSICAL 2. i n t o t a l YIELD 42. What were the other most important enterprises on your farm l a s t year? 43. How many acres/head of these products do you• produce i n a normal year? 44. What sort of y i e l d or gross return did you obtain? 45. Which month or months are you busiest on the farm? 46. Approximately how much hired labour do you employ during the busy period (number or cost)? 47. What was your t o t a l farm wage b i l l l a s t year? 48. What was the t o t a l cost OR amount of f e r t i l i z e r you applied l a s t year (excl. lime)? 49. What was the t o t a l cost of feedstuffs you purchased l a s t year? 9 4 . 50. What was the t o t a l cost of chemical sprays and dusts you purchased l a s t year? 51. What was the cost of renting machinery l a s t year? 52. What was your expenditure on custom work l a s t year? 53. What other major operating expenses did you have l a s t year? (specify) 54. What major machinery do you own and how old i s i t ? 1. tractor ' yrs, 2. baler ' yrs, 3. spray r i g ' yrs 4. truck (larger than 1 ton) ' yrs 5. other (specify) y r s 55. In the past 5 years, how much did you invest i n : 1. Eencing '$_ 2. Ditches $z_ 3. Clearing '$_ 4. Buildings $ IF PART-TIME FARMING MORE THAN 5 YEARS, PROCEED TO #57. RANK IN REASONS IN ORDER OF IMPORTANCE. 56. What were your reasons f o r getting into farming while at the same time working o f f your holding? 1. To supplement income 2. Took over farm from parents 3. Intended to get into f u l l - t i m e farming 4. Enjoyed way of l i f e 5. Pleasant environment for r a i s i n g a family 6. As an investment 7. To reduce the burden of property tax 8. Other (specify) '  COMMENT: 9 5 . 5 7 . What are your present reasons for farming while at the same time working o f f your holding? RANK IN ORDER OF IMPORTANCE 1. To supplement income 2 . Intend to get into f u l l - t i m e farming . 3. Enjoy way of l i f e 4. Pleasant place for r a i s i n g a family 5 . As an investment 6. To reduce the burden of property tax. 7 . Other (specify) COMMENT: IF RESPONDENT HAS BEEN A PART-TIME FARMER FOR MORE THAN 5 YEARS, PROCEED TO #61 (see #20 or # 2 5 ) . 5 8 . What was your t o t a l income before you started farming on a part-time basis (as opposed to e n t i r e l y f u l l - t i m e or e n t i r e l y non-farm)? 1. Full - t i m e farm net income $ 2 . T o t a l non-farm income $ 3. Spouse's income $ 4. Other dependents $ 5 . Other (specify) T o t a l (approximate) $ IF RESPONDENT HAS LIVED IN PRESENT LOCATION FOR MORE THAN 5 YEARS, PROCEED TO #61 5 9 . Has your standard of l i v i n g changed since you moved here? IF YES, i n what way? 96. 60. Do you think, there i s a difference i n your l i v i n g costs since you moved from your previous location? IF YES, how have these costs changed f o r : a. housing increased decreased same_ b. food increased decreased same c. Property taxes increased decreased same_ d. Other __________ increased decreased same ENTER AMOUNT ($) OR CHECK ( ) ABOVE WHERE APPLICABLE 61. What would you estimate the value of this holding to be everything included? 1. house $ 2. buildings and land $ Tota l $_ 62. What was the pr i c e you paid for thi s holding? $ 63. What year d i d you buy thi s holding? $ 64. What do you expect the value of your property w i l l be i n f i v e years? 65. Is there a mortgage or agreement for sale on any part of the land and buildings you own? IF YES, how much 66. What do you intend to do with your holding i n the next 5 years? 1. f u l l - t i m e farming 2. part-time farming 3. as a place of residence only 4. vacate the holding 5. other 9 7 . IF YES TO #66.4, Why do you plan to vacate t h i s holding? IF RESPONDENT HAS NO "UNIMPROVED" LAND (see #14) PROCEED TO #68. 67. What do you intend to do with the land that i s not i n crops or pasture at present? 1. hold as an investment 2. c l e a r and c u l t i v a t e 3. use as i s for woodlot, recreation,etc 4. pass i t on to ch i l d r e n 5. s e l l i t 6. improved unimproved pasture 7. other (specify) 68. What do you f e e l to be the main problems a f f e c t i n g you as a farmer? 1. high property taxes 2. zoning r e s t r i c t i o n s 3. requirements for sub-division 4. lack of c a p i t a l for improvements 5. lack of knowledge on how to make best use of land 69 How many contacts would you have i n a normal year with the d i s t r i c t a g r i c u l t u r a l i s t or other B.C.D.A. personnel? 70. During the next f i v e years, do you have any d e f i n i t e plans to make changes i n your farm operation? IF YES, what kind of changes do you hope to make? 71. Are there any other enterprises (crops of livestock) which you have considered i n your farm operation? 98. IF YES, what are these enterprises? 1. 4. 72. Do you belong to any type of organization for marketing your a g r i c u l t u r a l produce? IF YES, what i s the name of the organization(s)? 1. 2. 3. 73. Is there a quota r e s t r i c t i o n on any of your farm enterprises? IF YES, 1. what i s the enterprise? 2. what i s the li m i t a t i o n ? 74. Do you use the "Farmers and Fishermans" tax return form? 75. Who prepares your tax return? 76. Have you, since you commenced farming, been obliged to deduct any farm losses from your t o t a l income (farm and non-farm) for tax purposes? _ . 7 , IF YES, how many years out of the past 5 have you done this? _ 77. Do you deduct the in t e r e s t on the mortgage on your holdings from t o t a l income for income tax purposes? _ 78. Do you use a 5 year average of your income for tax purposes? 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0101237/manifest

Comment

Related Items