An Evaluation of Goal Hierarchies for Small Farm Operators

Harper, Wilmer M.; Eastman, Clyde

doi:10.2307/1239774

Cited by 68 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Arizona ranch prices remained constant between 1961 and 1971, maintaining an unexplained, almost constant opportunity cost above a ranch's value in use (Smith and Martin 1972). These results are supported for small, medium, and large ranches across the west (Harper and Eastman 1980, Young and Shumway 1991, Fowler and Gray 1988, Workman 1986). This suggests that profit maximization is not the primary goal of public land ranchers.…”

Section: Conceptual Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 79%

“…Perceived goals and objectives are strongly tied to whether or not profit maximization is the primary goal for continuing in ranching. Both Bartlett et al (1989) and Smith and Martin (1972) Much past work has shown that as dependence on agricultural income increases, the likelihood that the farmer or rancher is a profit maximizes increases (Young and Shumway 1991, Smith and Martin 1972, Biswas et al 1984, Harper and Eastman 1980, and Birkenfeld 1994. Conversely, the lower the dependence on agricultural income, the more likely an agricultural producer will be in the industry for consumptive reasons (Smith and Martin 1972, Biswas et al 1984, Harper and Eastman 1980, and Birkenfeld 1994.…”

Section: Selection Of Rancher Attributesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Classifying federal public land grazing permittees

Gentner¹,

Tanaka²

2002

REM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study identifies the characteristics and attitudes of public land ranchers. Data from a random survey of 2,000 U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management grazing permittees (53.5% response rate) were cluster analyzed and 8 distinct groups of ranchers were identified. Each cluster differed with respect to why they were in ranching and how they would respond to public land policy changes related to grazing fees, grazing reductions, and changes in grazing season. Profit motivation for being in ranching was found to be a relatively low objective for all 8 types of ranchers. Washington to 77% in Nevada. The BLM and the USFS manage these lands to provide timber, grazing, recreation and mineral production, among other goods and services.Approximately 85% of federal land is grazed by domestic livestock (CAST 1996). The 2 management agencies administer 29,925 grazing permits across the west. These permits cover approximately 21.6 million federal animal unit months (AUMs) of grazing (CAST 1996). Grazing permit holders account for over half of the commercial beef cattle in these 11 western states (CAST 1996). Levels of yearlong dependence on public forage vary across the West: some ranches utilize federal lands for aThe authors would like to thank the USDA Fund for Rural America for funding this research through the grant "Western Regional Evaluation of Social and Economic Impacts of Public Land Policy." We would also like to thank members of Western Regional Research Project 192, "Rural Communities and Public Lands in the West: Impacts and Alternatives" for reviewing survey drafts and providing boundless support. We would especially like to thank the public land ranchers who took the time to fill out and return the survey form.Oregon impacto que tiepen los cambios en las politicas del manejo de terrenos comunales federales relacionados con las cuotas de pastoreo, la reduccon de las areas de apacentamiento y los cambios en las estaciones de pastoreo sobre la rentabilidad financiera global de la explotaciones. Los resultados indicaron que la ganancia monetaria no es el objetivo principal de los productores que explotan terrenos comunales federales. large part of their seasonal grazing capacity and some ranches, in areas where yearlong grazing is possible, depend on federal lands for most, if not all, AUMs of grazing capacity.In recent times, the use of public lands for non-consumptive uses, such as recreation and preservation, has increased dramatically. In the 1980s, visitor days on USFS lands increased by approximately 50% (CAST 1996). Also, some individuals that don't actively use public land have become advocates of preservation of these lands for environmental reasons. These 2 new and growing groups are typically from urban areas and are much more active and vocal than urbanites from the past regarding rural land use matters. Generally, these new activists feel nonconsumptive resource uses, such as recreation and preservation, should be given higher weight than consumptive uses such as grazing, timb...

show abstract

Section: Conceptual Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 79%

Section: Selection Of Rancher Attributesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Classifying federal public land grazing permittees

Gentner¹,

Tanaka²

2002

REM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…1 Although a few studies have examined reasons for entering farming, several have examined farmer goals, postulated to be closely related to reasons for entering farming (Gasson 1973;Harper and Eastman 1980;Patrick et al 1983;Coughenour and Swanson 1988;Fairweather and Keating 1994;Willock et al 1999;Bergevoet et al 2004;Basarir and Gillespie 2006), many showing family and/or environmental goals as highly important to farmers. Goals considered have varied, ranging from maximizing profit, having leisure time, providing family farm experiences, maintaining land, minimizing debt, etc.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Off-farm employment and reasons for entering farming as determinants of production enterprise selection in US agriculture

Gillespie¹,

Mishra²

2011

Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In today's agriculture, farmers consider off-farm employment and lifestyle goals in complex ways to select production enterprises. Data from USDA's Agricultural Resource Management Survey were used to examine how off-farm employment and 'reasons for entering farming' influence production enterprise selection in US agriculture. A two-stage analysis with a multivariate tobit model was used to examine the impact of off-farm employment as influenced by government farm programme payments, reasons for entering farming, demographics and location on production enterprise selection. Results underscore the impacts of reasons for entering farming and off-farm employment on production enterprise choice and provide implications for policy development. The study highlights the importance of government farm programme payments in production enterprise selection by US farmers.

show abstract

“…The term honey includes all jointly produced physical outputs. For these operations, as with small family farms in general [8], profitability does not necessarily take first place in the hierarchy of objectives. Free time occupation or honey consumption may be the primary objectives.…”

Section: Amateur Vs Commercial Beekeeping Managementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sequential Relationship between Profitability and Sustainability: The Case of Migratory Beekeeping

Pilati

Prestamburgo

2016

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When beekeeping is managed on a migratory basis, the bee colony produces physical outputs (honey) and pollination services on a sequence of forage sites. Forage sites are competitors if their flowering periods overlap, and are complementary otherwise. Viable sequences consist only of complementary forage sites. A part of the bee colony's production time is spent on each forage site in the period when the crop or wild vegetation covering it is in flower. The total period covered by the sequence of sites, including the base site, must be equal to or less than the duration (365 days) of the bee colony's annual biological cycle. The migratory beekeeper draws up viable sequences of forage sites and calculates their profitability levels. Variations in the profitability of forage sites which alter the composition of the sequence, affecting provision of the non-marketed ecosystem pollination services, impact the biodiversity of the pollinated plants with trickle-down effects on sustainability. In the case of migratory beekeeping, there is, therefore, a sequential relationship between profitability and sustainability.

show abstract

An Evaluation of Goal Hierarchies for Small Farm Operators

Cited by 68 publications

References 10 publications

Classifying federal public land grazing permittees

Classifying federal public land grazing permittees

Off-farm employment and reasons for entering farming as determinants of production enterprise selection in US agriculture

Sequential Relationship between Profitability and Sustainability: The Case of Migratory Beekeeping

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About