TRADE AND AGRICULTURE DIRECTORATE

THE ROLE OF AGRICULTURE AND

FARM HOUSEHOLD DIVERSIFICATION

IN THE RURAL ECONOMY OF THE

UNITED STATES

1
 Foreword

This report reviews the role of agriculture and farm household diversification in the rural economy of
the United States. It was prepared by consultants Kathleen K. Miller and Thomas G. Johnson.
Kathleen Miller is Program Director, Rural Policy Research Institute, University of Missouri and
Thomas Johnson is Frank Miller Professor of Agricultural Economics and Professor of Public Affairs,
University of Missouri Columbia. Professor Johnson is also the Rural Policy Research Institute’s Director
of Analytic and Academic Programs.

It is one of 13 country reviews prepared under Output area 3.2.1: Agricultural policy reform
(Item 3.2) of the programme of work and budget of the Committee for Agriculture for 2007-08.

Based on material compiled from the available literature, these country reviews address all or most of
the topics listed below:

 Definitions and underlying concepts of “rural” as they exist at the national level.

 The availability of data pertaining to the share of agriculture and the agro-food sector in the
economies of OECD countries at the national level and in rural areas and trends therein.

 The availability of data relating to the income situation of farm households and in particular the
availability of information related to non-farming activities.

 The extent to which non-farming income-earning activities of farm households are farm based
(i.e using farm resources as in the case of farm tourism) or rural based (located in rural areas).

 The extent to which the industries upstream and downstream from primary agriculture are located
in rural areas.

 The strength of multiplier effects between farm/farm based and up/downstream industries and
rural economies.

The information in these country reviews was used as background to the report “The role of
agriculture and farm household diversification in the rural economy: evidence and initial policy
implications” [TAD/CA/APM/WP(2009)1/FINAL], which was declassified by the Working Party on
Agricultural Policies and Markets in February 2009.

2
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Definition of rural areas in national statistics ..............................................................................................4

Rural Areas in the national economy ...........................................................................................................8

Role of agriculture in rural areas ...............................................................................................................10

Role of agri-food industries in rural areas .................................................................................................13

Diversification of activities by farm households in rural areas..................................................................17

Factors enhancing/limiting farm household diversification into non-agricultural activities. ....................18

Focus on farm tourism ...............................................................................................................................19

Multipliers effects of agriculture and other rural activities........................................................................21

Conclusions ................................................................................................................................................22

References ..................................................................................................................................................23

3
 THE ROLE OF AGRICULTURE AND FARM HOUSEHOLD DIVERSIFICATION
IN THE RURAL ECONOMY OF THE UNITED STATES

While the role of agriculture and in some cases the larger agro-food sector accounts for a declining
portion of the economies of developed nations, it still plays an important role in many regions. More
importantly perhaps, it plays an evolving role in these regions, frequently affecting other sectors directly
and indirectly. This report explores these myriad economic roles of the agricultural and agro-food sectors
in the United States (US).

The US agricultural sector has been at the forefront of the trend toward increasing productivity, and
declining employment and value of production in farming. Concomitant with this trend has been one of
increasing value added in the agro-food sector as the traditional agricultural commodities were transformed
into more convenient and higher-valued consumer products. More recently the range of products
manufactured from agricultural products has increased beyond food and fibre to include a variety of bio-
based products including biofuels. Furthermore, the uses of agricultural assets have broadened to include
agro-tourism and the production of environmental services (sometimes referred to as multifunctionality).
Included in this latter category are such things as watershed protection, wildlife habitat provision, carbon
sequestration, wind power generation, and many other activities.

This paper is a broad-brush examination of these issues in the United States. We set out to address
eight questions and issues.

Definition of rural areas in national statistics

Questions addressed in this section include: How are rural areas defined in national statistics? What
typology is used to classify rural areas? On which criteria is it based? Are there different
definitions/typologies used for specific studies?

There are many definitions of rural in the United States. Many of these were developed for specific
administrative purposes sometimes specifically designed to facilitate data collection, but often only
tangentially related to data gathering purposes.

One of the most commonly used definitions of rural in the US is Non-metropolitan Areas. Core Based
Statistical Areas are defined by the United States Office of Management and Budget, and include both
Metropolitan Areas and Micropolitan Areas. Both classifications are county-based. Metropolitan areas
have a core county with an urbanized area of 50 000 or more population, plus adjacent counties linked
through commuting ties. Micropolitan areas, a new classification in the 2000 census, have a core county
with an urban cluster of 10 000 to 49 999 population, plus adjacent counties linked through commuting
ties. All other counties are considered noncore counties. Together, micropolitan and noncore areas are
considered nonmetropolitan areas (shown in the map in gray and white). The most recent listing of Core
Based Statistical Areas for the United States and Puerto Rico (December 2005) by the Office of
Management and Budget includes 369 Metropolitan Statistical Areas (361 in the US and 8 in Puerto Rico),
and 582 Micropolitan Statistical Areas (577 in the US and 5 in Puerto Rico) (Figure 1).

4
 Figure 1. County core based statistical area classifications

Source: Population Division, US Census Bureau, Core-Based Statistical Areas, December 2005.

Common perception equates nonmetropolitan areas with rural areas, but this is not technically correct.
The US Census Bureau defines areas as urban or rural, and these definitions are at a sub-county geography.
Specifically, urban areas are defined as “core census block groups or blocks that have a population density
of at least 1 000 people per square mile and surrounding census blocks that have an overall density of at
least 500 people per square mile.” Urbanized areas are areas with populations of 50 000 or more, and urban
clusters have populations between 2 500 and 49 999. Any territory not defined as urban using these criteria
is considered rural (Figure 2).

5
 Figure 2. Urban and rural areas

Source: Population Division, US Census Bureau.

Counties, then, contain both urban and rural areas using the census definition. There are rural areas
within metropolitan counties and urban areas within nonmetropolitan counties. The nonmetropolitan
population under the Office of Management and Budget definition is very different from the rural
population according to the US Census Bureau definition. In fact, more rural residents live in
metropolitan counties than in micropolitan and noncore counties combined. Based on the Census 2000
population and the current Core Based Statistical Area classifications, 51% of rural residents live in
metropolitan counties. Likewise, metropolitan counties should not be equated with urban. Nearly 13% of
the metropolitan population is rural, and 41% of the nonmetropolitan population is urban.

Other classifications seek to further refine the definitions of urban and rural, and metro and non-
metro. The Economic Research Service of the US Department of Agriculture has developed two county-
level county classifications schemes to provide more detail to the county-level core based statistical areas
designations. The Rural-Urban Continuum Codes are a nine category system that classifies counties from
the most urban to the most remote rural (Table 1). The metropolitan counties are classified into three
categories based on population size, and the non-metro counties are classified into six categories based on
their degree of urbanization and adjacency to metro areas. The Urban Influence Codes are a 12 category
system, with two categories of metropolitan (large and small), and ten categories of nonmetropolitan.
Nonmetropolitan counties are categorized into their micropolitan and noncore classifications and further
categorized based on adjacency to other areas and presence of urban places.

6
 Table 1. Rural urban continuum codes

Rural urban
Description
Continuum Code
Metro counties
1 Counties in metro areas of 1 million population or more
2 Counties in metro areas of 250 000 to 1 million population
3 Counties in metro areas of fewer than 250 000 population
Non-metro counties
4 Urban population of 20 000 or more, adjacent to a metro area
5 Urban population of 20 000 or more, not adjacent to a metro area
6 Urban population of 2 500 to 19 999, adjacent to a metro area
7 Urban population of 2 500 to 19 999, not adjacent to a metro area
8 Completely rural or less than 2 500 urban population, adjacent to a metro area
9 Completely rural or less than 2 500 urban population, not adjacent to a metro area

Source: Economic Research Service, US Department of Agriculture.

Another popular classification system is the Rural Urban Commuting Area (RUCA) Codes, developed
by the USDA Economic Research Service, the Health Resources and Services Administration's Federal
Office of Rural Health Policy (ORHP), and the Washington-Wyoming-Alaska-Montana-Idaho (WWAMI)
Rural Research Center at the University of Washington. RUCA codes include 10 primary and
30 secondary classifications of census tracts, based on county classifications, urbanization, and commuting
flows (Table 2).

Table 2. Rural Urban Commuting Area (RUCA) Codes

RUCA
Primary category name Description
Code
1 Metropolitan area core Primary flow within an urbanized area (UA)
2 Metropolitan area high commuting Primary flow 30% or more to a UA
3 Metropolitan area low commuting Primary flow 5% to 30% to a UA
Primary flow within an Urban Cluster of 10 000 to 49 999
4 Micropolitan area core
(large UC)
5 Micropolitan high commuting Primary flow 30% or more to a large UC
6 Micropolitan low commuting Primary flow 10% to 30% to a large UC
Primary flow within an Urban Cluster of 2 500 to 9 999
7 Small town core
(small UC)
8 Small town high commuting Primary flow 30% or more to a small UC
9 Small town low commuting Primary flow 10% to 30% to a small UC
10 Rural areas Primary flow to a tract outside a UA or UC

Source: Economic Research Service, US Department of Agriculture.

7
 For purposes of Federal Programs, most agencies create eligibility requirements specific to programs.
For example, the USDA Rural Development program eligibility requirements vary from program to
program. A summary of these eligibilities is shown in Table 3.

Table 3. Sample of eligibility criteria for rural areas in federal programs

Federal Program Eligibility Criteria

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) All areas other than cities or towns of more than 50 000
Rural Development Business and Industry people and the contiguous and adjacent urbanized area
Guaranteed Loans (B&I), Rural Business Enterprise of such cities or towns
Grants
USDA Rural Development Intermediary Re-lending Any area that is not inside a city with a population of
Program (IRP) 25 000 or more according to the latest decennial census.
USDA Rural Development Rural Business All areas other than cities or towns of more than
Opportunity Grants (RBOG) 50 000 people and the contiguous and adjacent
urbanized area of such cities or towns. In addition, high
funding priority given to communities suffering from
natural disaster, fundamental economic structural
change, persistent poverty, long-term population decline
or job deterioration.
USDA Rural Development Community Facilities Rural areas and towns of up to 20 000 in population
Programs
United States Department of Education Rural Metro-Centric Locale Codes are used for eligibility –
Education Achievement Programs these codes identify schools based on the place size in
which they are located, and whether they are inside or
outside of a core based statistical area.
United States Department of Health and Human, Nonmetropolitan Counties are eligible, but certain
Office of Rural Health Policy Rural Health Grants Census Traces in Metropolitan Counties are also eligible
Programs based on their Rural Urban Commuting Area Codes.

Source: USDA and HRSA websites; Arnold et al., 2007.

Rural areas in the national economy

What is the share of rural areas in total population, land, Gross Domestic Product (GDP), and
employment? As described in Section 1, the population that is rural is dependent upon the definition of
rural that is utilized. The most common definitions are the Core Based Statistical Area definitions of
metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas. The majority of secondary data available to researchers is
collected and reported at a county level, making this classification system the most appropriate for data
representation. The tables in this section utilize this definition, and where data allows a further breakdown,
also presents data based on the US Census Bureau’s definition of rural and urban.

Based on the US Census Bureau rural and urban area definitions, the rural population accounts for
21% of total US population in 2000 (Table 4), and over 97% of total land area (Table 5). In examining
these data at the county level, nearly 20% of the US population resided in nonmetropolitan counties in
2000, and nearly 17% in 2005 (Table 4). For comparative purposes, Table 4 also shows the 2000
population based on the 2005 classification of counties. The Core Based Statistical Areas classification
system became effective after the release of the 2000 Census. Table 5 illustrates that nonmetropolitan
counties account for 80% of total US land area.

8
 Total employment and GDP are reported here using the county-level classification system.
Nonmetropolitan areas account for around 15% of total US employment, both in 2000 and 2005 (Table 6).
Nonmetropolitan areas also account for around 10% of GDP (Table 7).

Table 4. Total population

Total
Total population, 2000 Total population, 2000
Geography 1 population
(2000 County Classifications) (2005 County Classifications)
2005
Total US 281 421 906 281 421 906 296 507 061

Urban 222 360 539 n.a. n.a.

Rural 59 061 367 n.a. n.a.
Rural share of US 21.0% n.a. n.a.

Metropolitan 225 981 679 232 579 940 246 669 227
Nonmetropolitan 55 440 227 48 841 966 49 837 834
Nonmetro share of US 19.7% 17.4% 16.8%

n.a.: not available.

1. The 2000 classifications represent a prior system of county classification. The 2005 county classifications represent the Core
Based Statistical Area classification described above, which was adopted in 2003.
Source: US Census Bureau Decennial Census, 2005 Population Estimates.

Table 5. Land area

2
Geography Land area (mi ), 2000
Total US 3 537 438.44

Urban 92 507.78
Rural 3 444 930.67
Rural share of US 97.4%

Metropolitan 705 789.59

Nonmetropolitan 2 831 648.86
Non-metro share of US 80.0%

Source: US Census Bureau 2000 Decennial Census.

Table 6. Total full and part time employment

Total employment Total employment

Geography
2000 2005
Total US 166 758 800 174 249 600

Metropolitan 141 332 455 148 088 594

Nonmetropolitan 25 426 345 26 161 006
Non-metro share of US 15.2% 15.0%

Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Economic Information System

9
 Table 7. Gross Domestic Product (not adjusted for inflation)

Geography GDP 2001 GDP 2005

(USD million) (USD million)

Total US 10 058 168 12 372 850

Metropolitan 9 038 347 11 097 029

Non-metropolitan 1 019 821 1 275 821
Non-metro share of US 10.1% 10.3%

Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Economic Accounts

Role of agriculture in rural areas

Questions addressed in this section include: What is the share of agriculture in land use, GDP and
employment at the national level, in rural areas or regions? What is the share of farm family members in
the rural population? How have these shares evolved in the last two decades?

Farm land makes up just over 40% of the total land area of the US and has changed little over the past
couple of decades. Average farm size has also remained relatively steady, fluctuating from a high of
491 acres in 1992 to a low of 431 acres in 1997, for the data years reported in Table 8.

Table 8. Land in farms

1
Data Year Land in Farms, acres Percent of US Average Farm Size, acres
2002 938 279 056 41.4 441
1997 954 752 502 42.2 431
1992 945 531 506 41.8 491
1987 964 470 625 42.6 462

1. US Land Area = 2 263 992 601.6 ac (source: US Census Bureau, Census 2000)
Source: US Department of Agriculture, Census of Agriculture.

Agriculture (crop and animal production) and forestry and fishing each account for less than one
percent of total GDP in the US. Crop and animal production makes up over 3% of the nonmetropolitan
share of GDP (Table 9).

10
 Table 9. Gross Domestic Product (GDP)

Non-metro
US Total Metropolitan Non-metropolitan
share of US
GDP (USD million), 2005
Total US 12 372 850 11 097 029 1 275 821 10.3%
Crop, animal production 95 858 45 424 42 718 44.6%
As per cent of total GDP 0.8% 0.4% 3.3%
Forestry, fishing, related 27 242 17 057 5 538 20.3%
As per cent of total GDP 0.2% 0.2% 0.4%
Total farming, forestry, fishing 1.0% 0.6% 3.7% 39.2%
GDP (USD million), 2001 (not adjusted)
Total 10 058 168 9 038 347 1 019 821 10.1%
Crop, Animal Production 73 134 35 822 37 312 51.0%
As per cent of total GDP 0.7% 0.4% 3.7%
Forestry, fishing, related 24 761 15 167 9 594 38.7%
As per cent of total GDP 0.2% 0.2% 0.9%
Total farming, forestry, fishing 0.9% 0.6% 4.6% 47.9%
GDP (USD million), 1997 (not adjusted)
Total 8 237 994 n.a. n.a. n.a.
Crop, animal production 88 142 n.a. n.a. n.a.
As per cent of total GDP 1.1%
Forestry, fishing, related 22 595 n.a. n.a. n.a.
As per cent of total GDP 0.3%
Total farming, forestry, fishing 1.4%
n.a.: not available.
Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Economic Accounts.

Table 10 illustrates employment in farming, forestry, fishing, and related activities in the US, and by
metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas from 1990 through 2005. As the table illustrates, farming makes
up a small share of total US employment, and has represented a declining share of nonmetropolitan
employment over the time period shown. A recent report by the Economic Research Service at the United
States Department of Agriculture reports the declining share of agriculture of the American workforce. In
1900, 41% of the workforce was employed in agriculture, compared to less than 2% in 2000
(Dimitri et. al., 2005).

11
 Table 10. Employment

Non- Non-metro
US Total Metropolitan
metropolitan share of US
Employment, 2005
Total 174 249 600 148 088 594 26 161 006 15.0%
Farming 2 914 000 1 314 852 1 599 148 54.9%
As per cent of total employment 1.7% 0.9% 6.1%
Forestry, fishing, related 1 012 200 628 901 383 299 37.9%
As per cent of total employment 0.6% 0.4% 1.5%
Total farming, forestry, fishing 2.3% 1.3% 7.6% 42.9%
Employment, 2000
Total 166 758 800 141 332 455 25 426 345 15.2%
Farming 3 113 000 1 440 748 1 672 252 53.7%
As per cent of total employment 1.9% 1.0% 6.6%
Ag services, forestry, fishing, related 2 121 100 1 648 171 472 929 22.3%
As per cent of total employment 1.3% 1.2% 1.9%
Total farming, forestry, fishing 3.2% 2.2% 8.5% 41.0%
Employment, 1995
Total 148 982 800 125 311 090 23 671 710 15.9%
Farming 3 106 000 1 412 243 1 693 757 54.5%
As per cent of total employment 2.1% 1.1% 7.2%
AgServ, forestry, fishing, related 1 779 300 1 385 132 394 168 22.2%
As per cent of total employment 1.2% 1.1% 1.7%
Total farming, forestry, fishing 3.3% 2.2% 8.9% 36.6%
Employment, 1990
Total 139 380 900 117 753 103 21 627 797 15.5%
Farming 3 153 000 1 420 149 1 732 851 55.0%
As per cent of total employment 2.3% 1.2% 8.0%
Ag Serv, forestry, fishing, related 1 454 000 1 136 015 317 985 21.9%
As per cent of total employment 1.0% 1.0% 1.5%
Total farming, forestry, fishing 3.3% 2.2% 9.5% 44.5%

Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Economic Information System.

12
 The farm population in the United States makes up a small portion of the total population, as well as
the rural population. From 1980 to 2000, the percent of the rural population residing on farms fell from
10.2% to 5.1% (Table 11). Statistics published by the National Agricultural Statistics Center of the United
State Department of Agriculture show that in 1900 (the earliest reported date), 39.2% of the total
US population resided on farms (NASS website), and this represents 65% of the rural population in 1900.

Table 11. Total, rural, and farm populations, US

Year Total Rural Farm Farm as a per cent Farm as a per cent
Population Population Population of Total Population of Rural Population
2000 281 421 906 59 061 367 2 987 531 1.1 5.1
1990 248 709 873 61 656 386 3 871 583 1.6 6.3
1980 226 542 199 59 494 813 6 051 000 2.7 10.2

Source: Statistics reported by the National Agricultural Statistics Service, USDA, and the US Census Bureau.

Role of agri-food industries in rural areas

Questions addressed in this section include: What is the share of agri-food industries (upstream and
downstream) in GDP and employment at the national level, in rural areas or regions? What is the share of
forestry in land use at the national level, in rural areas or regions? How have these shares evolved in the
last two decades.

Table 12 represents the GDP in several agricultural related industries from 1987 through 2005 and,
where available, the metropolitan and nonmetropolitan share of the GDP. These figures have not been
adjusted for inflation. As the table shows, agricultural related industries made up a larger share of the
nonmetropolitan GDP than the metropolitan and total US GDP, and the shares have remained relatively
steady over time.

13
 Table 12. GDP in agri-related industries

Non- Non-metro
US Total Metropolitan
metropolitan share of US
GDP (USD million), 2005
Total 12 372 850 11 097 029 1 275 821 10.3%
Food product manufacturing 175 673 135 068 40 605 23.1%
Per cent of total GDP 1.4% 1.2% 3.2%
Wood product manufacturing 38 960 21 470 17 490 44.9%
Per cent of total GDP 0.3% 0.2% 1.4%
Paper manufacturing 54 559 40 738 13 821 25.3%
Per cent of total GDP 0.4% 0.4% 1.1%
GDP (USD million), 2001 (not adjusted)
Total 10 058 168 9 038 347 1 019 821 10.1%
Food product manufacturing 167 129 129 406 37 723 22.6%
Per cent of total GDP 1.7% 1.4% 3.7%
Wood product manufacturing 31 313 17 065 14 248 45.5%
Per cent of total GDP 0.3% 0.2% 1.4%
Paper manufacturing 48 946 36 662 12 284 25.1%
Per cent of total GDP 0.5% 0.4% 1.2%
GDP (USD million), 1997 (not adjusted)
Total 8 237 994 n.a. n.a. n.a.
Food product manufacturing 135 357 n.a. n.a. n.a.
Per cent of total GDP 1.6%
Wood product manufacturing 27 948 n.a. n.a. n.a.
Per cent of total GDP 0.3%
Paper manufacturing 51 484 n.a. n.a. n.a.
Per cent of total GDP 0.6%
GDP (USD million), 1987 (not adjusted)
Total 4 663 282 n.a. n.a. n.a.
Food and kindred products manufacturing 78 050 n.a. n.a. n.a.
Per cent of total GDP 1.7%
Tobacco products manufacturing 10 210 n.a. n.a. n.a.
Per cent of total GDP 0.2%
Lumber & wood products manufacturing 32 030 n.a. n.a. n.a.
Per cent of total GDP 0.7%
Leather & leather products manufacturing 3 946 n.a. n.a. n.a.
Percent of total GDP 0.1%

n.a.: not available.

Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Economic Accounts.

14
 Tables 13 through 15 present earnings in agricultural related industries in 2005, 1995, and 1985. The
2005 tables present industries as organized in the North American Industry Classification System
(NAICS), and the 1995 and 1985 tables present industries as organized by the Standard Industry
Classification (SIC) system. Due to the change the industry classification systems, comparisons are
difficult. These industries together accounted for roughly 3% of total US earnings and 10% of
nonmetropolitan earnings in 2005.

Table 13. Earnings in agri-related industries, 2005

Non- Non-metro
US Total Metropolitan
metropolitan share of US
Total earnings, 2005 (USD 000) 7 983 652 000 7 157 081 346 826 570 654 10.4%
Farm 50 903 000 24 128 236 26 774 794 52.6%
Per cent of total earnings 0.6% 0.3% 3.2%
Forestry & logging 5 932 000 2 337 421 3 594 579 60.6%
Per cent of total earnings 0.1% 0.0% 0.4%
Fishing, hunting & trapping 2 071 000 1 426 454 644 546 31.1%
Per cent of total earnings 0.0% 0.0% 0.1%
Agriculture and forestry support 16 283 000 11 392 157 4 890 843 30.0%
Per cent of total earnings 0.2% 0.2% 0.6%
Wood products manufacturing 26 273 000 14 806 421 11 466 579 43.6%
Per cent of total earnings 0.3% 0.2% 1.4%
Food manufacturing 69 882 000 51 035 781 18 846 219 27.0%
Per cent of total earnings 0.9% 0.7% 2.3%
Beverage & tobacco mnfg 16 607 000 15 495 078 1 111 922 6.7%
Per cent of total earnings 0.2% 0.2% 0.1%
Leather & leather products mnfg 2 755 000 2 125 324 629 676 22.9%
Per cent of total earnings 0.0% 0.0% 0.1%
Paper manufacturing 37 959 000 28 670 074 9 288 926 24.5%
Per cent of total Earnings 0.5% 0.4% 1.1%

Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Economic Information System.

15
 Table 14. Earnings in Agri-Related Industries, 1995

Non- Non-metro
US Total Metropolitan
metropolitan share of US
Total Earnings, 1995 (USD 000) 4 662 406 000 4 124 885 321 537 520 679 11.5%
Farm 39 675 000 20 227 521 19 447 479 49.0%
Per cent of total earnings 0.9% 0.5% 3.6%
Agricultural services 25 598 000 21 254 613 4 343 387 17.0%
Per cent of total earnings 0.5% 0.5% 0.8%
Forestry 871 000 488 165 382 835 44.0%
Per cent of total earnings 0.0% 0.0% 0.1%
Fishing 1 514 000 1 034 720 479 280 31.7%
Per cent of total earnings 0.0% 0.0% 0.1%
Lumber and wood products 27 220 000 14 395 799 12 824 201 47.1%
Per cent of total earnings 0.6% 0.3% 2.4%
Food and kindred products 60 902 000 47 680 755 13 221 245 21.7%
Per cent of total earnings 1.3% 1.2% 2.5%
Tobacco products 2 896 000 2 825 990 70 010 2.4%
Per cent of total earnings 0.1% 0.1% 0.0%
Paper and allied products 32 977 000 25 322 809 7 654 191 23.2%
Per cent of total earnings 0.7% 0.6% 1.4%
Leather and leather products 3 027 000 2 275 420 751 580 24.8%
Per cent of total earnings 0.1% 0.1% 0.1%
Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Economic Information System.

Table 15. Earnings in Agri-Related Industries, 1985

Non-metro
US Total Metropolitan Nonmetropolitan
Share of US
Total Earnings, 1985 (USD 000) 2 671 427 000 2 339 547 631 331 879 369 12.4%
Farm 31 950 000 15 577 084 16 372 916 51.2%
Per cent of total earnings 1.2% 0.7% 4.9%
Agricultural services 11 184 000 9 077 991 2 106 009 18.8%
Per cent of total earnings 0.4% 0.4% 0.6%
Forestry 614 000 279 787 334 213 54.4%
Per cent of total earnings 0.0% 0.0% 0.1%
Fishing 1 501 000 999 710 501 290 33.4%
Per cent of total earnings 0.1% 0.0% 0.2%
Lumber and wood products 17 028 000 9 229 525 7 798 475 45.8%
Per cent of total earnings 0.6% 0.4% 2.3%
Food and kindred products 41 129 000 33 318 629 7 810 371 19.0%
Per cent of total earnings 1.5% 1.4% 2.4%
Tobacco products 2 416 000 2 333 999 82 001 3.4%
Per cent of total earnings 0.1% 0.1% 0.0%
Paper and allied products 22 240 000 16 994 483 5 245 517 23.6%
Per cent of total earnings 0.8% 0.7% 1.6%
Leather and leather products 2 841 000 2 061 424 779 576 27.4%
Per cent of total earnings 0.1% 0.1% 0.2%
Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Economic Information System.

16
 Table 16 shows the amount of US land area that is forested land. As the table portrays, the amount of
forested land in the US has been relatively stable over the time period reported in the table.

Table 16. Forest land: total forested land

1
Total Forested Land, acres Per cent of US land area

US, 2002 748 923 000 33.1

US, 1996 746 798 000 33.0
US, 1992 736 681 000 32.5

1. US Land Area = 2 263 992,601.6 ac (Source: US Census Bureau, Census 2000).

Source: USDA Agricultural Statistics, 2007, 2002, and 1994 editions

Diversification of activities by farm households in rural areas

Questions addressed in this section include: What are the activities in which farm households are
engaged on the farm and outside? To what extent are they related to farm activities? Do they take place on
or off the farm? What is the number of farms engaged in these various non-agricultural activities? Which
member of the farm household is engaged in non-agricultural activities?

Table 17 illustrates the farm-related income (other than receipts from farming) received by farms over
the 1996 through 2006 period. Farm related income includes custom work, machine hire, recreational
activities (see section 7 for further discussion of agri-tourism), forest product sales and other farm sources.
This represents 6.2% of total gross cash farm income.

Table 17. Farm Income and costs report

1997-2006 average Per cent

(USD billion)
Gross cash income: 243.2
Cash receipts from crops and livestock 211.2 86.8
Government payments 16.9 6.9
Farm related income 15.1 6.2
(custom work, machine hire, recreational activities, forest
products sales, and other farm sources)

Source: Economic Research Service, USDA.

Table 18 represents income of farm households, and the portion that is earned off the farm, from
various sources. As the table shows, farm earnings actually make up a small percentage of farm operator
household income, with nearly 90% of income coming from off farm sources. The majority of this off farm
income is from earnings, either through wages and salaries or in business income.

17
 Table 18. Farm Household Income Report

2006 Per cent of total

Value household income
Units USD per household %
Farm operator household income 77 654
Farm earnings 8 406 10.8
Off-farm income 69 248 89.2
Earned sources
Off-farm wages and salaries 38 692 49.8
Off-farm business income 11 448 14.7
Unearned income:
Interest income 2 796 3.6
Dividend income 1 848 2.4
Retirement and other transfer income 10 073 13.0
Other off-farm sources 4 391 5.7

Source: Economic Research Service, USDA.

Table 19 illustrates the off farm work by farm operators and their spouses. In the majority of farms
families, either one or both work off the farm. In only 31.3% of farms did neither the operator nor spouse
work off the farm.

Table 19. Off-farm work by farm operators

Percent working off-farm, 2006

Only operator works off-farm 20.8
Only spouse works off-farm 13.4
Neither works off-farm 31.3
Both work off-farm 34.5

Source: Economic Research Service, USDA.

Factors enhancing/limiting farm household diversification into non-agricultural activities.

Questions addressed in this section include: What are the main factors explaining farm household
diversification (or the lack thereof) into non-agricultural activities: the general economic situation
(employment), accessibility/connections, attractiveness, regulations and policies?

Off-farm employment is quite common among US farm households, and has been for many decades.
The most recent data available from the USDA Economic Research survey shows that across all farm
types, farm operator households earned 89.2% of their household income from off-farm sources (USDA
Economic Research Survey, Agricultural Resource Management Survey, 2006). This percentage has
increased over time, but off-farm work is not a new phenomenon – in the 1930s about 30% of operators
reported off-farm work (Hoppe et. al., 2007). Most off farm income comes from earned sources (see
Table 18 in previous section).

18
 In examining 2004 data, the Economic Research Service reports that while operator off-farm income
varied across farm size, off-farm income earned by spouses is relatively stable across farm sizes
(Fernandez-Cornejo et. al., 2007). In 2004, 52% of farm operators and 45% of spouses worked off-farm.
Off-farm wages and salaries provided 47% of farm household income in 2004, while farming income was
only 17% of the household income (Covey et. al., 2005).

Off-farm income is generally seen as a means of smoothing out household income flow, which is
often viewed as inadequate and/or unstable and off-farm opportunities can provide fringe benefits such as
health insurance and pensions (Fernandez-Cornejo, 2004). The main reason offered by operators and
spouses in the 2004 Agricultural Resource Management Survey for seeking off-farm work was to increase
income of the household; other reasons included obtaining health insurance and personal satisfaction
(Covey et. al., 2005).

This latter point deserves additional comment. In the US health insurance is not universally available.
While the elderly and the poor have publicly provided health insurance, working-aged residents and
children must get insurance through their employer, purchase it privately or go without. Since rural
populations are older and poorer than urban populations, uninsured rates are often lower in rural areas. But
the self-employed, including farmers, are more likely to have no health insurance.

The most important determinant of the ability of farmers to diversify their operations and to find off-
farm employment is degree of rurality (remoteness from urban areas and density of population).

Focus on farm tourism

Questions addressed in this section include: Is farm tourism developed? What are the tourism services
provided by farm households? What are the factors explaining the development (or lack of development)
of farm tourism?

Agri-tourism is a growing industry in the United States. Unfortunately, there is little data available to
allow us to quantify the extent to which this industry has developed. An exception is a very recent study
(December 2007) by the USDA Economic Research Service (ERS) that studied a 2004 sample of US farm
families. There are also several small scale studies and reports that help to frame this issue.

According to estimates in the ERS study about 52 000 farms (2.5% of US farms) participated in some
form of agri-tourism, and earned about USD 955 million in income from farm-based recreation in 2004.
Types of agri-tourism activities included outdoor recreation, such as fishing, hunting, wildlife study, and
horseback riding; education experiences, such as tours, cooking classes, wine tasting, and museums;
entertainment, such as festivals, barn dances, and petting zoos; hospitality services, such as overnight farm
stays and guided tours; and on-farm direct sales, such as “pick your own” operations, roadside stands, and
farmers’ markets (Brown and Reeder, 2007).

Motivations and limitations for agri-tourism were described in this study. Benefits of agri-tourism
included supplementing and diversifying farm income, utilizing assets and expanding employment
opportunities; benefits to surrounding communities through income, land preservation, land values, and a
“sense of place.” Limitations to agri-tourism discussed in this survey included legal liability issues,
reduction in privacy, over use of resources (e.g. over-hunting and over-fishing), local traffic congestion,
and conflicts over non-traditional land uses (Brown and Reeder, 2007).

The Brown and Reeder study examined both characteristics of the farm operation and farm operator,
as well as characteristics of the surrounding community and its proximity to larger urban centres. Results
show that agri-tourism was most prevalent in high population density counties, but was more likely in
those counties at a greater distance from urban centres. Areas already high in natural amenities tended to

19
higher levels of agri-tourism as well. Farms with higher net worth were more likely to engage in and
benefit from agri-tourism activities (Brown and Reeder, 2007).

Several studies have examined the issue of agri- or nature-tourism in various states or regions of the
US. The University of California Small Farm Center discusses the potential of agricultural and nature
tourism to increase farm revenues and provide an educational experience to non-farmers (Jolly et. al.
2005). A survey of residents in two California counties showed a high interest and participation rate in
agriculture and nature tourism. Motivating factors included direct purchasing of fresh products,
experiencing nature, and vacation and relaxation. Also included in the survey questionnaire were questions
regarding on-site spending during trips, which averaged between USD 5 and USD 40, illustrating the
potential for farm revenue from tourism activities.

The Institute for Tourism and Recreation Research at the University of Montana conducted a survey
of farmers and ranchers that were engaged in or planning tourism or recreation businesses (Rademaker
et al. 2007). The most frequently selected businesses were Fish, Wildlife and Parks (FWP) block
management1, fee hunting and fishing, guesthouse/cabin rentals, outfitter guide businesses, and working
farm/ranch vacations. The most important reasons cited for operating a recreation business were additional
income, to offset fluctuations in agricultural income, and to fully utilize the farm resources. The most
restrictive obstacles were legal liability issues, regulations and legal constraints, and lack of time on the
part of the operator.

A 2001 study examined the agri-tourism industry in New York (Kuehn and Hilchey, 2001). The
study, a survey of agri-tourism businesses, found agri-tourism activities included farm produce stands,
Christmas tree, pick your own operations, maple production, greenhouses, wineries, livestock breeding,
and bed and breakfast establishments. The study reports that the primary motivation for engaging in
tourism activities was to increase the profitability of the farm business. Other reasons included the desire to
work directly with people, the opportunity to provide an educational service, and employment for family
members. The main concerns noted by business owners were legal liability and the high cost of liability
insurance. Other concerns included costs of marketing and advertising, labour costs, government
regulations, taxes, the need to attract customers, weather, and production concerns.

The National Agriculture Statistics Services has some agricultural tourism2 statistics for states in
which agri-tourism plays a large role. In Hawaii, the value of agri-tourism in 2003 was USD 33.9 million.
Specific agro-tourism activities include on-farm sales direct to farm visitors, other retail sales, outdoor
recreation, accommodations, education, and entertainment (Hawaii Agricultural Statistics, 2004). In
Vermont, income from agri-tourism was USD 19.5 million in 2002, and over a third of farms in the state
participated in some agri-tourism activity. The most common source of agri-tourism income was direct
sales of farm commodities. Other agri-tourism activities include accommodations, outdoor recreation,
education, and entertainment (New England Agricultural Statistics Service, 2004).

1. “Block management is a cooperative effort between Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks (FWP), private
landowners, and public land management agencies to help landowners manage hunting activities and to
provide free public hunting access to private and isolated public lands.” Cited directly from the Montana
Fish, Wildlife and Parks website: http://fwp.mt.gov/hunting/hunteraccess/blockman/default.html.
2. Agricultural tourism is defined as “a commercial enterprise on a working farm conducted for the
enjoyment, education, and/or active involvement of the visitor, generating supplemental income for the
farm.” Cited from Hawaii Agricultural Statistics: Hawaii Ag-Tourism:
www.nass.usda.gov/hi/speccrop/agtour.htm.

20
Multipliers effects of agriculture and other rural activities

Questions addressed in this section include: What are the multipliers effects of agriculture in rural
economies compared to those of agri-food industries, farm tourism, public services or any other activity?

A number of studies have been conducted to measure the economic impact or importance of the
agricultural sector, primarily at the state level. In order for these estimates to be meaningful it is important
to establish which is included in the definition of agriculture (farming, forestry, fishing, agricultural
services, processing, retailing, etc.), the geographic area over which the estimates are made (community,
country, state or nation), and whether the impact of spending income earned in agriculture is included in
the estimates.

A full accounting of agriculture’s impact considers not only the size of the farm sector itself, but also
the farm inputs, processing and distribution sectors as well. This often involves the use of economic
multipliers which indicate the linkages among this sectors, but careful accounting avoids the double
counting that can easily be introduced using this approach.

Most such studies utilize a model called IMPLAN (Impact Analysis for Planning), which is a database
and software package that allows input output modelling (multiplier analysis) at various geographic levels.
The models allows an analysis of the indirect and induced effect (or multipliers) of various economic
sectors on jobs, income, and value added. Indirect effects generally result from business to business
transactions, and induced effects refer to wages and other income spent by labour (Deller, 2004).

A study of Wisconsin’s agricultural sector (Deller, 2004) analyzes the direct and indirect impacts of
agricultural production and several sectors of agricultural processing, as well as the horticulture sector. The
study finds an output multiplier for the total agriculture sector of 1.802, meaning that for every dollar of
output (sales), an additional 80 cents is generated in other parts of the state economy. With respect to
employment, the agricultural multiplier is 2.289, indicating that for every direct job in agriculture, an
additional 1.3 jobs is created in other sectors of the economy. Finally, with respect to income or gross state
product, the multiplier in the Wisconsin study is found to be 2.78. Output and employment multipliers
were generally lower for the agricultural production sectors than for the processing sectors analyzed.

Another study was conducted for the State of Virginia in 1998 (Lamie, 1998). The study found that
agriculture and related industries accounted for one of every ten jobs in Virginia. The report analyzed the
impact of farm production, processing, distribution, and input sectors, and their impacts on the Virginia
economy, utilizing the IMPLAN model. The study found that that in terms of contribution to Sales,
Employment, and Gross State Product, the agricultural sector (including agro-forestry) accounted for the
following (Table 20):

Table 20. Average economic impact of Virginia’s agricultural economic system, 1991-1996

Component of Agriculture Sales Gross State Product Employment

Farming production USD 2.2B USD 0.4B 30 800
Agricultural processing USD 16.4B USD 7.7B 54 900
Distribution of products USD 2.6B USD 2.2B 80 900
Input activities USD 4.9B USD 2.5B 69 200
Total Agriculture System USD 26.1B USD 12.8B 235 800
Induced effects (multiplier effect) USD 9.7B USD 6.7B 152 000
Total agriculture related impact USD 35.9B USD 19.5B 387 000
Per cent of state total 12.3% 11.2% 9.9%
Source: Reproduced from Lamie 1998, page 8.

21
Conclusions

The information presented in this report illustrates some of the “ironies of agriculture.”

 In the United States, rural is not synonymous with agriculture. In fact, only a small percent of
US workers (at the national and the nonmetropolitan levels) are employed directly in agriculture.
Policies to support rural areas that are focused on agricultural assistance do little to support the
broader rural people and places.

 Farms are becoming larger and smaller. Average farm size has increased significantly over the
past several decades with advancements in technology and reduced labour demands. Also, large
farms (those with sales over USD 250 000) account for the majority of all production. But in
terms of numbers of farms small farms are also increasing.

 A decreasing number of rural areas are dependent on agriculture. The Economic Research
Service classifies counties as farming dependent, based on their share of employment and income
in agricultural activities, and finds 403 non6metro counties that are farming dependent. On the
other hand, 585 non6metro counties are manufacturing dependent, and 222 are government
dependent, and 114 are services dependent.

 While farming is relatively more important in non-metropolitan areas than in metropolitan areas,
a majority of farm production occurs in metropolitan areas of the US. In 2005, over 56% of GDP
from farming, forestry and fishing was produced in metropolitan areas.

 Agricultural production makes up a smaller portion of total GDP than does processing of
agricultural products. In 2005, crop and animal production made up less than one percent of total
GDP in the US GDP in agri-related industries (as defined in this report) is nearly three times that
of crop and animal production.

 Even for agricultural producers, farming is rarely the major source of employment or income.
Most farms rely heavily on off-farm employment and income. In fact, in 2006, nearly 90% of
total farm household income was from off-farm sources, and in nearly 70% of farms, either the
operator, spouse, or both work off the farm.

22
 REFERENCES

Arnold, Michael L., Belina Biscoe, Thomas W. Farmer, Dylan L. Robertson, and Kathy L. Shapley. 2007. How the
Government Defines Rural has Implications for Education Policies and Practices. Issues & Answers Report,
REL 2007-No 010), Washington, DC: US Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National
Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Southwest.
Brown, Dennis M. and Richard J. Reeder. 2007. Farm-Based Recreation: A Statistical Profile. Economic Research
Report Number 53, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
Covey, Ted, Robert Green, Carol Jones, Jim Johnson, Mitch Morehart, Robert Williams, Chris McGath, Ashok
Mishra, and Roger Strickland. 2005. Agricultural Income and Finance Outlook. AIS-83, United States
Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
Deller, Steven C. 2004. Wisconsin and the Agricultural Economy. Staff Paper number 471, University of Wisconsin-
Madison Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics.
Dimiti, Carolyn, Anne Effland, and Neilson Conklin. 2005. The 20th Century Transformation of US Agriculture and
Farm Policy. Economic Information Bulletin Number 3, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic
Research Service.
Economic Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture. 2004. 2004 County Typology Codes.
http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/Rurality/Typology/
Fernandez-Cornejo, Jorge, Ashok Mishra, R. Nehring, C. Hendricks, M. Southern, and A. Gregory. 2007. Off-Farm
Income, Production Decisions, and Farm Economic Performance. Economic Research Report Number 36,
United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
Hoppe, Robert A. 2001. “Farm Households are Often Dual-Career.” Rural America 16(2): 41-51.
Hoppe, Robert A., Penni Korb, Erik J. O’Donoghue, and David E. Banker. 2007. Structure and Finances of
US Farms: Family Farm Report, 2007 Edition. Economic Information Bulletin Number 24, United States
Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
Johnson, Thomas G. and Ernest Wade. The Economic Impact of Agriculture in Virginia. VCE Pub. 448-217/REAP
R019. Virginia Tech University, 1994.
Jolly, Desmond A., and Kristin A. Reynolds. 2005. Consumer Demand for Agricultural and On-Farm Nature
Tourism. Research Brief 2005-01, University of California Small Farm Center.
Kuehn, Diane and Duncan Hilchey. 2001. Agritourism in New York: Management and Operations. Fact Sheet, New
York Sea Grant, State University of New York at Oswego.
Lamie, R. David. 1998. The Economic Impact of Agriculture and Ag-Related Industries on the Commonwealth of
Virginia. Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Virginia Tech University.
Leones, Julie, Gerald Schlutter, and George Goldman. “Redefining Agriculture in Interindustry Analysis,” AJAE 76
(December 1994): pp 1123-1129.
Rademaker, Lee, Norma P. Nickerson and Kara Garu. 2007. Montana’s Agritourism and Recreation Business: Ten
Years Later. Research Report 2007-4, Institute for Tourism & Recreation Research, College of Forestry and
Conservation, The University of Montana.
United States Census Bureau, Census 2000. http://www.census.gov/main/www/cen2000.html.
United States Census Bureau, Population Estimates Program. http://www.census.gov/popest/estimates.php.
United States Census Bureau, Definitions of Rural and Urban Areas. http://www.census.gov/geo/www/ua/ua_2k.html

23
United States Department of Agriculture website http://www.usda.gov.
United States Department of Agriculture, Census of Agriculture. 1987, 1992, 1997, 2002.
http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/.
United States Department of Agriculture, National Agriculture Statistics Service. http://www.nass.usda.gov/.
United States Department of Agriculture, National Agriculture Statistics Service. 2004. Hawaii Agricultural
Statistics. www.nass.usda.gov/hi/speccrop/agtour.htm.
United States Department of Agriculture, New England Agricultural Statistics Service. 2004. Vermont Agri-Tourism
2002.
United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. 2007. Farm Income and Costs: Farm Sector
Income Forecast. http://www.ers.usda.gov/briefing/farmincome/data/nf_t2.htm.
United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. 2007. Farm Household Economics and Well-
Being: Income Forecast and Income in Perspective.
http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/WellBeing/farmhouseincome.htm.
United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. Rural Urban Commuting Area Codes.
http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/RuralUrbanCommutingAreaCodes/
United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. Rural Urban Continuum Codes.
http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/Rurality/RuralUrbCon/
United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Agricultural Resource Management Survey.
http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/ARMS/.
United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. Regional Economic Information System.
http://www.bea.gov/regional/reis/.
United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. Regional Economic Accounts.
http://www.bea.gov/regional/.
United States Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Rural Health Policy.
http://ruralhealth.hrsa.gov/funding/eligibilitytestv2.asp.
United States Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources and Services Administration. The Rural
Uninsured: Highlights from Recent Research. http://ruralhealth.hrsa.gov/policy/Uninsured.htm
United States Office of Management and Budget. Standards for Defining Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical
Areas. Federal Register. December 27, 2000. http://www.census.gov/population/www/estimates/00-32997.pdf
Washington-Wyoming-Alaska-Montana-Idaho Rural Health Research Center.
http://www.ruralhealthresearch.org/projects/100002089/

24