scholarly journals Future Land Use of Part-time Farming with Steady and Sufficient Off-farm Income.

1994 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 33-43
Author(s):  
Katsumi ARAHATA
Keyword(s):  
Land Use ◽  
Agriculture ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (6) ◽  
pp. 518
Author(s):  
Ayal Kimhi ◽  
Nitzan Tzur-Ilan

Israeli agriculture has experienced rapid structural changes in recent decades, including the massive exit of farmers, a resulting increase in average farm size, a higher farm specialization and a higher reliance on non-farm income sources. The higher farm heterogeneity makes it necessary to examine changes in the entire farm size distribution rather than the common practice of analyzing changes in the average farm size alone. This article proposes a nonparametric analysis in which the change in the distribution of farm sizes between two periods is decomposed into several components, and the contributions of subgroups of farms to this change are analyzed. Using data on Israeli family farms, we analyze the changes in the farm size distribution in two separate time periods that are characterized by very different economic environments, focusing on the different contributions of full-time farms and part-time farms to the overall distributional changes. We found that between 1971 and 1981, a period characterized by stability and prosperity, the farm size distribution has shifted to the right with relatively minor changes in higher moments of the distribution. On the other hand, between 1981 and 1995, a largely unfavorable period to Israeli farmers, the change in the distribution was much more complex. While the overall change in the size distribution of farms was smaller in magnitude than in the earlier period, higher moments of the distribution were not less important than the increase in the mean and led to higher dispersion of farm sizes. Between 1971 and 1981, the contributions of full- and part-time farms to the change in the size distribution were quite similar. Between 1981 and 1995, however, full-time farms contributed mostly to the growth in the average farm size, while the average farm size among part-time farms actually decreased, and their contribution to the higher dispersion of farm sizes was quantitatively larger. This highlights the need to analyze the changes in the entire farm size distribution rather than focusing on the mean alone, and to allow for differences between types of farms.


2018 ◽  
Vol 63 (7) ◽  
pp. 114-125
Author(s):  
Trang Nguyen Thi Thanh ◽  
Tuyen Tran Thi ◽  
Yen Hoang Phan Hai ◽  
Hoai Nguyen Thi

Nghe An is the largest province area in Viet Nam with many favorable conditions for developing farm economy. Researching on the farm economy in Nghe An is approached in the direction of sustainable development theory and from the farm owners. Base on principle of sustainable development to survey 150 farms, which were selected by two criteria group: distribution such as mountains, midland, coast plain and types of farms such as cultivation, animal husbandry, forestry, aquaculture. The content was collected focus on: land use, labor, product value, average farm income and land use efficiency,.... Based on the results analyzed, there are some problems in Nghe An farms development: the scale of farms are small, quality product is not high, dificulties in product consumption, there is not link between farms, environmental protection issues are not paid attention,… This is not meet the need of sustainable development. Some solutions are proposed, such as: expanding farm scale, creating the close links between farm owners and enterprises, applying the scientific advances in production, building the waste treatment facilities and developing specialized products by region advantage, etc.


2019 ◽  
Vol 52 (1) ◽  
pp. 19-25
Author(s):  
Ayoade Matthew Adetoye

Abstract Despite global concerns on environment particularly, issues on deforestation, there is a lack of quantitative information on deforestation drivers. The study investigates the role of farm households in deforestation process in Nigeria. Household survey data were obtained from 300 farm households with the aid of personally administered questionnaire through a multistage sampling technique. The data were used to answer a question on how farmers contribute to deforestation process in Nigeria. The data were analysed using descriptive statistics and Probit regression model. The results show that 64 % of the farmers gain access to cultivate already opened forestland through uncoordinated harvesting of forest trees while others still maintain sustainable forest land use practice – agroforestry. Sex (P < 0.05; β = 2.34), land security (P < 0.01; β = 2.94), personal preference for tree on farm land (P < 0.05; β = −2.45), and non-farm income (P < 0.05; β = 2.50) are factors influencing land use pattern among farm households. The study revealed that most farmers cultivate open forestland, but their continuous cultivation further enhanced forestland use change. The study concludes that rural farm households though one of the agents of forestland use change were found as opportunist and not mostly the primary agent initiating forestland use change in Nigeria. The study negates the conception of several past studies.


Author(s):  
Bryan G. Norton

Albert Hochbaum, whom we met in Chapter 3, was Leopold’s student and friend; Director of the Delta Duck Station in Manitoba, Canada; and a part-time collaborator on A Sand County Almanac. He also had an admirable talent for succinctly hitting the nail on the head. He summed up Leopold’s message in four words. “The lesson you wish to put across is the lesson that must be taught,” he said, “preservation of the natural.” So much for succinctness; the difficult problem, of course, is to explain what is meant by “preservation” and by “natural.” Thomas McNamee, writing forty years later, uses the same basic approach: “I believe that the true object of conservation is nature,” he says. “What is nature?” The answer cannot help but be complicated, he notes, because “our conception of nature springs from the darkest depths of our culture’s unconscious sense of life itself, and ancient irrational urges and fears give the concept its power.’” But that is only half of the story: “At the same time,” he says, “nature must also have an objective, rational, manageable, thinkable value.” And thus we have the paradox of modern land use theory: Americans love nature; our values were formed in nature’s womb, a huge, wonderful, and horrible wild place. Our values are freedom and independence, “split rail values,” as Leopold called them. But our activities, as builders and consumers, transform our environment into something not-wild; we manipulate and control and artificialize nature; we make it not-nature. As the song says, you always hurt the one you love. But the paradox has also an optimistic face: As we have built and consumed, we have become wealthy by exploiting nature. Wildness has become valuable, objectively, according even to economists, because our wealthy society is now willing to pay to preserve nature. But here is the bitter pill to swallow: We all must admit that, at least in some sense, “nature” preservation is a sham—we’ve gone too far to “free” nature, as we might free a wild animal, release it from captivity.


2020 ◽  
Vol 66 (No. 7) ◽  
pp. 325-334
Author(s):  
Vida Dabkienė

The paper aims to investigate family farm income volatility by decomposing disposable farm income (DFI) into the on-farm income, income from production support and off-farm income (OFI) over time. The research is focused on the OFI, assessing its role in achieving DFI above reference level based on the average net earnings. Three main indicators consistent with Farm Accountancy Data Network (FADN) were indicated. The research results revealed the significance of OFI. In 2017, 76% of the family farms were engaged in off-farm activities indicating, on one hand that such approaches as part-time farming or lifestyle farming are becoming more attractive to Lithuanian family farmers. On the other hand, research disclosed that farms mostly engaged in off-farm activities yield the lowest on-farm income levels. Moreover, the OFI tends to produce a stabilizing effect on quite a number of farmers as the majority of family farms cannot rely upon the on-farm income as their only income source. Thus, the agricultural and rural development policy makers, aimed at supporting viable farm income and strengthening farm resilience, have to answer the part-time farmers’ needs.


1972 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 97-100 ◽  
Author(s):  
K. C. Schneeberger ◽  
J. G. West

Practically all major speeches on the agenda of farm policy issues have listed the problems of non-commercial farmers as a major item. Operators of non-commercial, or marginal, farms are a very heterogeneous group. They include: (1) operators of medium sized, undercapitalized farms, (2) farm operators who work part-time off-farm to supplement farm income, (3) operators of small, inefficient farms who, because of age, education or handicap, have limited prospects of becoming fully self-supporting either in farming or non-farm occupations, and (4) rural residents who own farms which provide some income; the owner works full-time off-farm.Farmers in this group generally gross less than $10,000 from agricultural production. This is normally considered inadequate for providing an acceptable level of living.


2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (24) ◽  
pp. 10641
Author(s):  
Cecilia Frauke Hüppe ◽  
Anja Schmitz ◽  
Bettina Tonn ◽  
Johannes Isselstein

Socio-economic context is increasingly seen as a decisive factor for sustainable agricultural land use. The high prevalence of part-time farming and frequent lack of formal agricultural education within the equine sector are often seen as reasons why horse-grazed pastures do not fulfill their biodiversity potential. In spite of the substantial variability within horse farming, little is known about the relationship of socio-economic determinants with vegetation characteristics of horse-grazed grasslands. We surveyed 122 horse farms in Germany, classifying them into four socio-economic classes according to farm income type and farm managers’ agricultural education. We recorded farm structure parameters, grassland management practices and vegetation characteristics. Socio-economic class partly explained the great variability in farm structure that we observed. In contrast to our expectation, income type and agricultural education did not distinctly affect grassland management and were neither directly nor indirectly related to vegetation characteristics. Part-time farming and lack of agricultural education thus did not adversely affect the ecological value of horse-grazed grasslands. By contrast, both farm structure and paddock level management affected grassland vegetation and ecological value. Therefore, the socio-economic context of horse farms should be addressed in further research with strategies targeting the development of sustainable grassland management in horse keeping.


Forests ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (5) ◽  
pp. 565
Author(s):  
Arun Dhakal ◽  
Rajesh Kumar Rai

Agroforestry is recognized as a sustainable land use practice. However, the uptake of such a promising land use practice is slow. Through this research, carried out in a Terai district of Nepal, we thoroughly examine what influences farmers’ choice of agroforestry adoption and what discourages the adoption. For this, a total of 288 households were surveyed using a structured questionnaire. Two agroforestry practices were compared with conventional agriculture with the help of the Multinomial Logistic Regression (MNL) model. The likelihood of adoption was found to be influenced by gender: the male-headed households were more likely to adopt the tree-based farming practice. Having a source of off-farm income was positively associated with the adoption decision of farmers. Area of farmland was found as the major constraint to agroforestry adoption for smallholder farmers. Some other variables that affected positively included livestock herd size, provision of extension service, home-to- forest distance, farmers’ group membership and awareness of farmers about environmental benefits of agroforestry. Irrigation was another adoption constraint that the study area farmers were faced with. The households with a means of transport and with a larger family (household) size were found to be reluctant regarding agroforestry adoption. A collective farming practice could be a strategy to engage the smallholder farmers in agroforestry.


2020 ◽  
Vol 94 (5) ◽  
pp. 2003-2020
Author(s):  
Elizabeth Gosling ◽  
Esther Reith ◽  
Thomas Knoke ◽  
Andrés Gerique ◽  
Carola Paul

Abstract Understanding farmers’ perceptions of and preferences towards agroforestry is essential to identify systems with the greatest likelihood of adoption to inform successful rural development projects. In this study we offer a novel approach for evaluating agroforestry systems from the farmer perspective. The approach couples rapid rural appraisal and normative optimisation techniques to determine favourable land-use compositions for meeting various socio-economic and ecological goals, based on farmers’ empirical knowledge and preferences. We test our approach among smallholder farmers in Eastern Panama, obtaining data from household interviews and using hierarchical cluster analysis to identify farm groups with similar land-use and income characteristics. We found that moderate differences in farmers’ perceptions between these groups altered the type and share of agroforestry included in the optimised land-use portfolios that balance the achievement of 10 pre-selected socio-economic and ecological objectives. Such differences provide valuable information about potential acceptability of agroforestry within each group. For example, we found that farmers who derive most of their farm income from crops may be more willing to adopt silvopasture, whereas farmers who are more economically dependent on cattle may benefit from diversifying their land-use with alley cropping. We discuss the potential of this modelling approach for participatory land-use planning, especially when dealing with small sample sizes and uncertainty in datasets.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document