Hispanics in Agriculture and Opportunities for Resource Conservation (Based on the latest PRMS data being used)

DRAFT WORKING PAPER
 

By
 

The National Organization of Professional Hispanic NRCS Employees (NOPHNRCSE) Conference

Washington, D.C.
June 26-30, 2000

Hispanics in Agriculture and Opportunities for Resource Conservation^[1]

David Buland^[2] and Fen C. Hunt^[3]

I. Background

The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) provides technical assistance and implements cost-sharing conservation programs to assist farm operators and landowners in carrying out voluntary conservation practices for the long-term sustainability of the nation’s natural resources and environment. To promote natural resources conservation, the agency can tailor policies and marketing strategies to match the needs of farmers and landowners who receive the assistance. To facilitate the development of technology transfer systems, one key element is to have a better understanding of the recipient's characteristics, social, and economic conditions, especially non-traditional groups, in order to be effective in carrying out conservation policies.

Among various non-traditional groups, the number of Hispanic farms has increased the most in the last decade (see Figure 1), spreading throughout the entire country. The significant increase of this group of farm operators presents an opportunity for NRCS to evaluate the current conservation policies and marketing strategies so as to increase outreach to this particular group.

This paper intends to give an overview of the Hispanic farm operators’ characteristics, social, and economic conditions. The objective of this paper is to raise the awareness of some major changes that Hispanic farm operators have in the last decade and the opportunity that NRCS has to promote conservation within this ethnic group.

No primary data were collected for this paper. Rather, analyses were based on secondary data, including those of the Census of Agriculture (hereafter referred to as “Census”) from various years, and NRCS Performance and Results Measurement System (PRMS). This paper does not address data efficacy issue.

II. General Overview of Hispanic Farm Operators

Number of farms: According to the Census, the total number of farms in the United States declined by 14.7 percent, from 2.2 million to 1.9 million farms, between 1982 and 1997. However, the number of Hispanic farms during the same period increased by 71.3 percent, from 16,183 to 27,717 farms. Figure 2 reveals the changes of these two groups when compared with the number of farms from that of the previous Census.

Size and sales per farm: Historically, average acres per farm operated by Hispanic farms are slightly higher than that of the U.S. average, and much higher than most other minority groups. In 1997, Hispanic-run farms had an average of 592 acres, while U.S. farms averaged 487 acres (Figure 3.) (Native American farm acreages are not comparable because of the mixture of reservation land.) Compared with U.S. farms where average sales increased from $59,000 to $103,000 from 1982 to 1997, Hispanic-run farms had a greater increase from $56,000 to $118,000 (see Figure 4.)

Looking at the mix of large and small farms with combined government payments and sales, Table 1 shows that Hispanics have a higher proportion of both very large and very small farms than that of the U.S. Thirty-two percent of Hispanic farms have total sales and government payments under $2,500. On the other hand, 2% of Hispanic farms had sales over $1,000,000, compared with 1.4% of all U.S. farms. The high average sales for Hispanics result from a relatively small number of farms with large sales.

Table 1

US and Hispanic Farms by Combined Government Payments and Market Value of Agricultural Sales,
1997 Ag. Census

Farm operator characteristics: In 1997, about half of Hispanic farm operators reported farming as their principal occupation, only one percent lower than that of the U.S. Between 1982 and 1997, over six thousand more Hispanics became full-time farmers while the number of full-time farmers in the US dropped by 273,000. The average age of Hispanic farm operators (54 years old in 1997) was similar to that of the U.S. (see Figure 6.) Identical to the general farm population, most Hispanic farm operators under 25 and over 65 listed farming as their primary occupation. In every other age category, i.e. between 25 and 65, most Hispanic and non-Hispanic farmers listed another occupation as their principal occupation.
 

Census data also shows that 37% of Hispanics live off the farm, compared with only 29% of all US farmers. The lower percentage of Hispanics living on the farm makes it difficult for USDA employees to contact and work with Hispanic farmers directly on their land.

In addition, Census reveals that average years of Hispanic farm operators on the present farm were 3.5 years less than that for U.S. farm operators, 16.6 years for Hispanics compared to 20.1 years for other farmers. The average number of years on the present farm increased by three years for both Hispanics and non-Hispanics since 1982. However, Hispanics on the present farm for more than 10 years increased substantially (more than doubled), while that of the U.S. increased only 1 percent. Moreover, the number of Hispanic farm operators with less than 5 years on the present farm rose 32%, while the total number of operators in that category declined by 31%. This indicates that many Hispanic farmers have not been on the farm long enough to obtain a long-term relationships with their USDA service personnel.

Table 2 - Years on present farm

Land ownership: Land owned by Hispanic operators accounted for 64 percent of the total land they operated in 1997, a 10-percent increase from 1992 (Figure 7) and 5 percent higher than the corresponding share for U.S. farms. Hispanic land ownership rose from 4,467,647 acres to 10,461,612 acres between 1987 and 1997, a 134% increase, while the acres of non-Hispanic farmer-owned land declined.

Type of Farms: Figure 8 displays that 41 percent of Hispanics specialized in beef ranching, which was slightly higher than that of the U.S. (34 percent.) The share of high-value specialty crops, such as fruit, tree nuts, greenhouse, nursery, or vegetable and melons, was more than twice among Hispanics (a total of 22 percent) than the corresponding 9 percent for U.S. farms. This may help explain the relatively high sales per farm for Hispanics. However, only a total of 12 percent of Hispanics had traditional commodity crops, such as oilseed and grain, cotton, and tobacco, compared with 28 percent among U.S. farms. That explains much of their low USDA program participation.

USDA programs and payments: In the Agricultural Census, there is a question asking about the CCC loan program, and another for all other USDA payments. Recently they added a third question asking for the total of CRP and WRP payments received in 1997. The Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) provides regular and emergency reserve loans using specific crops (grain, cotton, tobacco, and peanuts) as collateral. Only 12% of Hispanic farms primarily grow these crops, compared with 28% of all US farmers (see figure 8). As a result, only 2 percent of Hispanic farms received CCC loans in 1997, compared with 4 percent for U.S. farms. The average CCC loan per participating farm was $32,307 for the Hispanics, compared with $36,419 for all U.S. farms.

The number of Hispanic farms receiving USDA payments in 1997 was compared with the number in 1987 (Figure 9.) Although the participation rates of government farm programs for Hispanic farms increased from 13 percent in 1987 to 19 percent in 1997, that is only half of the U.S. participation rate (see Figure 10.) However, the Hispanic farms that did participate in USDA programs received about the same average government payment per farm as non-Hispanic farms ($7,400 and $7,378, respectively.)

III. Differences among Regions and Pre- and Post-Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA)

Historically, Hispanic farms were concentrated in a few “Gateway” states. In 1982 and still in 1987, 80% of Hispanics were concentrated in the border/coastal states from Texas to Washington, plus Colorado and Florida (Figure 11: Farms Operated by Hispanics, 1982.) However, in the 1990s, the number of Hispanic farms outside this border region increased much faster than other minority farms, and the geographic distribution of Hispanic farms transformed from a regional to a national phenomenon (Figure 12: Farms Operated by Hispanics, 1997.)

Of 3,128 counties in the 50 States, 589 counties (19%) had Hispanic farm operators in 1982. In 1987, the number increased to 713 counties (23%), in 1992, 925 counties (30%), and by 1997, Hispanic farm operators had spread across the nation to 1,775 counties (57%). This calculation uses the PUBLISHED 1997 Ag. Census, which may zero out counts if there are less than three Hispanics in a county.

Figures 13 and 14: Acres of Hispanic Operated Farms, 1982 and 1997, respectively, also verify this expansion of Hispanic operated farmland across the entire country. There are some counties in Figures 11 through 16, which do not show Hispanic operated land but do have Hispanic farmers. This is due to confidentiality restrictions in the Census, particularly if the county has less than five Hispanic farms, one oversized farm, or is needed to hide the numbers from another such county. When working with the information from Census, often the state level data is higher than adding all data from the counties, and occasionally the national data is greater than adding all data from the 50 states due to confidentiality restrictions at the local level. This year, the Census is providing exact counts of the number of Hispanic farms in each county, but not on the acreage or some other economic data, should there be any possibility that the analysis of the data could provide details on individual farms.

Figure 15 shows the net change in Hispanic Farms by county between 1982 and 1997.
Figure 16 shows the net change in farmland operated by Hispanics from 1982 to 1997. The percentage change in acreage is even greater than the change in number of farms, and more regionally noticeable.

One explanation for this change is the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986, which grants amnesty to undocumented workers who had been living in the U.S. since 1982. Traditionally, the agricultural sector relies heavily on migrant and seasonal workers, especially from Mexico. Some might have stayed in the country illegally. IRCA of 1986 allowed them to legalize their status. Once they established their permanent residence, not only would they come out from hiding and be accounted for in the Census, but also they could move around the country where they could purchase land and apply their farming skills. This helps explain the recent increase in Hispanic-owned farmland.

In addition to the amnesty provision, IRCA has two other sets of provisions that are specifically for agriculture. One is the Special Agricultural Worker (SAW) Provision, which allows farm workers, who worked a minimum of 90 days in perishable crops during 1985, a chance to legalize their status under SAW. That in turn provides an opportunity for them to become permanent U.S. residence. The other is the Replenishment Agriculture Workers (RAW) Provision that took effect in 1990. RAW assures the agricultural sector to continue draw alien workers in case the SAWs decide to leave farm work. In the long run, we envision that these two provisions will facilitate to have even more Hispanics in the agricultural sector.

Table 3 shows some data of Hispanic Farm Growth between the Pre and Post IRCA Era. During the 1982 to 1987 pre-IRCA period, 80% of the Hispanics lived in eight gateway states. These 'gateway' states included the six states along the Mexican border and the Pacific coast, Colorado, and Florida. Hispanics have long used the Rio Grande valley and later I-25 to travel through New Mexico to Colorado and have farmed there since Spanish colonial times. Florida was colonized by the Spanish in the 1500s, and still receives waves of immigration from Cuba and other Latin American counties. From 1982 to 1987, ALL of the net increase in Hispanic farms was in these eight states, increasing their percentage of Hispanic farms from 79% to 81%. The number of Hispanic farms in the other 42 states actually went down during those five years. The land owned by Hispanics in both gateway and non-gateway states declined slightly in this time period. Figures 17 and 19 show the growth in Hispanic farms and land by state in this Pre-IRCA Era.

But in the Post-IRCA Era, from 1992 to 1997, most (54%) of the increase in Hispanic farms went to the other 42 states. The number of Hispanic farms in these 42 non-gateway states increased 154% in the ten years between 1987 and 1997; compared with only a 36% increase in the eight gateway states. Land operated by Hispanics increased by the by 154% in the 42 non-border states. In the border states, only Arizona had a significant increase in Hispanic operated farmland. Figures 18 and 20 reveal these significant changes for both farms and land in the Post-IRCA Era.

Table 3 - Hispanic Farm Growth between the Pre and Post IRCA Era

Left side of this chart: Number of Hispanic Farms (Pre-IRCA Era: 1982 - 1987; Post-IRCS Era: 1992 - 1997)
Right side of this chart: Acres of Hispanic Farms (Pre-IRCA Era: 1982 - 1987; Post-IRCS Era: 1992 - 1997)

Eight Gateway States

Figures 17 and 19 show the growth in Hispanic farms and land in the Pre-IRCA Era.
Figures 18 and 20 show the growth in Hispanic farms and land in the Post-IRCA Era.

Figures 17 and 19 show the growth in Hispanic farms and land in the Pre-IRCA Era.
Figures 18 and 20 show the growth in Hispanic farms and land in the Post-IRCA Era.

IV. Opportunities for Natural Resources Conservation

Table 4 is based on the NRCS FY2000 PRMS First Time Customer Parity Report data. The second column in Table 4 shows the number of Hispanic farm operators assisted by NRCS in FY 2000. NRCS has provided assistance to 17,379 Hispanic farm operators, which account for about 37 percent of all potential Hispanic clients (the third column, using the 1997 Census data.) A parity difference indicates that on average, the rate of assistance provided to Hispanic farmers is about 15 percent lower than that to the more traditional clients, i.e., white, male Anglos. The baseline for the parity calculations is 64.2%, the percentage of white, male Anglos served in FY2000.

Currently, NRCS service to Hispanics exceeds the assistance rate of traditional clients in ten states: Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Hawaii, Massachusetts, New Mexico, Ohio, Rhode Island, and Texas (Figure 23). This data is only valid for the 50 states, data for Puerto Rico and other US territories are included, but can not be directly compared. At the request of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the 1998 Agricultural Census for Puerto Rico does not include any baseline data on race or Hispanic origin. This information may not be relevant within Puerto Rico. However, only 24% of all farmers in Puerto Rico were served by NRCS this year, well below the national average of 64%.

In using the PRMS data, we would like to point out that the system is still fairly new that may require modifications or further clarifications to ensure consistency in data collections. In addition, there is the data compatibility issue between Hispanic clients served and the number of potential Hispanic clients from Census. Until we can address these concerns, the parity difference may not necessarily be valid and comparable for all States.

Despite these concerns, a quick glance at Figures 21 and 22 shows definite opportunities for NRCS to increase assistance to Hispanic farmers, especially, since the post-IRCA era when Hispanic farmers' spreading across the nation happens to be consistent with the post-1985 Food Security Act (FSA) era. Since 1985, USDA has been providing financial incentives through conservation programs to promote land stewardship. Although the share of Hispanics participating in conservation programs remains to be low for various reasons, it is increasing. How we can take the opportunity to develop outreach strategies and program policies to further increase their participation?

Table 4 NRCS Parity Report FY2000

IV. Summary

References:

1. Census of Agriculture, 1978, 1982, 1987, & 1992. Bureau of Census, Department of Commerce. http://www.census.gov/
2. Census of Agriculture, 1997. USDA-National Agriculture Statistics Service. http://www.nass.usda.gov/census/
3. Dismukes, Robert, 1997. Characteristics and Risk Management Needs of Limited-Resource and Socially Disadvantaged Farmers. USDA-Economic Research Service, Agriculture Information Bulletin, No. 733. http://www.ers.usda.gov/epubs/pdf/aib733/index.htm
4. Durand, J., D.S. Massey, & F. Charvet, 2000. The Changing Geography of Mexican Immigration to the United States: 1910-1996. Social Science Quarterly, Vol. 81(1), University of Texas.
5. Effland, A.B.W., and K. Kassel, 1998. Hispanics in Rural America: The Influence of Immigration and Language on Economic Well-Being. In Racial/Ethnic Minorities in Rural Areas: Progress and Stagnation, 1980-1990, L.L. Swanson, ed., USDA-Economic Research Service, Agricultural Economic Report No. 731.

   http://www.ers.usda.gov/epubs/pdf/aer731/AER731h.PDF (160 KB)

6. Effland, A.B.W., R.A. Hoppe, & P.R. Cook, 1998. Minority & Women Farmers in the U.S. In Agricultural Outlook, USDA-Economic Research Service, AGO-251.

   http://www.ers.usda.gov/epubs/pdf/agout/may98/ao251d.pdf (67 KB)

7. Fimmen, Carol, Burton Witthuhn, Jeff Crump, Michael Brunn, Gloria Delaney-Barmann, Debi Riggins, Maria Gutierrez, Dan Schabilion, and Britta Watters, 1998. A Spatial Study of the Mobility of Hispanics in Illinois and the Implications for Educational Institutions. Julian Samora Research Institute, Working Paper #43.

   http://www.jsri.msu.edu/RandS/research/wps/wp43.pdf (337 KB)

8. Gutierrez P. and J. Eckert, 1991. Contrasts and Commonalities: Hispanic and Anglo Farming in Conejos County, Colorado. Rural Sociology, Vol. 56(2), pp. 247-263.
9. Huffman, W.E., and J.A. Miranowski, 1996. Immigration, Meat Packing, and Trade: Implication for Iowa. Iowa State University, Staff Paper #285.

   http://agecon.lib.umn.edu/isu/isu285.pdf (42 KB)

10. Kraft, S., 1993. Pilot Study of Limited Resource Farm Operators in Southern Illinois: Alexander and Pulaski Counties – Final Report. Submitted to the Illinois State Office of the U.S. Soil Conservation Service and the Shawnee Resource Conservation Development Council.
11. Mountjoy, D.C., 1995. Outreach Efforts: The Elkhorn Slough. Small Farm News, University of California at Davis.
12. Mountjoy D.C., 1996. Ethnic Diversity and the Patterned Adoption of Soil Conservation in the Strawberry Hills of Monterey, California. Society & Natural Resources, 9:339-357.
13. Natural Resources Conservation Service, 1996. Process for Identifying Limited Resource Farmers and Ranchers. Social Sciences Institute, Technical Report, Release 2.1. http://people.nrcs.wisc.edu/SocSciInstitute/limitedframe.htm
14. Natural Resources Conservation Service, 1997. Working with Asian and Hispanic Limited Resource Farmers and Ranchers. Social Sciences Institute, Technical Report, Release 4.1. http://people.nrcs.wisc.edu/SocSciInstitute/working_with_frames.htm
15. Natural Resources Conservation Service, 1998. Conservation in the 1996 Farm Bill: Social Factors Influencing Program Implementation. Social Sciences Institute.
16. Natural Resources Conservation Service, 1999. Social and Economic Data Access Web Site. Social Sciences Institute. http://people.nrcs.wisc.edu/SocSciInstitute/socanthrSoftData.htm
17. Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2000. Performance and Results Measurement System Parity Report. Strategic and Performance Planning Division. http://calais.itc.nrcs.usda.gov/prmsproducts
18. Perry, J., with B. Hoppe, et. al., 1998. Small Farms in the U.S. In Agricultural Outlook, USDA-Economic Research Service, AGO-251.

    http://www.ers.usda.gov/epubs/pdf/agout/may98/ao251e.pdf (83 KB)

19. Rochin, R.I., 1989. The Changing Nature of American Agriculture and Its Impact on Hispanic Farm Labor: Topics for Research and Analysis. Michigan State University, Working Paper No. 3. http://www.jsri.msu.edu/RandS/research/wps/wp03abs.html
20. Rogers, Carolyn C., 2000. Age and Family Structure, by Race/Ethnicity and Place of Residence, Rural Minority Trends and Progress. In Rural Minority Trends and Progress, USDA-Economic Research Service, AGO-731.

    http://www.ers.usda.gov/epubs/pdf/aer731/AER731d.PDF (85 KB)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Paper presented at the National Organization of Professional Hispanic NRCS Employees
(NOPHNRCSE) Conference, Washington, D.C., June 27, 2000
[2] David Buland, Economist, USDA-NRCS, National Resources Inventory & Analysis Institute
[3] Fen C. Hunt, National Research Coordinator and Economist, USDA-NRCS

 Back to Top