Themapon thecover hasdots representingAgriculture Canada research establishments.

ONE HUNDRED YEARS OF PROGRESSTheyear 1986 is the centennial ofthe Research Branch, AgricultureCanada.On 2June 1886, The Experimental Farm Station Act received Royal Assent . The passage of thislegislation marked the creation of the first five experimental farms located at Nappan, NovaScotia ; Ottawa, Ontario; Brandon, Manitoba ; Indian Head, Saskatchewan (then called the North-West Territories) ; and Agassiz, British Columbia . From this beginning has grown the current sys-tem of over forty research establishments that stretch from St . John's West, Newfoundland, toSaanichton, British Columbia .The original experimental farms were established to serve the farmingcommunity and assist theCanadian agricultural industry during its early development. Today, the Research Branch con-tinues to search fornew technology that will ensure the development and maintenance of acom-petitive agri-food industry .Research programs focus on soil management, crop and animal productivity, protection and re-source utilization, biotechnology, and food processing andquality.

Agricultural land use systemsof the Regional Municipalityof NiagaraE. HUFFMAN and J . DUMANSKILand Resource Research InstituteOttawa, Ontario

LRRI Contribution No. 84-02

Research BranchAgriculture Canada1986

Copies of this publication are available fromLand Resource Research InstituteResearch Branch, Agriculture CanadaOttawa, OntarioKIA OC6

Produced by Research Program Service

©Minister of Supply and Services Canada 1986Cat. No. A54-8/1986-5EISBN 0-662-14630-1

SUMMARY

As part of the Land Resource Research Institute's pro-gram in land use and evaluation, and in response to a requestfrom the Planning Department of the Regional Municipality ofNiagara, an inventory of Agricultural Land UseSystems in theregion was conducted in 1980 . In the land use systems ap-proach, classification is oriented toward the identification ofdifferent levels of land use intensity, categorization is basedon the mix and proportion of different crops within individualproperties, and systems are characterized in terms ofsocioeconomic parameters. Mapping wasconducted throughinterpretation of 1978 aerial photos and complete field surreyin 1980, whereas characterization data was collected throughlandownerinterviews .

The Regional Municipality of Niagara is comprised oftwobasically different agricultural zones : the fruit and grape area,consisting of the towns of Grimsby, Lincoln, Niagara-on-theLake and Pelham and the city of St. Catharines ; and the fieldcrop area, consisting of the townships of West Lincoln andWainfleet, the towns of Thorold and Fort Erie and the cities ofNiagara Falls, Welland and Port Colborne . Seven croppingsystems, ranging from high intensity peaches and peaches-cherries to medium level cherries, orchards and orchard-vin-eyards, to low-intensityvineyard-orchard andvineyards, wereidentified and mapped in the fruit and grape area. Systems ofthe field crop area, in decreasing order of intensity, consist ofrow-crops, corn-wheat, mixed, cereal grains, hay, pastureandgrazing. In addition, specialty crop categories of vegetablesand berries and nursery, land use types such as built-up,transporation, extraction, idle agricultural and forest, andbuilding tyupes such as greenhouses, barns, wineries, andfarm machinery dealers were mapped in all areas. The landuse maps, included as part of this report, are at the scale of1 :25000and consist of seven sheets .

Farmer interviews were conducted following the mappingphase, and information pertaining to physical characteristics,capital investment levels, income and expenses, labor inputs,operator characteristics, and enterprise types was collectedfor 204 farms. This data was used to characterize the variousland use systems and is presented in the form of histogramsand tables . Generally, the high intensity systems are charac-terized by large farms with high proportions of rented land,high-quality land, high total but low per-hectare capitalizationlevels, positive financial returns, high hired labor use, and rel-atively young operators. Adescription and photo of a"typical"operationfor each system isprovided in the report .

A 1 :100 000 scale generalized land use map, showingcombinations of the predominant systems by local area, is in-cluded .

RÉSUMÉ

Dans le cadre du programmede l'Institut de recherchessur les terres portant sur l'utilisation et l'évaluation des tereset en réponse à unedemande du Service de planification dela Municipalité régionale de Niagara, un inventaire des sys-tèmes d'utilisation des terres agricoles de la région a été effec-tué en 1980 . Dans cette perspective, la classification estorientée vers l'identification des différents niveaux d'intensitéd'utilisation des terres, la catégorisation est basée sur la com-position et la proportion des différentes cultures dans chaqueexploitation et les systèmes sont caractérisés selon desparamètres socio-économiques. Les cartes ontété préparéesà partir de l'interprétation de photographies aériennes prisesen 1978 et d'une étude complète sur le terrain effectuée en1980, alors que les données de caractérisation ont été recueil-lies lors d'entrevues avec les propriétaires .

La Municipalité régionale de Niagara est composée dedeux zones agricoles fondamentalement différentes : la zoneà vergers et à vignes, comprenant les villes de Grimsby, deLincoln, de Niagara-on-the-Lake, de Pelham et de Sainte-Catharines, et la zone de grandes cultures, comprenant lescantons de West Lincoln et de Wainfleet et les villes deThorold, de Fort Erie, de Niagara Falls, de Welland et de PortColborne . Sept systèmes culturaux, allant de la production in-tensive, pêches et pêches-cerises, à la production semi-inten-sive, cerises, fruits de verger et fruits-vignobles et enfin à laculture extensive mixte, vignobles-vergers et vignobles sontindiqués sur les cartes de la zone des fruits et du raisin . Lessystèmes de la zone des grandes cultures, par ordre décrois-sant d'intensité, comprennent les cultures en ligne, la com-binaison maïs-blé, les cultures mixtes, les céréales, le foin, lepâturage . En outre, les cartes indiquent également, pourtoutes les régions, les catégories de cultures spéciales,comme les légumes, les petits fruits et les pépinières, lestypes d'utilisation des terres, par exemple, bâtiments, trans-port, extraction, friches et forêt, et les types de bâtiments,comme les serres, les étables, les caves vinicoles et les mar-chands de machinerie agricole . Les cartes d'utilisation desterres inclues dans ce rapport sont à l'échelle 1 :25 000 et com-portent sept feuillets.

Les entrevues avec les agriculteurs ont été effectuéesaprès la mise en carte et les renseignements relatifs au carac-téristiques physiques, aux niveaux d'équipement, aux revenus et aux dépenses, à l'intensité de main-d'oeuvre, auxparticularités de l'exploitant et au type de production ont étérecueillis auprès de 204 fermes . Cesdonnées ont été utiliséespour caractériser les différents systèmes d'utilisation des ter-res et sont présentées sous la forme d'histogrammes et detableaux . Dans l'ensemble, les systèmes de culture intensivesont caractérisés par des fermes étendues, à forte proportionde terres louées, des terres de haute qualité, des niveaux dedépenses importants pour l'ensemble de l'exploitation, maisfaibles par hectare, un bilan positif d'exploitation, une forteutilisation de main-d'oeuvre salariée et des exploitants rela-tivement jeunes . Le rapport contient une description et unephoto d'une exploitation typique pour chaque système cul-turel.

Une carte générale de l'utilisation des terres au 1 :100000e, indiquant les combinaisons des systèmes prédomin-ants par région, est égalementincluse.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION1 .1

Agricultural Land Use Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

61 .2

General Description of the Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

61 .3

Inventory Methodology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

61 .4

Usingthe Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

71.5 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

2. FRUIT CROP SYSTEMS2.1

Description of Cropping Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

82.1 .1

Fruit Crops. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

82.1 .2

Peaches and Peaches-Cherries (P and PC). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

92.1 .3

Cherries (C) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102.1 .4

Vineyard and Vineyard-Orchard (V and VO). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112.1 .5

Orchard and Orchard-Vineyard (O and OV) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12

2.2

Characterization of Cropping Systems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132.2 .1

Physical Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132.2 .2

Capital Investment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .142.2 .3

Annual Income and Expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152.2 .42.2 .52.2 .6

Annual Farm Labor. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16Operator Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17Summary Statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

18, 19

3. FIELD CROP SYSTEMS3.1

Description of Cropping Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203.1 .1

Field Crops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203.1 .2

RowCrops (J) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

213.1 .3

Corn-Wheat (CW) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223.1 .4

Mixed (M) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233.1 .5

Cereal Grain (SW). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243.1 .6

Hay (H). . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253.1 .7 Pasture(HG) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .263.1 .8

Grazing (G). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273.1 .9

Idle Land and Forest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

3.2

Characterization ofCropping Systems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 293.2 .1

Physical Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 293.2 .2

Capital Investment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .303.2 .3

Annual Income and Expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

313.2.4

Annual Farm Labor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 323.2 .5

Operator Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .333.2 .6

Summary Statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34,35

4. AGRICULTURAL LAND USE SYSTEMS MAPS4.1

Sheet 1

Township of West Lincoln4.2

Sheet2

TownofGrimsby -Town of Lincoln4.3

Sheet 3

City of St. Catharines - Town of, Niagara-on-,the-Lake

4.4

Sheet 4

Town of Pelham - Town of Thorold - City ofWelland

4.5

Sheet 5

City of Niagara Falls4.6

Sheet 6

Township of Wainfleet4.7

Sheet 7

City of Port Colborne -Town of Fort Erie4.8 Generalized Agricultural Land Use Systems -

Regional Municipality of Niagara (1 :100,000)

1 . INTRODUCTION1 .1

Agricultural Land UseSystemsThe procedure for mapping "Land Use Systems" as out-

lined in this report is addressed to the growing need for perti-nent and detailed information on the nature and location ofdifferent agricultural activities within a region . In this approachspatial variation in land use intensity is depicted by means ofa map of cropping systems, while socioeconomic character-ization of the mapped categories is presented graphically inthe accompanying report. Each cropping system, describedby a number of physical, economic and social variables, con-stitutes an Agricultural Land UseSystem .

1 .2

General Dgscriptionofthe AreaThe Regional Municipality of Niagara is a study in agricul-

tural contrasts. The area is well known for its fruit, grape andvegetable production, but it also supports extensive andmodern cash crop, dairy, hog, poultry and nursery operations . Inaddition, the influence of industrial, commercial and touristcenters can be observed in the numerous built-up areas,hobby farms and recreational properties which permeate thelandscape. In 1981 there were 3512 farms, with an averagesize of 28.6 ha (Statistics Canada, 1982). The farmland areaof 100 627 ha covered 54.4 percent of the total land area andconsisted of 16 773 ha of fruit, grapes, vegetables and nurserycrops, 57 907ha of field crops, 4 574 ha of improved pasture,4 812 ha of summerfallow, 4 810 ha of other improved landand 11 751 ha of unimproved land . Seventy percent of allfarmland wasowned by the operator and 30 percent was re-nted .

FruitCrop AreaThe fruit crop area of the Region is defined for the pur-

poses of this study as the Towns of Grimsby, Lincoln, Pelhamand Niagara-on-the-Lake and the City of St . Catharines. Theagricultural statistics of these Municipalities, in comparisonwith those of the Region, indicate the importanceand intensityof land use in this unique geographic area . The area withinthese five municipalities constitutes only 32 percent of the Re-gion's total, but it supported 60 percent (2109) of the Censusfarms. Average farm size was 16.5 ha, and the farmland areaof 34 904ha (60 percent of land area) consisted of 44 percentfruit, grapes, vegetables and nursery crops, 32 percent fieldcrops, 3 percent improved pasture, 3 percent summerfallow,7 percent other improved, and 11 percent unimproved land .

Approximately 33 percent of the area's 58 535 ha con-sists of imperfectly drained sandy loam soils, 47 percent con-sists of imperfectly to poorly drained clay and silty clay loamsand 13 percent consists of poorly drained clay soils (OntarioSoil Survey, 1935 and 1963) . Seven percent of the area ismapped as ravines and escarpments. The fruit area of Re-gional Niagara lies within the 3300 Corn Heat Unit area, thefrost free period averages 169 days, and the average annualprecipitation is 780mm.

Field Crop AreaThefield crop area is comprised ofthe TownshipsofWest

Lincoln and Wainfleet, the Towns ofThorold and Fort Erie andthe Cities of Niagara Falls, Welland and Port Colborne . Thisarea constitutes 68 percent of the total area of the Region andsupported 40 percent (1403) of the Census farms. Averagefarm size was 47 ha, with a total farmland area of 65 723 ha(53 percent of land area). This is made up of 72 percent fieldcrops (corn, wheat, oats, barley, soybeans and hay), 2 per-cent fruit, grapes, vegetables and nursery crops, 5 percent im-proved pasture, 5 percent summerfallow, 4 percent other im-proved land and 12 percentunimproved land .

CLI Class 1, 2 and 3 soils constitute approximately 86percent of the total of 123 142 ha in the field crop area, withsignificant problems of adverse soil structure and excess water(Hoffman and Noble, 1975). Class 4 and 5 soils, with ex-cess water limitations, account for 6 percent of the area, shal-low Class 6 soils cover 4 percent, eroded Class 7 soils occuron 2 percent and Organic soils comprise 2 percent ofthe area .

This portion of the Region is within the 3100-3300 CornHeat Unit area, the frost free period is 152 days on average,and precipitation averages 864mm peryear.

1 .3

Inventory MethodologyDevelopment of the mapping legend involved determina-

tion of common crop rotations and crop combinations througha study of published agricultural statistics and farm practicebulletins and discussion with extension personnel and farm-ers. In Regional Niagara, seven cropping systems relating tofruit crops and seven relating to field crops were identified . Inaddition, two 'specialty crop' categories, 12 'land use types'and 19 'site descriptions' were mapped . Mapping units con-sisted of "land parcels", which are property units as identifiedfrom land ownership maps and aerial photo interpretation,with subdivisions as indicated by cultural features, forest,built-upareas, and significant soil boundaries . Identification ofcropping systems relied on both aerial photo interpretationand ground survey, and socioeconomic information was com-piled through landowner interviews . Systems with similarlevels of land use intensity (i .e . Peaches and Peaches-Cher-ries ; Orchard and Orchard-Vineyard ; and Vineyard and Vin-eyard-Orchard) were combined for statistical analysis pur-poses, and no data was available forthe Grazing category.

The mapping phase of the inventory was carried out dur-ing the summer of 1980 and consisted of pretyping aerialphotos to identify land use types (forest, built-up, etc.), followed by field mapping of present crops. Comparison of thecrop mix of 1980 with that interpreted from the 1978 aerialphotos, plus visual analysis of farming activities provided theinformation needed to categorize each land parcel accordingto the predefined legend . Landowner interviews were con-ducted in the fall of 1980, with random selection of farms froma population stratified by system . Thesample size of 204 rep-resents 6 percentof allfarms in the Region.

1 .4

Usingthe InformationInformation presented in this report and accompanying

maps can be used at two levels of study. The detailed scaleof publication (1 :25 000) is intended for local concerns, whilethe reduced scale (1 :100 000) is for regional or provincial con-siderations .

For proper interpretation of the detailed map, it is impor-tant to understand the manner in which land use is portrayed.The principle on which the map is based is that cropping systems reflect crop rotations and/or crop combinations, ratherthan farms or farming systems. Map units therefore indicateparcels of land within which the intensity of use is fairly consis-tent, without reference to ownership. Any one map unit mayconsist of a portion of afarm, an entire farm, or portionsof sev-eral farms. On the other hand, any one farm may be rep-resented by several map units, depending on soil types, own-ership or distance between properties . Because of this, eachfarm at which an interview wasconducted was assigned to acropping system on the basis of crop distribution within thefarm, regardless of the combination of mapped systems.There is an assumption, therefore, that the socioeconomiccharacteristics of any classified land parcel are similar tothose of a farm unit having the same proportion and combina-tion ofcrops.

Within this constraint, themapand report can be used fora variety of land related assessments. Decisions in establish-ing planning zones, service installations, corridor and site locations, drainage improvements, and resource protectionschemes can all be improved through a study of the existingsocial and economic characteristics of an area . In conjunctionwith soil survey, forest inventory and wildlife habitat maps andreports, land use systems information can provide a basis fornon-point pollution and erosion studies, for land use changeassessment, for compensation evaluations, and for agricul-tural extension efforts .

The Agricultural Land Use Systems map can also beused in assessing underuse, misuse, and potential use of theland base, as well as in predicting and monitoring land usechange. Underutilization of natural capability is often indicatedby a parcel of low intensity land use in an area of predomin-antly higher intensity use, as the surrounding systems of landuse are usually good indicators of the physical potential of anyparcel . For example, a low intensity use on the same soil typeas one of higher intensity indicates where a change in man-agement could effect a dramatic increase in production, andin fact defines a parcel which is likely to undergo a change inland use in the near future . Similarly, a relatively high intensityuse surrounded by parcels of low land use intensity (such asin an area dominated by hobby farms) may be subject to pres-sures ofdecreasing intensity.

The 1 :100 000 generalized map is not suitable for as-sessments of individual properties, but is intended instead togive a regional perspective of the spatial variation in agricultural land use intensity. The combination of symbols indicatesthe predominant cropping systems within a given area . Thistype of presentation can be particularly suitable for definingbroad zoning categories, identifying general route and site lo-cations, determining agricultural service facility requirements,establishing extension program priorities and formulating pol-icy .

1 .5 References

Canada Land Inventory, Environment Canada, 1967. SoilCapability for Agriculture, maps 30L (Welland) and30M(Toronto), Ottawa .

Hoffman, D.W . andH.F . Noble, 1975 . Acreages of Soil Capa-bility Classes for Agriculture in Ontario, ARDA ReportNo.8 .

Ontario Soil Survey, 1935 . Report No. 5, Soil Survey Map ofCountyof Welland, Province of Ontario.

Ontario Soil Survey, 1963 . Report No . 34, Soil Survey of Lin-coln County.

Statistics Canada, 1982 . 1981 Census of Canada, Agricul-ture, Ontario, Catalogue 96-907, Ottawa .

2. FRUIT CROP SYSTEMS

2.1

Description of Cropping Systems

2.1 .1 FruitCropsThecommon fruit crops of Niagara, arranged in decreas-

ing order of land use intensity are peaches, sour cherries,sweet cherries, apples, pears, prunes and plums, and grapes .The relative proportions of these crops within each croppingsystem defines a similar ranking of systems on the basis ofland use intensity. Systems with the highest proportions ofpeaches and cherries are the most intensive, while those withthe highest proportion of grapes are the lowest . The followingsections present brief descriptions of each cropping systemassociated with fruit. Systems which are spatially associatedand which exhibit similar socioeconomic characteristics havebeen combined for reporting purposes .

2.1 .2

Peaches and Peaches-Cherries (P and PC)Themost intensive fruit based cropping systems in Niag-

ara are Peaches and Peaches-Cherries . These systems weremapped wherever 50 percent or more of a land parcel waspeaches (P) or where 50 percent or more was peaches andcherries but each crop was less than 50 percent (PC) . Themean crop distribution within these systems (combined) is65.7 percent peaches, 10.7 percent cherries, 9.5 percentpears, 8.7 percent other fruit, 3.8 percent vegetables and ber-ries and 1 .6 percent grapes . These systems are highly de-manding of well drained soils and favourable climate and areconcentrated along Lake Ontario and the Niagara River in St .Catharines and Niagara-on-the-Lake and in a wide arc aroundJordan Harbour in Lincoln. Scattered parcels of these sys-tems also occur along Lake Ontario in Grimsby and on theFonthill kame .

Peaches and Peaches-Cherries systems are character-ized by an average farm size of 21 ha, with 12% of the landrented . Average total farm value is approximately $530,000,with 87% in land and buildings . Gross income in 1980 aver-aged about $100,000 and total expenses amounted to 88%of income . Most farms in this group are family businesses withone full-time principal operator . Labor input averages about1400 person-days per year and hired labor constitutes ap-proximately 50%. Average operator age is 46 years, with atleast halfof that spent farming fruit and close to 20 years spentspecializing in peaches and cherries .

2.1 .3

Cherries (C)The 'Cherry' system is an intensive land use system re-

lated primarily to the production of sour cherries . It was map-ped wherever cherries (sweet and sour) constituted 50 percent or more of a land parcel . The crop distribution within allinterviewed 'cherry' farms is 80.2 percent cherries, 10.7 per-cent vegetables and berries, 4.1 percent apples, plums,prunes and apricots, 3.8 percent pears and 1 .2 percentpeaches. The area of this system is not extensive, althoughthere is some concentration in the Fonthill area on loam andsandy loam soils where natural 'air drainage' is sufficient to re-duce the frost risk. It also occurs in scattered locations in thepeach areas below the escarpment .

Farm operations using this cropping system are relativelylarge (41 ha) and they rely on rented land to the greatest ex-tent (17%) of any fruit system . Capital investment levels average about $560,000 per farm, with considerably more (17%)devoted to machinery than in other fruit systems. Averagegross income in 1980 amounted to approximately $140,000,with 87%going to expenses . Two full-time operators are com-monon 'Cherry' farms, total labor inputs average around 1800person-days per year and hired labor constitutes 47% of thetotal . Average operator age is 46 years and farming experi-ence averages 30 years, half of which were spent in exclusivecherry production .

2.1 .4

Vineyard and Vineyard-Orchard (V andVO)Vineyard and Vineyard-Orchard systems are moderately

intensive cropping programs with emphasis on grape produc-tion . Land parcels with 90 percent or more in grapes weremapped as 'V', and those with 60 to 90 percent in grapes andthe remainder in other fruit were mapped as 'VO' . Mean cropproportions within these parcels are 96.1 percent grapes, 1 .8percent pears and less than one percent in any oneother crop .These two systems are very common in the area, with concen-trations on loam and clay loam soil along the brow of the es-carpment, in the vicinity of St. Catharines Airport and at thebase of the escarpment between Jordan Harbour and TwelveMile Creek. Numerous additional parcels are dispersedthroughout the fruitgrowing area .

An average farm of either of these systems is relativelylarge (33 ha) and has a low proportion of rented land (1 %) .Vineyard and Vineyard-Orchard systems have an averagetotal farm value around $520,000, with 88% in land and build-ings and the remainder in machinery. Gross income in 1980averaged about $95,000 per farm and total expensesamounted to 75% of that . Seventy-five percent of 'V' and 'VO'farms are family enterprises with one principal operator whoworks on the farm full-time . Hired labor provides about 47%of an average total input of around 800 person-days per farmper year . Themean age of operator in this category is the low-est (44 years) of all fruit systems, but the length of time spentfarming (30 years) and specializing in one crop (16 years) iscomparableto the others .

2.1 .5

Orchard and Orchard-Vineyard (O and OV)Orchard and Orchard-Vineyard systems are the least in-

tensive fruit cropping schemes. They relate primarily to hardyfruit production and were mapped wherever pears, plums,prunes, apples and apricots together constituted greater than90 percent of area (O), or where hardy fruit composed be-tween 40 and 90 percent and grapes covered the majority ofthe remainder (OV) of a land parcel area. Mean crop distribu-tion consists of 36.8 percent apples, plums, prunes and ap-ricots, 32.8 percent pears, 8.6 percent grapes, 7.9 percentvegetables and berries, 7.2 percent peaches and 6.5 percentcherries . Hardy fruit are less restricted by soil conditions thantender fruit crops and hence these systems occur in widelyscattered locations, wherever site conditions are not suitablefor peaches or cherries . Some concentration occurs on theclay loam soils south and east of Virgil .

Average farm size in these systems is very small (12 ha),with 4% of land rented . Total farm value averages close to$175,000 with 90% in land and buildings. Gross income in1980 averaged approximately $30,000 and total expensesamounted to about 82% of income . Less than one-half ofthese farms are operated on a fulltime basis by the principaloperator and hired labor constitutes 20% of the average totallabor input of approximately 600 persondays per farm peryear . Operators of 'O' and 'OV' systems have an average ageof 52years, which is somewhatolder than the average ofothersystems, but the amount of farming experience (25 years) isgenerally less .

2.2 CHARACTERIZATION OF CROPPING SYSTEMS

2.2 .1 . PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS

UnCLI Classes 1 and 2

ha

45-

40-

35-

i30-

25-

20-.

FARM SIZE

7

offarm

SOIL CAPABILITY FOR AGRICULTURE'

FEE

Peaches Cherries Vineyard OrchardPeaches-Cherries

Vineyard-Orchard Orchard-Vineyard

nCropping System

CLI Class3 and 4

Note 1) The CLI rating indicates the inherent capability of a soil to

support field crops, which may be quite different from its

capability for specialty crops . This chart serves only to indi

cate the relative specificity of fruit crops for a particular kind

of soil.

FNAreaOwned

Area Rented

CLI Classes 5, 6,7and 0

2.2 .2 CAPITAL INVESTMENT

TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT'

TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT'

Cropping System

Note 3) Land and building value includes trees and vines .

$/ha

MACHINERY VALUE'

Peaches Cherries Vineyard Orchard

Peaches Cherries Vineyard OrchardPeaches-Cherries

Vineyard-Orchard Orchard-Vineyard

Peaches-Cherries

Vineyard-Orchard Orchard-Vineyard

Cropping System

Note 1) Total capital investment includes the 1980 market value of

Note 2) Data calculated per cultivated hectare .land, buildings, trees, vines, machinery and equipment .

LAND AND BUILDING3 VALUE'

$/ha

30000-; $/ha

27000-- 4500-

24000- 4000-

21000- 3500-

18000- 3000-

15000- 2500-

120007 2000-

9000- 1500-

6000- 1000-

3000- 500-

2.2.3 ANNUAL INCOME AND EXPENSES

$/ha

$/ha

1400-

1200-

1000-

600-

400-

200-

GROSS INCOME

GROSS MARGIN 2

Peaches Cherries Vineyard OrchardPeaches-Cherries

Vineyard-Orchard Orchard-Vineyard

Cropping System

Note 1) Total expenses include operating expenses (fuel, hiredlabor, repairs, interest, etc .) plus depreciation on buildingsandmachinery.

Note 3) Netmargin= grossincome minus total expenses.

$/ha

4500-.

4000-

3500-

3000-.

2500-

2000-

1500-

1000-

500-

$/ha

900-

800-

700-

600-

400-

300-.

500-

200-

100-

TOTAL EXPENSES'

NET MARGIN3

Peaches Cherries Vineyard OrchardPeaches-Cherries

Vineyard-Orchard Orchard-Vineyard

Cropping System

Note 2) Gross margin= gross incomeminusoperating expenses .

2.2 .4 ANNUAL FARM LABOR

19

Hired Labor

pd/ha

110-

too-

90-

60-

50-

40

,

-

30-

20-7

10

$/pd

27-

24-

15-

12-

9-

6-

3-

18-

n

Note 1) Person-days per hectare .

TOTAL LABOR INPUTS'

L

Family Labor

NET FARM RETURN PER TOTAL LABOR UNIT

PeachesPeaches-Cherries

Vineyard-Orchard Orchard-Vineyard

Cropping System

777

flu

Vineyard Orchard

Operator and Partner Labor

2.2 .5 OPERATOR CHARACTERISTICS

35-

30-

25-

20 -

15-

OPERATOR AGE

OPERATOR EDUCATION

years

OPERATOR'S FARM EXPERIENCE

TIME IN CURRENT ENTERPRISE

years

20-7

5-

lo-,

Peaches Cherries Vineyard Orchard

Peaches Cherries Vineyard OrchardPeaches-Cherries

Vineyard-Orchard Orchard-Vineyard

Peaches-Cherries

Vineyard-Orchard Orchard-Vineyard

Cropping System

Cropping System

2.2.6 SUMMARY STATISTICS

Agricultural

No.of

FarmSize (ha)

Rented Land

Cultivated Land

%CLI'

Total sLand andBuildingsLand Use

Interviews

(%offarm size)

(%offarm size)

Classes 1 and 2

(P&PC =1 .00)

(%ofTotal)System

Owned Rented

PeachesandPeaches-Cherries~P &PC)

Cherries (C)

5

40.9

16.9

87.2

VineyardandVineyard-Orchard(V & VO)

Orchard andOrchard-Vineyard 28 11 .9

4.0 79 .1(O& OV)

Agricultural

TotalsHired

NetFarm Return

Age

Education

Farming Experience

Timein CurrentLand Use

(pd/ha)

(% ofTotal)

perTotal LaborUnits(Years)

(Years)

(Years)

EnterpriseSystem

(P&PC = 1 .00)

(Years)

32 .5

1'.4

1) TheCLI rating indicatestheinherent capability of a soil to supportfield crops, which

2) Data were calculated percultivated hectare for allsystems.may be quite different from its capability forspecialty crops. Thesevalues serveonlyto indicate therelative specificity of fruit cropsforaparticular kind of soil .

5) Totallaborincludes operator, partner, family andhiredlabor.

PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS

CAPITAL INVESTMENT2

11 .7

95.6

ANNUAL FARM LABOR2

OPERATOR CHARACTERISTICS

1 .00 86 .7

47 .9 11 .4 0.65 83 .0

63 .5 50.0 0.64 88 .2

70 .3 83 .3 0.75 89.6

Peaches andPeaches-Cherries 48 .9 1.00 46.0 11'.9' 24.8 19.7(P& PC)

Cherries (C) 45 .9 47.3 1 .75 46.2 12.0 30.2 15 .0

Vineyard andVineyard-Orchard 3.02' 44.4 11 .3 30 .2'(V& VO)

Orchard andOrchard-Vineyard 99 .0 19 .5 0.90 52 .0 10.1 25.2 16.2(O &OV)

Notes

CAPITAL INVESTMENT'

Machinery

Livestock

GrossIncome3(/of Total)

(% ofTotal)

(P &PC =1.00)

13.3 - 1.00

73.7

17.0 -

0.86

73.8

10.4 -

0.67

71 .6

OPERATOR CHARACTERISTICS

OffFarmWork(%of365 days)

13.6

Peaches,somesour cherries

13 .7

Sourcherries

35 .4

PREDOMINANT FARM ENTERPRISE

3) Values in 1980 dollars for Peachesand Peaches-Cherries are : total capital invest-ments$31,603.98/ha ; grossincome $4,825 .31/ha; gross margin $1,294.44/ha; netmargin $629.62; netreturn perlabourunit$8.79/pd .

ANNUAL INCOME AND EXPENSES'

OperatingExpenses°TotalExpenses °(% of Gross Income)

88.4

87 .3

82 .3

Pearsand grapes, some apples, plumsand sweetcherries.

Gross Margin3

NetMargin3(P &PC =1 .00)

(P &PC=1 .00)

4) Operating expenses include all recurrent expenses such as fuel, fertilizer, hiredlabor, repairsand interest payments. Total expenses include operating expensesplusdepreciation on machinery andbuildings .

1 .00

0.84 0.81

0.97 1 .40

0.71 0.98

3. FIELD CROP SYSTEMS

3.1

Description of Cropping Systems

3.1 .1

Field CropsThe common field crops of Regional Niagara, from most

to least intensive, are: corn and soybeans, cereal grains(wheat, barley, oats), legume hay (alfalfa and clover), grasshay (timothy, brome, orchard), improved pasture and unim-proved pasture. The intensity of a cropping scheme which in-corporates several of these crops is reflected by the propor-tion of area and the frequency of occurrence of the crop re-ceiving the highest level of agronomic input. Thus a croppingsystem consisting of a high proportion of corn or soybeansevery year is a very high intensity land use, while one employ-ing only grass hay and pasture is a low intensity scheme. Thefollowing sections present a general outline of the types offarms employing each of the six different field cropping sys-tems identified in the Region .

3.1 .2

RowCrops (J)Corn and soybeans are demanding crops in terms of both

physical resources and management inputs, and a croppingsystem that entails continuous cultivation of corn and/or soybeans is a high intensity land use. This system was mappedwherever greater than 75% of a land parcel was in row-cropsin both 1978 and 1980 . Although not widespread in Niagara,row-crop monoculture is practised to a certain extent in areasof lighter loam soils, such as in the Chambers Corners area.

Farms associated with this cropping system average 206ha in size, with 91% of the land cultivated and 38% rented .Total capital investment on these large farms averages approximately $500,000 (1980), with 63% in land and buildings,29% in machinery and8% in livestock. Average gross incomein 1980 amounted to about $190,000, while total expensesrepresented 87% of income . Most 'row-crop' farms are oper-ated as a family partnership with two or more principaloperators (average age 41 years) who work full-time on thefarm . Annual labor inputs average around 800 person-daysper farm, 12% ofwhich is hired. Predominant enterprise typesof these farms are hog and cash-crop operations, most ofwhich are relatively new, with an average of about 7 yearsspent in the present typeofoperation.

3.1 .3

Corn-Wheat (CW)This cropping system is slightly less intensive than con-

tinuous row-crop in that cereal grains (wheat, barley, oats) aregrown in a rotation with corn and/or soybeans . It was mappedon land parcels where greater than 80% of the land area was:1) in a combination of row-crops and cereal grains in 1978and/or 1980 and 2) in row-crops one year and cereal grainsthe other. This system is widespread on the heavy clay soilsof the Region, where the residues of the cereal grain crop(usually wheat) serve to maintain the structure and texture ofthe soil .

The average farm practicing a corn-wheat cropping sys-tem is 199 ha in size, with 90% of the land cultivated and 46%rented . These farms have an average total value of approximately $430,000, with 69% in land and buildings, 23% inmachinery and 8% in livestock. Gross income in 1980 aver-aged about $140,000 and total expenses amounted to 92%of income . The predominant form of management on Corn-

Wheat farms is one full-time operator, although larger farmstend to be family partnerships with two operators and smallerfarms maybe operated on a part-time basis. The average ageof operators is 43 years. Average annual labor inputs amountto about 600 person-days, of which only 5% is hired. This sys-tem represents the same enterprise types (cash-crop andhogs) as row-crop monoculture farms, but they have a some-what longer history, averaging 12 years in that enterprise .

3.1 .4

Mixed (M)The most widespread cropping system in the Region is

the Mixed system, a moderately high intensity cropping pro-gram that incorporates corn and/or soybeans, cereal grain(s),hay (legume and grass) and pasture. Acommon rotation en-tails row-crops for one to three years, followed by cerealgrain(s) for one year and legume hay for several years. In ad-dition, some semi-permanent grass hay and/or pasture is usu-ally present. This system is appropriate whereafarm encom-passes a variety of soil types or where cattle form the basisof the operation.

Farms of this system are generally of moderate size (av-erage 115 ha), with a smaller proportion cultivated (84%) andless rented land (30%) than farms of either of the two moreintensive systems. The average total farm value of about$430,000 is comparable to that of the larger Corn-Wheat

farms and the proportion represented by land and buildings issimilar (67%), but the proportion in machinery (16%) is lowerand that in livestock (16%) is higher. In 1980, `Mixed' farmsshowed an average gross income of approximately $70,000and expenses amount to about 88% of income . These farmsare usually full-time family enterprises, often with twooperators as well as spouses and children being involved inthe daily routines . Average age of the principal operators is 46years and the mean annual labor input is around 800 person-days (11% hired) . Dairy farms are the most common type ofoperation associated with the Mixed system, although beefoperations are also represented . Farms associated withmixed cropping are well established in the Region, with an av-erage time of 28 yrs spent in the currententerprise .

3.1 .5

Cereal Grain (SW)Production ofcereal grains (wheat, barley, oats) is a mod-

erately intensive activity, and the Cereal Grain cropping sys-tem, which represents continuous cultivation of only thesecrops, is somewhat less intensive than those systems whichincorporate corn and/or soybeans . This system was mappedwherever greater than 80% of a land parcel was in cerealgrain(s) in both 1978 and 1980. Continuous cereal grain culti-vation is not a widespread practice in the Region and occursin scattered locations rather than as a localized pattern corres-ponding to specific natural features .

An average 'cereal grain' farm is relatively small (44 ha),with 81% of the land cultivated and 13% rented. Total capitalinvestment averages approximately $130,000, most of whichis in land and buildings (79%) and machinery (19%), while avery small proportion (2%) is in livestock. Annual finances ofthese farms are relatively low due to the small size, but in 1980they showed a positive situation, averaging about $20,000 ingross income with expenses accounting for 91 % of income .Most 'cereal-grain' farms are operated on a part-time basiswith one principal operator (average age 47 years) . Theoperator and their family provide all of the average of 200 per-son-days of annual labor. These are essentially cash-cropfarms, although some hogs maybe present. The average timespent in the current enterprise is 10 years.

3.1 .6

Hay(H)The Hay system is a moderately intensive cropping

scheme that relies mainlyon good quality legume orgrass hayand improved pasture. A typical rotation involves one year ofcereal grain followed by several years of hay and then backto grain . This is usually complemented by a considerableamount of pasture, eitherolder hay fields in the rotation or per-manent grazing land . The Hay system is very common inNiagara, particularly in areas of poor quality soil and on theurban fringe .

'Hay' farms are generally small, averaging 40 ha in size,with 82% of the land cultivated and 21 % rented . These farmsare similar in both size and total value to those of the 'CerealGrain' system, but the distribution of capital values is some-

what different. The averagetotal value of around $130,000 forHay farms is devoted less to land and buildings (76%) andmachinery (17%) and more to livestock (7%) than in the grainfarms. The financial situation of farms associated with a Haycropping system is precarious ; in 1980 average gross incomeamounted to approximately $13,000 and total expenses toabout 119% of that. These farms are typically operated as afamily endeavour in addition to full-time off-farm employmentof the principal operator (average age 50 years), althoughthey may represent the chief interest of older 'retired'operators as well . Average annual labor input approximates200 person-days, of which five percent is hired. A beef cow-calf operation, sometimes with afew hogs, is the most com-monenterprise type . The average length of time in that enter-prise is 14 years.

3.1 .7

Pasture (HG)Agricultural land use intensity is a function of the amount

of inputs applied to land in order to effectuate a crop and onthat basis the Pasture system, which relies on annual harvesting of perennial grass species, is a very low intensity produc-tion scheme. It is a system of essentially grass hay and pas-ture, and was mapped wherever greater than 50% of a landparcel was in poor quality hay and/or pasture and summerfal-low and grain were absent . This system does not cover a largearea in the Region, as it is found primarily in small parcels inurbanfringe areas.

The Pasture system is characterized by farms averaging17 ha in size, with 76% of the land cultivated and 12%rented .

Total farm value is low (average about $76,000) with relativelylow proportions in land and buildings (73%) and machinery(10%) and a high proportion (17%) in livestock. An averagegross income in 1980 of around $8,000 and total expensesamounting to 123% of that putthis group of farms in a financialdeficit position . The financial situation of these farms indicatesthat they are essentially hobby farms and they are generallyoperated as a family undertaking in conjunction with full-timeoff-farm work . The average age of the principal operator is 53years and the average annual labor input is about 200 person-days, supplied entirely by the operator and family. Horses andbeef cow-calf enterprises are the most common,and theaver-age length oftime in that enterprise is 10 years.

3.1 .8

Grazing (G)Livestock grazing is the lowest intensity land use in the

Region, as it consists of simply uncultivated native grass pas-ture . This land use is not widespread in Niagara, usually occurring only on land that is so steep as to preclude the use ofmachinery. It is normally found along stream banks, ravinesand escarpments. The 'grazing' category is not characterizedin socio-economic terms, as it rarely occurs as the sole crop-ping program of a farm unit, but rather serves as an adjunctto amore intensive system .

3.1 .9

Idle Land and ForestLand UseTypessuch as Idle Agricultural (A1), Scrubland

(A2), Forest (Z), Reforestation (Zr) and Swamps (X) are nottrue land use categories, although some use (or non-use) isimplied. They are more properly land cover types and repre-sent those portions of an agricultural area that is not in activeuse. Very often these categories are associated with poor ag-ricultural land . Land use types are not characterized in socio-economic terms.

3.2 CHARACTERIZATION OF CROPPING SYSTEMS3.2 .1 PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS

ha

M

FARM SIZE

CroppingSystem

CLI Classes 1 and2

29

CLI Classes3and 4

CroppingSystem

CLI Classes5, 6, 7 andOrganic

SOIL CAPABILITY OF OWNED LAND SOIL CAPABILITY OF RENTED LAND

too-

- OVA F41r.M MAI01so

A1011 011,0f,

,80w 9

so-

40- NoRented

20- Land

Rowcrop Corn-Wheat Mixed CereaIGrain Hay Pasture Rowcrop Com-Wheat Mixed Cereal Grain Hay Pasture

3.2 .2 CAPITAL INVESTMENT

$/farm

600000-.

$/ha

1100-

1000-:

900-

800-

700-

600-

500-

400-7

300-

200-

100-

Rowcrop Com-Wheat

TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT'

LAND AND BUILDING VALUEZ

LIVESTOCK VALUEZ

Cropping System

30

$/ha

7000-

6000-

5000-

4000-.

3000 -

2000 -

1000 -

$/ha

1000-

TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT2

MACHINERY VALUEZ

Rowcrop

Corn-Wheat

Mixed

Cereal Grain

Hay

Pasture

Cropping System

Note 1) Total capital investment includes the 1980 market value ofland, buildings, machineryand livestock.

Note 2) Data calculated per cultivated hectare for Rowcrop, Corn-Wheat, Mixed, Cereal Grain and Hay systems and per culti-vated plus grazinghectarefor Pasturesystems.

3.2.3 ANNUAL INCOME AND EXPENSES

$/ha

$/ha

- 200 -

GROSS INCOME

GROSS MARGIN2

Rowcrop

Corn-Wheat

Mixed

Cereal Grain

Hay

Cropping System

Note 1) Total expenses include operating expenses (feed, fuel, re-pairs, interest, hired labor, etc .) plus depreciation on build-ings and machinery .

Note 3) Netmargin= gross income minus total expenses.

Pasture

$/ha

$/ha

NET MARGIN3

TOTAL EXPENSES'

Rowcrop

Corn-Wheat

Mixed

Cereal Grain

Hay

Pasture

Cropping System

Note 2) Grossmargin = grossincome minusoperating expenses .

3.2 .4 ANNUAL FARM LABOR

H

pd/ha

Operator and PartnerLabor

$/pd

35-

TOTAL LABOR INPUTS'

Family Labor

I

Hired Labor

NET FARM RETURN PER TOTAL LABOR UNIT

Rowcrop

Com-Wheat

Mixed

Cereal Grain

Hay

Pasture

Note 1) Person-days per hectare .

Cropping System

3.2 .5 OPERATOR CHARACTERISTICS

TIME IN CURRENT ENTERPRISE

30-

OPERATOR AGE

OPERATOR EDUCATION

years

13-

12-

11-

Cropping System

CroppingSystem

to-

9-

8-

7-years

60 - s-50 - 5-

40-. 4-

30- 3-

20- 2-

lo- 1 -

OPERATOR'S FARM EXPERIENCEyears years

3.2.6 SUMMARY STATISTICS

Land andBuildings(% of Total)

69.2

Mixed,(M)

73 .4

Cereal Grain(SW)

(H)i

Pasture(HG)

76.6

9 .2 0 .0

0.34

PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS

CAPITAL INVESTMENT'

62 .9

78 .6

OPERATOR CHARACTERISTICS

10 .7

0.41

3.4

-0.06

20 .6 0 .0

-0.53

Notes1) Data were calculated per cultivated hectare for Rowcrop, Com-Wheat, Mixed,

2) Values in 1980 dollars for Rowcrop are: total capital investments $6,203 .45/ha;Cereal Grain and Hay systems, and per 'cultivated + grazing' hectare for Pasture

gross income $2,299 .88/ha ; gross margin $379 .01/ha; net margin $188.42 ; net re-systems .

turn perlaborunit $30.56/pd.

Age(Years)

Education(Years)

FarmingExperience(Years)

Time in CurrentEnterprise(Years)

40 .8 12-2 22 .7 7-5

42 .7 11 .4 26.0 12.1

46.0 11 .2 28.6 27 .9

47.0 12 .1 29 .0 10 .0

50.2 9.4 28.5 1-4 .6

52 .6 10 .0 28 .4 9 .8

Cereal Grain(SW) 7 44 .3

Hay 22 40.5

Pasture 5 16 .7(HG)

29.8 84.0 73.1 61 .4 0.76

12 .9 80 .8 78 .3 33 .3 0 .71

20'.7 82 .0 61 .3 52.4 0.77

12.1 76.5 60 .7 100.0 0 .97

AgriculturalLand UseSystem

No. ofInterviews

Farm Size (he) Rented Land(% of farm size)

Cultivated Land(% of farm size)

%CLIClasses1 and2Owned Rented

Tota12(1= 1 .00)

Rowcrop(J) 206.5 38.1' 90.8 80 .0 39 .1 1 .00

Corn-Wheat(CW) 23 198 .6 46 .3 89 .6 78 .3 63.5 0 .54

ANNUAL FARM LABOR'

Agricultural Total° Hired NetFarm ReturnLand Use (pd/ha) (% of Total) perTotal Labor UniteSystem (J = 1 .00)

(J)Rowcrop 9.5 12.2 1 .00

Corn-Wheat(CW) 5 .4 4 .7 0.76

CAPITAL INVESTMENT'

ANNUAL INCOME AND EXPENSES'

Machinery

Livestock

GrossIncome'

Operating Expenses 3TotalExpenses3Gross Margin'

NetMargin'

OPERATOR CHARACTERISTICS

PREDOMINANT FARM ENTERPRISE

OffFarmWork(% of365days)

11 .5

Hogsand cash crop (corn, soybeans)

12 .0

Cash crop (corn, soybeans, cereals) & hogs

6.5

Dairy, some beef feeder

47 .2

Cashcrop (cereals), some hogs

39.5

Cow-calf, some hogs, beef feeders andhobby

24.8

Hobby(cow-calf, horses)

3) Operating expenses include all recurrent expenses such as feed, fuel, fertilizer,

4) Total laborincludes operator,partner, family and hired labor.hired labor, repairs and interest payments . Total expenses include operating ex-penses plus depreciation on machineryandbuildings.

(% of Total) (% of Total) (J =1 .00) (% of Gross Income) (J = 1 .00) (J = 1.00)

29 .0 8.1 1 .00 77.0 86 .6 1 .00 1.00

23 .2 7.6 0.41 77.1 91 .7 0.52 0.42

16 .4 16 .2 0.34 72.0 87 .5 0.62 0.61

19 .6 1 .8 0.30 74.9 91 .0 0.48 0.58

16 .8 6.7 0.18 109.9 119.2 0.16 0.15

9.9 16 .7 0.30 122.7 122.7 -0.40 -0 .81

Canadg