Limited resources farm management program, Cattaraugus County, New York

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Limited resources farm management program, Cattaraugus County, New York final report
Physical Description:
99 p. : ; 28 cm.
Language:
English
Creator:
Hudson, Daniel H
Publisher:
s.n.
Place of Publication:
New York
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Agricultural extension work -- New York (State)   ( lcsh )
Family farms -- Management -- New York (State)   ( lcsh )
Genre:
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Statement of Responsibility:
by Daniel H. Hudson.
General Note:
Cover title.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
oclc - 665132141
ocn665132141
System ID:
AA00007165:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text
















TABLE OF CONTENTS


Page


Introduction. . . .

Program Objectives. . . .

Initiation. . . .


Implementation. . . .

Interagency Cooperation .................

Program Evaluation. .. .. .. .. ..

Summary & Conclusion. ...... .. ..........

Appendix A. . . .

Table A Comparison of Selected Business Factors
1979 Farm Business Summaries .......

Table B Comparisons of Selected Business Factors
on 10 LRFM Farms 1978-1980 ........

Table C Size of Business Effect on Family Income .

Table D Selected Business Factors
Sample Farms by Benefit Group. ......

Table E Utilization of Management Resources. ...

Table F Comparison of Selected Business Factors
Cattaraugus County LRFM Participants ...


Appendix B ACP Special Project. ............

Appendix C Individual Farm Observations ........

Appendix D Quarterly Program Reports. .........


. .1

. 2












. 13





. .. 14



. 16

. 17



. 18

. 22



. 23

. 26

. 27

. 70










CATTARAUGUS COUNTY
LIMITED RESOURCES FARM MANAGEMENT PROGRAM


Introduction:

Cattaraugus County is a predominately rural county located near the
western end of New York State's Southern Tier. Agriculture is a major
contributor to the economy of the area with annual value of products sold
in excess of 30 million dollars.

Dairy production is the dominant enterprise, accounting for over 60
percent of the gross value marketing annually. The last published Census
of Agriculture (1978) indicates that there were 572 farms in Cattaraugus County
with more than $2,500 but less than $40,000 gross value of products sold.
Approximately 75 percent of these enterprises would be dairy farms operating
with less than 40 mature cows.

The county is geographically located on the northern end of the Western
Plateau and is topographically characterized by somewhat narrow valleys
bordered by steep-sloped hills rising 800 to 1,000 feet above the valley
floors. Soil classifications vary with the terrain. Glacial outwash and
lacustrine sediments, usually well-drained and highly productive, dominate
the valley floors while acid fragipan silts and clays with limited drainage
and severe erosion potential typify the hillsides and tops.

A demographic array of agricultural enterprises would find a majority
of the larger more productive dairy farms concentrated in the valleys with
the smaller more marginal enterprises scattered throughout the hills. Many
of the farms located away from the valley floors have fairly limited resources.
Productive capacity of the indigenous soil resources, quantity of available
arable land, available credit, and managerial capabilities of the operator
are all factors contributing to the marginal productivity of these farms.

Operating with limited gross and ultimately low net incomes, the families
comprising this defined limited resource group have had little contact or
involvement with Cooperative Extension programming. They could be characterized
as being moderately conservative in attitude, not likely to seek outside help,
lacking an awareness of educational, technical, and financial resources
available to them, and more concerned with existence than improvement in quality
of life.

The awareness of the unique problems facing the small, family, limited
resource farm has been increasing over the last decade. Recognizing the lack
of local programming aimed at this clientele group, the Cooperative Extension
Association of Cattaraugus County began in 1974 to search for funds for a pilot
program. Proposals were submitted to the Appalacian Regional Commission in 1974
and 1976. Finally in 1977 a grant through the Office of the Director, New York
State Cooperative Extension, Cornell University for a three year pilot program
was secured.










Program Objectives:


The Cattaraugus County Limited Resources Farm Management Program (LRFM)
was instituted with two major design objectives; an educational program aimed at
improving the quality of life of a disadvantaged group and to further document
the potential of effectively expanding the impact of Cooperative Extension
programming by the employment of paraprofessional aides as extensions of
professional staff resources. Specific objectives of the program were:

1. To increase the family income of farm families with
fewer than 40 cows or producing less than 4,800 cwt.
of milk annually.

This production level was chosen as documentation of gross farm income
and operating expenses, investment, and minimum family living expenses,
indicated that levels of production below this design criteria netted
income levels insufficient to meet family living, debt service, and
capital replacement requirements.

2. To employ paraprofessionals with agricultural knowledge
to help the agent staff carry on an effective Extension
program with limited resource families.

3. To adapt Extension's educational efforts to meet the
needs of this economically disadvantaged group.

It is fairly well recognized that this clientele will not initially
participate in group activities. Other programs have documented that
intensive one on one contact and individualized objective analysis
and planning is the most effective educational approach.

4. To update and improve the managerial skills of the
limited resource families to the point where they are
able to participate and benefit from Extension's
regular programs.

It was intended that within a three year period of intensive counseling
the families would graduate subsequently utilizing resources available
to them consistent with efficient, profitable management principles
characteristic of sound commercial agricultural production.

5. To develop an evaluation procedure that will measure
changes in family income.

Evaluation has been carried out objectively on the basis of business
analysis, changes in family income and net worth, and the institution
of sound management practices. Subjective evaluation has been done in
the areas of levels of benefit from the program, and attitude change.











Initiation:


The LRFM program officially began January 1, 1978 with the hiring of
Edgar Chapman as Assistant Director to work directly with the program. Mr. Chapman
brought a unique set of resources with him to the job. Over 30 years of successful
dairy farming and 4-H leader experience gave him the background for working with
dairy farmers and their families. Several periods of Extension work when
Cattaraugus or Chautauqua County Associations were short staffed as well as
helping with the Cornell Farm and Home Management Study gave him an excellent
working knowledge of Extension philosophy and methodology.

Area farm service and supply businesses, processors, and credit personnel
were surveyed for suggested farming operations which met the design criteria
and might potentially benefit from the proposed program. The resulting suggestions
were correlated and a final prospect list of over 100 operations developed.

As the prospect list was put together, it became apparent that one section
of the county had a greater concentration of potential candidates. It was
decided to concentrate the initial efforts here. With a sufficient number in
a concentrated area, it was felt that the assistant director could better use
his time and travel by starting with a six or seven town area rather than the
26 town 1,300 square mile county-wide area.

Since individual contact and programming was to be emphasized, it was
determined that the initial group would total no more than 30 families. The
initial group was quickly established, with the first 30 of 31 contacts resulting
in enrollees.

The response to the program offering was greater than expected. Mr. Chapman's
comment was that "we had no trouble getting participants; but it was rather
difficult to service all those who wanted to participate". It was not long
before calls were beginning to come to the office from people who had talked
to some of the participants or had heard about the program to see if they could
be on the "Limited Resources Farm Management Program". As a result a waiting
list remained even though there was a significant turnover in participants until
project termination when there were 18 to 20 families waiting to enroll.
Concurrently with the enrollment of the initial group of participants, two
advisory bodies were formed. Representatives of the Agricultural Program Offices,
Departments of Rural Sociology, Agronomy, Animal Science, Agricultural Economics;
Cornell University comprised one advisory group. The local advisory group was
formulated with representatives from the Cooperative Extension Association of
Cattaraugus County; the county FmHA supervisor; a representative of the Chautauqua-
Cattaraugus Regional Dairy and Livestock Advisory Committee; and two LRFM partici-
pants. These two advisory groups met periodically to review program progress,
set objectives, and develop the annual plan of work.










Implementation:


Benchmark data on resources and management practices were solicited from
LRFM participants upon enrollment. Individual plans were developed with partici-
pants consistent with family goals and objectives. Each LRFM participant was
visited by the paraprofessional at least twice monthly during the first year.
The intensive contact was necessary to establish rapport with the family and
check on progress of recommended practices.

Edgar Chapman: "Personal visits were made usually twice a month
and more often when it seemed necessary. The initial contact
was primarily a commitment of the participating family and some
answers to some questions concerning the farm operation. These
answers were studied completely before the next visit to the farm.
In all cases the wife, as well as the operator, was asked to
participate in the discussions. Sometimes a change in the operation
was suggested on the first visit but certainly by the second visit.
The cropping practices were discussed in detail, the feeding program,
and last but in all cases, a study of the bookkeeping or record
keeping. This is probably #1 in importance and #1 in jobs not
kept up-to-date or not done properly. Up-to-date accurate records
can be valuable information but incomplete records are a headache.
Routine visits were made to the farms to make sure the suggestions
were getting done. Eventually participants who had been on the
program a year or more were encouraged to come to the office to seek
advice or at least use the telephone. They were reluctant to do so
at first."

A wide array of demonstrations were conducted with the LRFM participants.
Dependent upon individual problems, demonstrations on recommended cropping
practices, dairy cattle ration formulation, and milking or herd management
practices prevented a show and tell program for LRFM participants.
Financial management was identified as a major area of concern by the two
advisory committees and the staff working with the LRFM project. Substantial
effort was expended in the areas of cash flow planning, record keeping, business
analysis, and capital budgeting. Each of the participants were strongly
encouraged to participate in the business summary program and then to sit down
with staff to analyze the business.

A significant portion of the participants needed debt restructuring and
refinancing assistance. The staff was able to help these individuals develop
financing packages that would satisfy creditors.











Interagency Cooperation:

Cooperation among U.S.D.A. agencies was an integral part of the planning
and implementation of the LRFM project. The four agriculturally oriented agencies,
Soil Conservation Service (SCS), Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation
Service (ASCS), Farmers Home Administration (FmHA), and Cooperative Extension
(CES) worked extensively together throughout the project.

Each of the LRFM participants were encouraged to participate in cost-
sharing programs when appropriate. Efforts were coordinated between the four
agencies to identify and determine conservation needs and arrange cost-sharing
and financing for the producer's share of the installation costs.

A special project was funded by ASCS during 1979. This project provided
up to $100,000 in cost share resources over a three year period. These cost-
share resources were to be used on LRFM farms participating in Long Term
Conservation Agreements developed by SCS. Farmers Home Administration was able
to secure almost an equal amount of special low interest loan money to help cover
the producer share of the installation costs.

Conservation practices emphasized in this special project included erosion
control measures, pollution abatement structures, and establishment of permanent
vegetative cover. The plans were to be implemented during the years 1980, 1981,
and 1982. The accompanying table indicates that at the time that the LRFM program
was terminated, 40% of the work had been completed.

The establishment of these practices should provide long term benefits to
the LRFM participants. An added benefit has been the continued cooperation and
and coordination between the four U.S.D.A. agencies. The work that the
representative agencies have been able to accomplish in combination with each
other is a prime example of effective use of available local resources.

Program Evaluation:

The Cattaraugus County Limited Resources Farm Management Program was in
operation for three full calendar years. During its tenure, its staff experienced
some resounding successes; and some disappointing, though not unexpected, failures.
Some of the results of the program can be substantiated with data collected during
its operation. This data, principally financial, can be used to objectively
evaluate the short-term surface results.

Subjective evaluations are much harder to substantiate however; especially
when dealing with a desired lasting attitude change that must be evaluated in the
short-term. Never-the-less, the Cattaraugus County Limited Resources Program (LRFM)
must be evaluated using both objective analysis of actual changes in the management,
production, and financial standing of the family businesses; and subjective eval-
uations of the changes in attitude that occurred in these families.











Let us begin the evaluation of the LRFM program with the difficult subjective
analysis of how it was perceived by different groups. It would be a safe assumption
to say that support for the LRFM was directly related to how the program was
perceived.

The four groups that should be looked at are the participants themselves,
agribusiness, established producers and the Agricultural Program Advisory Committee.
It should be remembered that this is a subjective analysis by the staff and should
not be assumed that all members of a group would express the same opinion. The
evaluation is merely offered as evidence of a general opinion that may be important
for other organizations interested in LRFM programs.

Satisfaction with and support of the program can be objectively evaluated
in the case of program participants. The LRFM program began with an initial
caseload of 30 families. The interest and support for the program was evidenced
from the beginning. The 30 participants were the result of 31 contacts. Soon,
knowledge of the program spread by word of mouth, inquiries about the program were
received and the constant waiting list formed. At the termination of the formal
program, there were 40 participants and again a substantial waiting list.

At another point in this evaluation, the participants will be grouped according
to whether or not lasting change in practice or attitude occurred. Many of those
that were evaluated by staff as likely to make continued progress after program
termination have stated that they perceived the program as an awakening. An
awakening to the knowledge that there were resources available to them outside
the boundaries of their farms and that there were people who would be willing to
help and to show them ways of making their business better. Even though they
left farming for other alternatives, many of that group felt the program was
beneficial.

The other side of the coin were those families that participated in the
program but made few changes of a lasting nature or made no changes at all.
These families were interested enough to participate, but did not find the
benefits that some other families found.

In general, agribusiness was supportive of the program. From the beginning
many of the referrals received came as a result of interest by farm lenders.
Farmers Home Administration, as was hoped, was very supportive. FmHA sought
help for many of its clients from the LRFM program. They in turn were very
cooperative when financial restructuring was necessary and provided encouragement
for approved practices to be adopted.

Feed and supply businesses found the program useful and therefore were
supportive. Some businesses were carrying fairly substantial accounts for the
proportionate size of participant farms. They were anxious to see improvement
in the repayment ability of the farm family and therefore were also very coop-
erative in setting up repayment alternatives.











Unfortunately there were those who did not support the LRFM program. Several
of the LRFM participants were not members of marketing cooperatives. Some members
of established cooperatives perceived the LRFM program as another form of "welfare",
hand holding, and promotion of the milk surplus. Their perception of the intent
of the program being to keep the participants on the farm at all costs was not
changed by one on one discussion or printed material. Therefore their support
and cooperation was limited.

The third group would be established producers. This group was also divided
with a general opinion similar to agribusiness, that of general interest and support.
The sample of established producers that were supportive felt that this furthered
the real mission of Cooperative Extension. They felt that a successful manager
took advantage of many sources and opinions in making management decisions. If
a farmer was unaware or reluctant to make use of these resources, his chances
of success were lessened. Some felt that it was Extension's responsibility to help
make these individuals aware of the resources available and encourage them to use
them.

Those that voiced their disapproval of the LRFM program held the opinion
that these individuals shouldn't have their hands held and if a man couldn't
"make it" on his own, maybe he shouldn't be in business.

The Agricultural Program Committee might be described as a group of
increasing support. In the initial stages there were skeptics. Some wondered
if this idea would work and if Extension should be involved in this type of program.
As the program progressed the support increased. Increased emphasis was placed in
programming and priority setting for educational programs for the young and the
limited resource farmers. This committee encouraged by preliminary results of
evaluations of the Points for Profit Young Farmer Program and the Limited Resources
Program have placed heavy emphasis on programming for these groups.

It may appear that a disproportionate amount of time has been spent describing
how the program was perceived. However, perception may be critical to future
programs. Who is to say that if the perceptions of the leadership of marketing
co-ops were different and a majority of established farmers were aware and
supportive of the program, continuing funding might have been easier to find.

This is not to say that the program failed to continue for lack of support
from the agricultural sector but merely raising the concern that substantial
groundwork must be laid with agricultural leadership before their support can be
gained. Significant educational efforts need to take place before program
initiation if full support is likely to be achieved.











There were five major objectives in the earlier description of the LRFM
program. The success or failure of a program must to some degree be attributable
to whether or not the design objectives were satisfied. The first design objective
was to increase the family income of LRFM participants. The design criteria was
set at 40 cows and less than a half million pounds of annual milk production.

Appendix Table A provides a benchmark for comparison of LRFM participant
business with other commercial farms in the area and also with a group of young
farmers with an average of less than five years tenure.

The LRFM group and the young farmers group were comparable in terms of size
of business, but only two-thirds as large as the average Western Plateau partici-
pant. Financially the LRFM participant is in a much more critical position. The
LRFM participant, on the average, received only 20 percent the return to his
management and labor that the Western Plateau participant received and was required
to service 36 percent more debt per cow.

A comparison of selected production factors reveal that the LRFM participant
marketed only 78% as much milk per cow and raised approximately 75 % as much
roughage per acre as the Western Plateau participant. The LRFM participant also
spent seven percent more of his gross milk receipts on purchased feed.

Given the above scenario as a starting point, it would have to be said that
the first objective was satisfied on a limited basis. Table B showsselected
business factors from 10 LRFM farms that participated in the program all three
years. These farms all met the design criteria in terms of size. Relative to
total pounds of milk sold, purchased feed, and net cash income, progress was made.
However, to say that family incomes were increased might be considered embellish-
ment.

It was extremely difficult to actually increase the family disposable income
on 40 cows or less under the circumstances outlined in Table A. Efficiences
could and were accomplished. Table B shows that in three years the percentage
expenditure for feed decreased, debt per cow decreased, equity increased, as did
net cash income. However, a comparison of Western Plateau Summary participants
with LRFM participants shows that 20 percent more per hundredweight was spent
on labor and machinery by LRFM participants. Using this as an example, it would
appear that the LRFM participants were caught in the vise called "economies of
scale". There is very little difference in the kinds of equipment needed for a
40 or a 60 cow dairy. The 40 cow dairy's inventory may be a little rustier, but
is about the same size. Therefore, unless the production is higher to compensate
for fewer units, the cost per production unit will be higher.

As a few of the LRFM participants increased their management skills and
expanded beyond 40 cows, it was not as difficult to increase family income.
This is certainly not meant to indicate that size of business is the sole
pre-requisite for profitability, but that there is a threshold beyond which
there is a greater chance of profitability.











Table C gives an example of this. Farm A has 20 cows and does show a profit.
Progress is being made but even with very intensive work by the staff very little
was accomplished in line with the design objective. Farm B expanded and indicates
excellent progress. The combination of factors here were the increases in herd
size and production. Another example can be found in Table D, Group A. This farm
maintained about 50 cows, increased production and decreased expenses.

Therefore, the data indicates that for those LRFM participants that could
make management progress and also increase herd size above 40 cows, the chances
for increasing family income were greater than for those with less than 40 cows
even though management progress was made.

Design objectives 2 and 3 can be evaluated together. One of the purposes of
this program, in addition to expanding Cooperative Extension's clientele base,
was to further document the effectiveness of utilizing paraprofessionals to expand
the agent's sphere of influence. Objective 3 was to modify Extension methodology
to effectively work with this clientele group.

There is little doubt that paraprofessionals can work effectively in a program
such as the LRFM program. However, the degree of success will be directly related
to the background, experience, and ability of the individual. As was mentioned
previously, the Cattaraugus County Limited Resources Program was fortunate to
find an individual with qualifications ideally suited to the job to be done.

Edgar Chapman brought a wealth of background and experience with him to the
LRFM program. A lifetime of experience on a successful 30 cow dairy farm gave him
the insight into the problems associated with dairy farms of the size dealt with
in the project. Over 30 years experience as a 4-H leader provided the knowledge
of rural family structure and the goals and objectives he was likely to find.
Several periods filling in where vacancies existed within the Extension Associations
of Cattaraugus and Chautauqua Counties and involvement in the data collection for
the Cornell Farm and Home Management Studies in the early sixties provided the
background for understanding Extension methodology. Also, having served as
President of the Cattaraugus County Extension Association, Edgar had an understanding
of the local association and was a strong supporter of Extension programs.

Not every program will be fortunate enough to find an individual of the calibre
of Ed Chapman, but other programs success will depend upon finding an individual
that understands the clientele involved, can communicate effectively in very basic
terms, and yet be able to translate complex scientific material into basic concepts.
The individual must be willing to spend the time it takes to convey concepts and
make sure they are understood.

The person in the position must be a patient and caring individual. This
clientele group will provide more frustration than any other Extension audience.
They will also, when progress is made, provide more satisfaction.

In more general terms, a paraprofessional may communicate more effectively
than an agent would with this group. In the first place, the staff worker
probably came out of the community. He (genderless) would be a known quantity,











which could be good or bad dependent upon reputation. However, in any event, the
person would be more familiar than a stranger from an office somewhere. If the
individual is a little older than the average age of the participants, this may
also be an asset. The old feelings of respect for elders is still quite strong
in rural area. Having a little more experience helps instill confidence and if a
little expertise accompanies it, rapport should soon follow.

Another advantage to the utilization of a paraprofessional is that with a case-
load of 30-35 families, adequate time may be spent with each one. This is critical
in the early stages for rapport development and the constant reinforcement of
concepts and encouragement needed to make changes. The individual will spend
less and less time as the participant progresses, but the early period of intensive
work is important. An agent would not have the time to spend with each individual
to get them started when he is responsible for several programs and several
hundred clients.

There were very few disadvantages to utilizing paraprofessionals. The one
major disadvantage was finding individuals that the staff felt could do the job,
that were willing to work on a part-time basis. Having found one individual
with exceptional qualifications, it was hoped that one or two others could be found
to work part-time. Several were interviewed but none that were available part-time
met the criteria previously expressed.

Working with a group of clientele that are basically conservative in nature;
with attitudes that are at first somewhat resistant to change was found to be a
challenge. Major shifts in attitude and management practices were often slow in
coming. Production practices were the areas where the quickest changes were
accomplished. Within the area of production practices, dairy feeding was most
often the subject matter that brought the fastest results and established the most
confidence in the assistant director.

A prime example of this could be seen with one of the families that enrolled
in the latter stages of the program. They had a registered herd with good potential,
but low actual production. In addition, they had accumulated a fairly large feed
store account and felt they could not afford to feed concentrates.

Mr. Chapman bought one bag of high protein supplement and had them topdress
the ration of only their early lactation cows with a minimum amount. Within a
few days, they were in contact with Mr. Chapman stating that herd production was
up 200 pounds per day. Very quickly, confidence had been established and some
other suggested changes were implemented.

Continually, this clientele group reinforced the idea that a picture was
worth a thousand words. Demonstrations became an integral part of the methodology
used as practices were rarely adopted in the beginning if there was not visual
evidence that they would work.


-10-











One of the more successful participants initially could not grow sufficient
roughage at home to feed his herd. He did not believe that fertilization of
meadows after seeding was worthwhile. A demonstration was arranged that doubled
his hay yield from a small plot. After seeing the results, he had a conservation
plan developed and began renovating his crop land. He has expanded his herd from
35 to 60 cows, grows all of his roughage and part of his grain requirements. A
significant part of the change in attitude came as a result of a simple demonstration.

Other demonstrations were utilized on a regular basis. These varied from
fertility and pest management demonstrations to feeding and use of management
tools such as milk weights, business records and others.

Once progress along the path towards the fulfillment of the family objectives
was made, the semi-monthly visits were reduced to monthly. Individuals then began
to call with questions and as the visitation intensity decreased, they were encour-
aged to participate in other Extension functions. When staff thought they were
ready, participants were invited to participate in the Points for Profit Young
Farmers Program and several accepted the invitation.

Group tours, though offered, never were accepted. Daily attention to the
home business was a hard obstacle to overcome. Even special tours and offers of
transportation did little to move them off of the farm for a few minutes of
educational propaganda.

A few might venture forth to a meeting or a tour; and as was the case with
demonstrations, once they saw it, they decided it was worth-while. The challenge
was getting them to where they could take advantage of the resources available.

A summary meeting at the Extension Center for participating families was
held to discuss the results of the summary program. The attendance of LRFM families
was greater proportionately than the participants in the regular program.

It was stated in the beginning that each participant would be enrolled for
a maximum of three years. If a family was ready they would be graduated sooner or
if necessary, counseled to find other avenues for a career. Over the course of
the program, 15 percent were encouraged to find other avenues of employment. It
was felt in each of these cases that the requirements of dairy farming were
inconsistent with the managerial ability of the operator or the goals of the
family as a whole. Five of the original 30 participants made sufficient progress
to be graduated after two years.

A subjective evaluation was performed by staff at termination of the project.
Each of the families was grouped according to the level of benefit the staff felt
they had received and the progress they would make now that the program had been
terminated. There were four groups, A D. Each of the families are identified
by number only in the Appendix with a brief description of their situation.


-11-











Group A were those families that benefited significantly from the program
a-nd would also continue to advance after program termination. This accounted for
more than 50 percent of the group. Group B were those that appeared to obtain
some benefit, but would remain relatively stable after the program termination.
This accounted for slightly less than 20 percent. Group C were those participants
for whom the program provided no visible benefits. Fifteen percent fell into
this category, and 15 percent also were in Group D or those that left farming
while enrolled.

Participants were always encouraged to call or stop by the office if they
had questions. Over time, many of them did. At first they would call and only
speak with Edgar Chapman. The next step was to talk with one of the agents if
Edgar was unavailable. The final progression was to call and ask for the agent
that handled the subject matter in which they were interested.

If the participants reached the third stage, then the staff felt that they
were at least aware of some of the resources available to them. Not all participants
reached this level. However, those that made the most progress from a management
or production standpoint did.

One area that provided a significant challenge was business records and
summaries. Only 35 percent of the participants had any kind of any organized
system for business records. Most used a "shoe box" and even one enterprising
family cut a slot in the side of a milk can and all bills and receipts were
deposited in the can.

A majority of the farm managers felt that records were only good for income
tax preparation; if they filed a return. One family was seven years behind.
None had ever done a business summary.

Participants were encouraged to do a business summary each year. The first
year 10 of 30 completed the summary. In year two, 21 of 38 submitted summary
information and in the final year 22 of 40 completed the summary. In each of
the first two years the staff wentto the farm and completed the forms with the
family. In the final year, participants were asked to come to the office with
as much of the forms filled out as they could. While they were at the office
they visited SCS and ASCS and were able to align themselves with cost sharing
programs, update conservation plans and request necessary advice all in one stop.

Table D in the Appendix provides an example farm from each of these groups.
Selected business factors were compiled to show progress or lack of some during the
enrolled period. Businesses were sorted partially on the basis of the business
summaries and partially on the basis of the increase in management skills shown
in the operation.

Objective 5 was satisfied principally through use of the Farm Business
Summary Program and individual conferences following completion of the business
summary. Sufficient data was obtained from these two sources to determine
significant changes in family income. Of course no data existed for those that
did not participate; but then few records did either.


-12-











Summary and Conclusion:


Having read the "Chenango County Final Report", the summary found there
could be lifted and placed in this report. The numbers have changed but the
conclusions are the same.

A Limited Resources Farm Management Porgram has a definite place in
Extension methodology. The use of paraprofessionals to extend agent resources
is a viable alternative to expensive increased professional staff.

Work with inexperienced or limited resource farm managers and their families
is labor intensive. There is little question that adequate resources cannot
be devoted to these groups from the ongoing commercial agriculture program. There
simply is not enough staff to cover the regular priorities and still devote the
time necessary to get a fledgling operation off the ground or help cure a
crippled one.

Staff and Advisory Committees worked diligently trying to find ways of
continuing funding for the program, convinced that it was a viable and needed
program. Sources of grants, private funding, and legislative benevolence were
explored.

The needs of this clientele group have existed for a long time. However, only
recently have they really been recognized. Unfortunately the realization comes
at a time when it is very difficult to find extra room in budgets for more programs.
Boards of Directors recognize the need, but have difficulty extracating necessary
resources.


-13-
































APPENDIX A








TABLE A

COMPARISON OF SELECTED BUSINESS FACTORS
1979 FARM BUSINESS SUMMARIES


1
Western
Plateau


Young
Farmers


LRFM3


21
35
12
34
148
1.8


Number of Farms
Average Age of Operator
Education (Years)
Average No. Cows
Average No. Crop Acres
Average Man Equivalent

Capital Investment
Livestock
Feed & Supplies
Machinery & Equipment
Land & Buildings


$ 87,623
22,330
57,577
132,231
$302,761


$ 59,931
11,532
40,088
78,652
$190,203


$ 52,657
6,535
33,995
106,422
$199,609


Financial Measures


$ 27,629
67%
$ 1,785
350


$ 14,976
57%
$ 1,971
322


$ 5,421
55%
$ 2,441
605


Labor & Management Income
% Equity
Debt/Cow
Debt Payments/Cow


Production Measures

Milk Sold/Cow (1bs.)
Hay Yield/Acre (tons)
Corn Silage/Acre (tons)


Labor Efficiency

Man Equivalent
Cows/Man
Milk Sold/Man (1bs.)


11,479
2.2
10.5


14,551
2.8
14.5


12,743
2.6
12.5


2.3
24
355,966


1.8
23
291,257


1.8
21
242,339


(Continued)


-14-







TABLE A CONTINUED



Feed Costs

Feed Bought/Cow $ 483 $ 458 $ 470
Feed Purchased/Cwt. Milk $ 3.32 $ 3.59 $ 4.10
% Purchased Feed of Milk
Receipts 28% 31% 35%



1) 1979 Western Plateau Farm Business Summary, Loren W. Tauer, Dept.
Agricultural Economics, NYS College of Agricultural & Life Sciences,
Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 1980

2) 1979 Farm Business Summary, "Points for Profit", Young Farmers Group,
unpublished.

3) 1979 Farm Business Summary "Limited Resources Program", unpublished.


-15-















1980


TABLE B

COMPARISONS OF SELECTED BUSINESS FACTORS
ON 10 LRFM FARMS
1978 1980


1978 1979
Number of Farms 10 10
Total Crop Acres 101 116
Average Number of Cows 34 34


Milk Sales/Cow (1bs.) 12,533 13,090
Pounds Milk Sold 426,800 450,282
Tons Hay/Acre 1.9 2.1
Tons Corn Silage/Acre 11.4 12.3


% Purchased Feed of Milk
Receipts 37% 33%


Farm Debt/Cow $ 1,763 $ 1,873
Scheduled Debt Payments/Cow 366 362
Scheduled Debt Payment as
% of Milk Sales 31% 24%


11,867
486,355
1.8
12.5


$ 1,623
448


$ 8,887
68%


$ 10,349


$ 10,455
69%


$ 10,614


$ (5,981)
71%


$- 12,305


Labor & Management Income
% Equity


Net Cash Income


-16-







TABLE C

SIZE OF BUSINESS EFFECT ON FAMILY INCOME


1980


1978


1979


A 8
19 35


Farm
Number of Cows
Pounds Milk/Cow
Net Cash Income
Amount Available for
Debt:Living
Debt Payments
Amount Available for
Family Living


20
11,345
$17,486

$18,309
$ 4,058


48
11,458
$ 6,350

$ 9,171
$15,600


19
12,074
$ 9,989

$10,914
$ 3,251


58
13,983
$34,849

$38,678
$26,177


$14,251 $(6,429) $ 7,663 $12,501


-17-





TABLE D
CATTARAUGUS COUNTY
LIMITED RESOURCES FARM MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
SELECTED BUSINESS FACTORS
SAMPLE FARMS BY BENEFIT GROUP


GROUP A
1978 1979 1980

Crop Acres 111 137 115
Number of Cows 52 49 51
Number of Heifers 30 25 14
Milk Sold/Cow (1bs.) 10,896 13,931 16,216
Tons Hay/Acre 1.6 2.3 1.5
Tons Corn Silage/Acre --- --- 10.0

Capital Investment
Livestock $ 68,600 $ 75,100 $ 62,650
Feed & Supplies 13,560 13,000 17,350
Machinery & Equipment 27,700 31,000 43,181
Land & Buildings 205,000 210,000 211,050
$314,860 $329,100 $342,888

Equity Capital $204,249 $211,000 $225,862
Debt/Cow 2,390 2,535 2,295
Net Cash Income 7,137 5,106 24,395
Debt Payment as %
of Milk Sales 14% 11% 13%


-18-







TABLE D CONTINUED


GROUP B
1978 1979 1980
Crop Acres 72 90 119
Number of Cows 14 17 16
Number of Heifers 11 6 10
Milk Sold/Cow (1bs.) 10,121 11,194 10,350
Tons Hay/Acre 2.2 2.5 2.1
Tons Corn Silage/Acre 18.0 12.0 15.0

Capital Investment
Livestock $ 14,200 $ 18,450 $ 31,100
Feed & Supplies 1,000 2,000 2,750
Machinery & Equipment 10,400 7,431 18,300
Land & Buildings 70,000 75,000 75,000
$ 95,600 $102,881 $127,150

Equity Capital $ 81,129 $ 75,824 $112,826
Debt/Cow 1,169 1,605 744
Net Cash Income 10,178 10,802 10,027
Debt Payment as %
of Milk Sales 33% 29% 30%


-19-







TABLE D CONTINUED


GROUP C
1978 1979 1980
Crop Acres 87 145 149
Number of Cows 42 42 44
Number of Heifers 18 10 11
Milk Sold/Cow (1bs.) 10,876 10,357 8,791
Tons Hay/Acre 1.5 1.3 1.4
Tons Corn Silage/Acre 8.7 9.3--

Capital Investment
Livestock $ 52,900 $ 50,600 $ 60,100
Feed & Supplies 3,000 4,000 4,000
Machinery & Equipment 23,308 29,693 30,000
Land & Buildings 100,000 125,000 125,000
$179,208 $209,293 $219,100

Equity Capital $125,438 $162,383 $176,316
Debt/Cow 1,364 1,205 1,029
Net Cash Income 14,261 14,873 13,055
Debt Payment as %
of Milk Sales 27% 25% 28%


-20-







TABLE D CONTINUED


GROUP D


1980


1978
69
38
14
12,929
1.9
15.0


$ 41,000
6,100
23,067
55,000
$125,167

$ 18,070
3,161
5,313

65%


1979
45
33
10
12,333
4.0(?)
18.3


$ 52,700
6,490
41,545
100,000
$200,735

$ 80,333
3,935
(6,449)

42%


Crop Acres
Number of -Cows
Number of Heifers
Milk Sold/Cow (1bs.)
Tons Hay/Acre
Tons Corn Silage/Acre

Capital Investment
Livestock
Feed & Supplies
Machinery & Equipment
Land & Buildings


Equity Capital
Debt/Cow
Net Cash Income
Debt Payment as %
of Milk Sales


-21-








TABLE E

UTILIZATION OF MANAGEMENT RESOURCES


Currently


Prior to Enrollment


Farm Business Records
Herd Production Records
Soil Testing
ASCS Programs
SCS Assistance


-22-







TABLE F

COMPARISON OF SELECTED BUSINESS FACTORS
CATTARAUGUS COUNTY LRFM PARTICIPANTS
1978 1980



1978 1979 1980

Number of Farms 10 19 22

Size of Business

Average No. Cows 34 36 41
Average No. of Heifers 19 20 25
Heifers as % of Cows 56 56 61
Pounds of Milk Sold 426,800 435,500 479,300
Worker Equivalent 2.2 1.7 1.9
Crop Acres 101 117 145

Capital Investment
Livestock $ 43,657 $ 55,156 $ 66,698
Feed & Supplies 4,632 6,288 9,238
Machinery & Equipment 23,390 34,601 41,126
Land & Buildings 96,400 104,234 120,645
Total $168,079 $200,279 $237,707

Rec ipts

Milk Sales $ 42,835 $ 50,604 $ 60,099
Crop Sales 546 18 189
Dairy Cattle Sold 1,998 4,385 4,144
Calves & Other Livestock 1,932 1,864 2,087
Government Payments 109 726 1,116
Work Off Farm 2,186 913 1,931
Miscellaneous 455 402 658
Total Cash Receipts $ 50,410 $ 58,912 $ 70,224

Expenses
Hired Labor $ 1,078 $ 386 $ 592
Dairy Concentrate 15,846 17,035 17,950
Hay & Other 841 537 688
Machine Hire 190 517 619
Machine Repair 2,397 2,445 3,228
Auto Expense 424 260 682
Gas & Oil 1,459 2,161 2,852
Purchased Livestock 2,362 7,524 5,104



(Continued)


-23-







TABLE F CONTINUED



Expenses Continued 1978 1979 1980

Breeding Fees $ 440 $ 561 $ 689
Vet & Medicine 645 926 900
Milk Marketing 843 1,173 914
Other Livestock 1,131 2,453 1,979
Fertilizer & Lime 1,131 2,034 2,024
Seeds & Plants 744 573 1,022
Spray & Other 274 608 814
Land, Bldg., Fence Repair 555 1,488 1,700
Taxes 1,206 1,304 1,086
Insurance 804 1,089 1,191
Rent 817 1,090 1,361
Telephone 243 393 390
Electricity 799 1,234 1,444
Interest 3,529 4,904 7,461
Miscellaneous 422 758 1,274
Total Expenses $ 38,166 $ 51,353 $ 53,621



(Continued)


-24-







TABLE F CONTINUED

COMPARISON OF SELECTED BUSINESS FACTORS
FARM INCOME SUMMARY 1978 1980


1980

$68,394
53,621
14,773
7,461

22,234
11,435
23,373
($11,938)
98,850
79,151

30,792

12,664
18,128


1978

$50,410
38,166
12,244
3,529

15,773
8,016
13,191
($ 5,434)
63,887
55,000

26,690

11,290
15,400

14.1
4.7


1979

$58,912
51,353
7,559
4,904

12,463
8,356
14,789
($10,682)
75,815
72,080

28,511

12,884
12,927


Cash Farm Receipts
Cash Farm Expenses
Net Cash Income
Interest Paid
Amount Available For Debt
Service & Family Living
Estimated Family Living1
Scheduled Debt Payment
Net Annual Cash Flow
Total Farm Receipts
Total Farm Expenses
Labor Management : Ownership
Income/Farm2
Value of Operator Management:
Labor
Return on Equity Capital
Rate of Return on Equity:
With Appreciation
Without Appreciation


11.2
1.0


14.7
( 2.0)


1 1978-79 $6,000 + 4 percent of Cash Receipts
1980 $8,000 + 4 percent of Cash Receipts
2 Interest on Equity Capital + appreciation added.


-25-

































APPENDIX B







PROGRESS REPORT
LIMITED RESOURCES FARM MANAGEMENT GROUP
ACP SPECIAL PROJECT

Cattaraugus Co., N.Y.


Number LTA Plans 14
Total Farm Acres 2,479


Planned

337 i
148 i
37,020
6,500 ~
4,410
3,600 ~
4,050
9


Applied to Date


126
114
16,920
3,300


Perm. Vegetative Cover Est.
Striperopping System
Diversions
Tiling
Fencing
Stream Protection
Sod Waterways
Animal Waste Control Facilities


3,600 ft.
600 ft.
6


$68,591.90
$41,754.10


$158,436.40
$ 89,659.75


TOTAL COST
ACP COST SHARE


All LTA plans were for a three-year period ending in 1981 and 1982. Some
have already been extended due to scheduling and agronomic problems.
Maximum time for any contract will be five years. To date there has been
one cancellation and this has been replaced with another farm. All are
making satisfactory progress.


-26-

































APPENDIX C

































































-27-


FARM NUMBER: 1


INITIAL CONTACT:

AGE:

MARITAL STATUS:

EXPERIENCE:


2/17/78


SITUATION:


Married. Three children.

Raised on a farm. Spent last two summers working on
construction for additional income.


The farm is very wet at times. The land is low and floods two
or three times each year. The wife is a very hard worker and does the morning
milking after her husband goes to work on construction. He wanted to be a
success at farming. He ships milk to NF0. The farm was purchased after
the tornado took the barn and house. He built a 30-40 cow barn and lived
in a trailer. In 1978 he added another 40 feet on the barn and built a
silo. In 1980 a new house was built. Also in the fall of 1980 he rented
an adjoining farm and moved the heifers there to give more room on the home
farm for the milkers.

Group A


AREA OF EMPHASIS:


Bookkeeping
Seedings ASCS & SCS
Liming
Soil Test









FARM NUMBER: 2


On rented farm until fall of 1979. Purchased farm on contract.

32

Married. Three sons, 15, 13, 7, one daughter.


INITIAL CONTACT:

AGE:

MARITAL STATUS:


Lived on farm entire life.


EXPERIENCE:


SITUATION: The rented farm was wet and floods easily. The buildings were
just adequate. He owned his own cows and got good production. The wife
works as a bookkeeper at the feed mill so the heifers and calves were
sometimes neglected but this got them a discount on the feed bill. In
the early spring of 1980 they purchased a good farm. Good building, room
for 50 cows and good soil. About half the land is alfalfa soil.

He was the LRFM representative on the county LRFM advisory committee. We
had a nitrogen vs. weed spray field demonstration on the rented farm in
1979.

Group A


AREA OF EMPHASIS:


Soil Test
Milk Records (DHIC)
ASCS & SCS
Heifer & Calf Rearing


-28-






























































-29-


FARM NUMBER: 3


On the home farm.

49

Married, three children.


INITIAL CONTACT:

AGE:

MARITAL STATUS:


Lifetime.


:


EXPERIENCE:


SITUATION:


The farm is on the top of a hill and needs lime and fertilizer.
Being on top of the hill it is subject to late spring frosts and early fall
frosts.

Heavy debt load had forced this family to under-feed a purebred herd of
potentially good producing cows. He was willing to make changes only if
it meant quick dollars. It meant meeting with the banker and feed dealer
to get funds to buy feed until the milk check came to pay the feed, seed
and fertilizer bill.

NOW can't say enough good things about the program.

Group A


Debt Restructuring
Feeding Program
Cropping Program (early maturing corn, etc.)
ASCS & SCS
DHIC


AREA OF EMPHASIS:









FARM NUMBER: 4


INITIAL CONTACT:


September, 1979


AGF:


MARITAL STATUS:


Married, three children.


EXPERIENCE:


This family lives on one of the better gravel farms in the
county. Poor management of time has been the downfall for this family.
There has been some lack of good management (farm operations) from the
start. Some improvements noticeable. Deliquent income tax reports are
now up-to-date. Very difficult to get him to get crops in or harvested on
time.


SITUATION:


Group C


AREA OF EMPHASIS:


Bookkeeping
Cropping
Herd Health & Sanitation


-30-








FARM NUMBER: 5


Fall of 1979

36

Married, three children.


INITIAL CONTACT:

AGE:

MARITAL STATUS:


Some farm experience (hired help).


This family moved on to the rather wet farm which had not been
worked for a few years. Many things had to do or changed immediately
(pipeline in barn, larger bulk tank, drainage on several fields,
barnyard improvement).

The herd which came with the farm was a poor investment mastitiss, breeding
problems, small cattle). Many had to be replaced the first year.

Milker pipeline was revamped. Larger bulk tank put in. Field drainage
and barnyard improvement were all done the first year.


Group A


ErXPERIENCE:


SITUATION:


ASCS & SCS
Bookkeeping
Mastitis Program


AREA OF EMPHASIS:


-31-





























































-32-


FARM1 NUMBER: 6


3/30/78


INITIAL CONTACT:

AGE:

MARITAL STATUS:

EXPERIENCE:


Married, four children.

Lifetime.


SITUATION:


This operator had been on this farm for 10 years but due to a
back injury the herd size had been cut back and little had been done to
maintain or improve the soil for the last five years. The operator had
continued to seek outside work (school bus driver for 12 years). The
back trouble was better and the children older so there was a need and
desire to put the farm back to the potential.

Problems to establish and hold seedings on some fields. With close
cooperation of the owner and Cornell, it has been determined that there
are mineral deficiencies not normal for this area. With this corrected,
seeding stands have improved.

Group A


ASCS & SCS
Bookkeeping
Soil Test & Analysis
Barnyard Drainage


AREA OF EMPHASIS:








FARM NUMBER: 7


6/79


INITIAL CONTACT:

AGE:

MARITAL STATUS:


Married, one child.


EXPERIENCE:


SITUAlTION:


The original farm is small and wet. Drainage is nearly impossible.
Three small farms have been added and an addition built on the barn along
with a silo.

They are good caretakers and the herd has produced well. With more crop
ground they are able to grow more roughage and cut purchased feed costs.


Group B


ASCS, SCS
DHIC
Soil Testing


AREA OF EMPHASIS:


-33-








FARM NUMBER: 8


4/5/78


INITIAL CONTACT:

AGE:

MARITAL STATUS:


Married, two children


EXPERIENCE:


SITUAT ION:


This family lives on a good farm and have built an addition on
the dairy barn. They built a bunk silo and doubled the size of the milking
herd. The major problem at the beginning was a heavy debt load with
deminishing cash flow. Consolidating debts and restructuring of the
debt load made these things possible.


Group A


AREA OF EMPHASIS:


ASCS & SCS
Soil Testing
DHIC
Business Summary


-34-
































































-35-


FARM1 NUMBER: 9


INITIAL CONTACT:

AGE:

MARITAL STATUS:

EXPERIENCE:


3/16/78


SITUATION:


Married, one child.

Three years.


Reasonably small operation, but little debt load has made it
possible for this operator to stay in business.


A good cow man who has been able to buy some good cows at a reasonable price.
He has made some well needed changes: 1) not mixing several varieties
of seed corn, 2) getting first cutting in earlier, 3) manure only on
ground to be used for corn, 4) from almost no records to a good set or
records.


Group A




















AREA OF EMPHASIS:








FARMI NUMBER:


4/79 finished 5/79


INITIAL CONTACT:


AGE:


Single


MARITAL STATUS:


EXPERIENCE:


SITUATION:


A young man with little experience trying to get started with a
few cows and a very heavy debt load (no cash flow).


After a couple of visits and realizing there was no possible way for this
operator to continue, the suggestion was made for him to accept employment
on a nearby dairy farm. He had worked there a short time before purchasing
his dairy. With a little pencil pushing it looked like he could sell out,
pay FmHA and be clear of debt.

One week later everything was sold and he went to work for his neighbor.

Group D



















AREA OF EMPHASIS:


-36-










3/79

Married, three children

33

8 years


FARM NUMBER:

INITIAL CONTACT:

AGE:

MARITAL STATUS:

EXPERIENCE:


263 acres, 105 tillable. A young aggressive couple moved here from
Pennsylvania on a good farm. This man's attitude has given him some trouble
when talking to lending agencies, etc. This has improved but is still a
problem. You don't tell your lending agency----you ask.

A conservation plan has meant a great deal to this operator.

Better roughage has helped to increase production.

Group A


SITUATION:


AREA OF EMPHASIS:


-37-








FARM1 NUMBER: 12


INITIAL CONTACT:

AGE:

MARITAL STATUS:


11/6/79


Married, four children, separated, remarried.


EXPERIENCE:


SITUATION:


When I started working with this operator, he had just separated
from his wife and had a very-very heavy debt load. A hard worker, but wanted
beyond his means.


Within a year his new partner (later wife) came on the scene and is an
excellent herdsman. Too much machinery has caused a heavy debt load/cow
Most of the farm is low, wet and can't be drained.

Group D






















AREA OF EMPHASIS:


-38-









FARM1 NUMBER: 13


INITIAL CONTACT:

AGE:

MARITAL STATUS:


7/79 left 8/79

29

Married


EXPERIENCE:


SITUATION:


After starting on the program this operator felt he had more
capital and credit than most of those on the program and felt he should
give his spot to someone else.


Group C


AREA OF EMPHASIS:


-39-








FARM NUMBER:

INITIAL CONTACT:

AGE:

MARITAL STATUS:


14

8/23/79

35


Married, three children.


EXPERIENCE:


SITUATION:


78 tillable acres. This operator had been working off the farm
for five years but decided to be a full-time farmer. The farm needed lime
and fertilizer and some drainage. A silo was added.

A conservation plan was put into effect. A record system set up. The debt
load/cow is favorable.

Group A


AREA OF EMPHASIS:


ASCS & SCS
DHIC
Soil Testing
Bookkeeping


-40-































































-41-


FARN1 NUMBER: 15


INITIAL CONTACT:

AGE:

MARITAL STATUS:

EXPERIENCE:


Married, two children

Lifetime


SITUATION:


125 tillable acres. This side hill farm needed lime and fertilizer.
The operator had acreage enough so little had been done in recent years to
encourage yield/acre. A corn demonstration plot was conducted on this farm
in 1979 with maturity of corn varieties as well as fertility.
Group B


ASCS & SCS
DHIC
Soil Testing
Bookkeeping
Barnyard Waste Improvement


AREA OF EMPHASIS:









FARM NUMBER: 16


INITIAL CONTACT:

AGE:

MARITAL STATUS:

EXPERIENCE:


Married, two children.

Lifetime


114 tillable acres. This young couple are energetic and doing a
He took over his grandfather's farm and worked as a truck driver
herd was larger and the barn better equipped. A sealed silo
in 1978 and an addition on the barn in 1980,


SITUATION:


good job.
until the
was added


Group A


AREA OF EMPHASIS:


Soil Testing
ASCS & SCS
DHIC
Bookkeeping


-42-








FARM NUMBERK: 17


INITIAL CONTACT:

AGE:

MIARITAL STATUS:


3/20/78

23


Married, three children.


E-XPEKIENC E:


SITUATION:


This operator is taking over the home farm without any ownership.
All bills are paid by the mother and all returns come to the mother,
The operator continues to do the work and is
given living expenses while the farm continues to go backward due to little
or no fertilizer or lime being used. The dairy is producing at a 9,000 lb./
cow rate. Some progress.

Group B


AREA OF EMPHASIS:


Mother-Son Agreement
ASCS


-43-









FARM NUMBER: 18


1979


INITIAL CONTACT:

AGE:

MARITAL STATUS:


Married, three children.


EXPERIENCE:


SITUATION:


Started on the program in summer of 1979. A more desirable farm
became available and the operator moved in spring of 1980. The new farm is
very productive but also wet. The operator has limited farm experience
but is doing a good job with a heavy debt load. Does ask for suggestions
and uses them.


Group A


AREA OF EMPHASIS:


DHIC
ASCS & SCS
Bookkeeping


-44-































































-45-


FARM NUMBER: 19


INITIAL CONTACT:

AGE:

MARITAL STATUS:

EXPERIENCE:


Widower, four children.

Limited.


SITUATION:


This operator appeared to be making good changes when he decided
to sell the herd. A six month vacation and back to buying cows. A
mechanic by trade, and this is helpful on the farm in the farm shop.
During the six month vacation the family visited many dairy operations to
see what might make their operation more efficient. We worked very closely
with them and now they are milking more cows and doing it more efficiently.

Group B


AREA OF EMPHASIS:





























































-46-


FARM NUMBER: 20


3/6/78


INITIAL CONTACT:

AGE:

MARITAL STATUS:

EXPERIENCE:


Married, two children.

Lifetime


SITUATION:


The first year,1978, that the operator was on the program, he
was on a very-very wet low farm with drainage virtually impossible. Was
able to harvest only about half the silage crop and that with great damage
to machinery. In the spring of 1979 he purchased a gravel farm. He was
a little slow making the adjustments to a larger, more productive farm
(125 acres tillable).

Group A


AREA OF EMPHASIS:































































-47-


FARM NUMBER: 21


3/13/78


INITIAL CONTACT:

AGE:

MARITAL STATUS:

EXPERIENCE:


Married, four children

Lifetime


SITUATION:


This operator lives on a hill farm with wet spots. He has a
good purebred herd and wants to sell foundation stock for income. He is
willing to spend time with the herd but not enough with field crops.
Not too many changes have taken place during the time on this program.
Group C


AREA OF EMPHASIS:








FARM NUMBER:

INITIAL CONTACT:

AGE:

MARITAL STATUS:

EXPERIENCE:


22

5/79



Married, three children.

Limited


The farm barn had been crushed by snow the previous winter and
water ran off the side hill through the barn most of the time. The barn
was so damp raising calves in it was impossible.

The roof was jacked up and a barnyard drainage project took care of the run-
off. The fields are not well drained but diversion ditches have helped.

A conservation plan has helped. More and better roughage is being grown.

Group A


SITUATION:


AREA OF EMPHASIS:


-48-








FARM NUMBER: 23


INITIAL CONTACT:

AGE:

MARITAL STATUS:


3/15/78


Married, two children


EXPERIENCE:


51TUATION:


Operating 418 acres, 152 acres of crops. This operator does
a good job but, like so many others, continues to have a large machinery
debt load. He has, as I said, increased the production per cow and yield
per acre but must keep the machinery costs down.


The conservation plan has helped tremendously.

Group A


AREA OF EMPHASIS:


ASCS & SCS
DHIC
Bookkeeping
Soil Testing


-49-








FARM NUMBER: 24


INITIAL CONTACT:

AGE:

MARITAL STATUS:


5/1/79


Married, two children


EXPERIENCE:


The operator has not been able to get the full potential from
the herd or farm. Management continues to be the number one problem.
Hay late cut, corn in late lacks maturity and therefore very poor
roughage for dairy cows. This results in a need for more purchased
concentrates.


SITUATION:


Group B


AREA OF EMPHASIS:


-50-
































































-51-


FARM NUMBER:


7/27/78 Sold Out

37

Married, three children.


INITIAL CONTACT:

AGE:

MARITAL STATUS:


Very limited.


:


EXPERIENCE:


SITUATION:


This operator was on a good (but small) farm and had a
heavy debt load. After getting him re-financed and on a very restricted
cash flow budget, he continued to use credit (including credit cards)
too much. The lack of experience probably did lend to some costly mistakes.


The debt load finally got so large and cash flow low that he went through
bankruptcy. He was able to keep the farm and what animals belonged to
the children.

Group D





















AREA OF EMPHASIS:
































































-52-


FARM NUMBER: 26


INITIAL CONTACT:


AGE:


39 & 42 Brothers


MARITAL STATUS:

EXPERIENCE:


SITUATE ION:


One married, other not.

Lifetime


These operators are quite happy to just make a living and do
little to improve production per cow or production per acre. Some
progress has been shown in using improved varieties of seeds and earlier
harvesting dates.


The debt load per cow is not large and there will probably be little
changes.


Group C





















AREA OF EMPHASIS:








FARM NUMBER: 27


INITIAL CONTACT:

AGE:

MARITAL STATUS:

EXPERIENCE:


3/20/78

69


SITUATION:


80 tillage acres. Four months later the operator was killed
in a tractor accident and the farm was sold. No contacts were made with
new operator.


AREA OF EMPHASIS:


-53-








FARM NUMBER: 29


INITIAL CONTACT:

AGE:

MARITAL STATUS:

EXPERIENCE:


Married, three children.

Limited (raised on a farm but moved to California and became
an engineer).


The operator moved back to this county
Mostly in city politics and construction


SITUATION:


110 tillable acres.
after 20 years in California.
work.


The farm had not been operated to its capacity for several years. The
former owner came with the farm as a manager which was good in a way,
but sometimes kept the operator from making some needed changes as
quickly as he might have otherwise. The operator was selected to attend
the Northeast Regional Small Farm Conference in 1979.

He has made remarkable success since coming on the program.


Group A

















AREA OF EMPHASIS:


-54-








FARM NUMBER:


INITIAL CONTACT:


5/9/79 Sold out 4/80


AGE:


MARITAL STATUS:


Married


EXPERIENCE:


SITUATION:


He was on a good side hill farm but would rather do off-the-farm
jobs. The farm suffered. Everything possible was put on long term
financing and when he could no longer meet his obligations was sold out
by creditors.


Group D


AREA OF EMPHASIS:


-55-






























































-56-


FARM1 NUMBER: 32


INITIAL CONTACT:

AGE:

MARITAL STATUS:

EXPERtIENCE:


8/23/79

23


SITUATION:


Married, one child. Domestic problems.

Limited


230 acres tillable. He purchased the farm in spring of 1978
and quickly increased the size of the herd. A hard worker who lacks
experience in management. The only other farm experience was as farm
hand. Long hard working days and heavy debt load may have contributed to
a domestic problem at home which, after counselling, has stabilized.

Group B


AREA OF EMPHASIS:

































































-57-


FARM\ NUMBER:

INITIAL CONTACT:

AGE:

MARITAL STATUS:

EXPERIENCE:


Married, three children.

Lifetime


SITUATION:


He lives on a good hill farm with a moderate debt load. A
good roughage manager, he has been able to produce a good amount of milk
at reasonable cost. Refinanced with P.C.


Group D


AREA OF EMPHASIS:

































































-58-


FARM NUMBER: 34


INITIAL CONTACT:

AGE.:

MARITAL STATUS:

EXPERIIIENCE:


3/27/78

26


SITUATION:


Married, one child.

Lifetime


Operates a farm still owned by his mother and he also is
maintenance man and part owner in a trucking firm. The changes which
he might like to make are somewhat limited with mother holding controlling
interest and doing the book work. A conservation plan and quality
roughage have contributed to increased production and better farm income.

Group B


AREA OF EMPHASIS:








FARM1 NUMBER: 35


INITIAL CONTACT:

AGE:

MARITAL STATUS:

EXPERIENCE:


Married


SITUATION:


The operator has worked part-time as a truck driver but now
feels he should spend full time at the dairy farm by milking a few more
cows and doing a better management job. A feeding program has helped
him realize he was not getting the potential production from the cows.


Group A


AREA OF EMPHASIS:


-59-








FARM NUMBER: 36


INITIAL CONTACT:

AGE:

MARITAL STATUS:


5/79


Married, one child.


EXPERIENCE:


This couple came on the program only a year ago and were
advised to sell out and seek employment elsewhere. The farm has a
potential to be one of the better farms in the county but has not been
managed or worked for maximum results. The debt load is not extremely
heavy but the operator's attitude is one of little work and big income.
I think he will do better working for someone.


SITUATION:


Group C


AREA OF EMPHASIS:


-60-








FARM NUMBER:

INITIAL CONTACT:

AGE:

MARITAL STATUS:

EXPERIENCE:


37

5/80


SITUATION:


New on the program. Extremely high debt load but a young
aggressive operator willing to ask for suggestions.

A feeding plan was provided as well as other management suggestions.


Group A


AREA OF EMPHASIS:


-61-








FARM NUMBER: 38


INITIAL CONTACT:

AGE:

MARITAL STATUS:

EXPERIENCE:


7/79


The operator is on a very wet farm which nearly was a disaster
for him in 1979 with hay hard to get and the corn was never harvested.
After looking at the operation with two new silos and a remodeled barn
and other alternatives, it was determined that this family would be better
off to rent the abandoned farm next door and continue to do drainage
on the present farm but concentrate cropping on the rented farm.


SITUATION:


Group C


AREA OF EMPHASIS:


-62-































































-63-


FARM NUMBER: 39


6/11/79


INITIAL CONTACT:

AGE:

MARITAL STATUS:

EXPERIENCE:


Married, three children.

Lifetime


SITUATION:


85 tillable acres, First called when vet was having little
success with breeding and ketosis trouble in the herd.


A ration balancing corrected most of the trouble and we began to work
on crop production along with other management tools to improve the
efficiency.

Another farm was added to the operation in 1980 which will help with
facilities to increase the size of the milking herd and more room to
raise replacements.


Group A


















AREA OF EMPHASIS:






























































-64-


FARM NUMBER: 40


2/22/78


INITIAL CONTACT:

AGE:

MARITAL STATUS:

EXPERIENCE:


Married, three children.

Lifetime, but sometimes part-time.


SITUATION:


367 acres. This operator lives on a hill farm which was low
in fertility and lime content. This farm was one of several eligible
for the mini LTA (Long Term Conservation Plan) and this is now in
the third year of the plan. The plan called for strip cropping nine
acres; permanent vegetative cover 169 acres; protected outlet 1,500'
animal waste control facility project; diversion ditch 2,800'.


With a herd average of 11,000 in 1978 to the present 16,637, it is easy
to say this is one of the farm operations that has made the success.


Group A



















AREA OF EMPHASIS:








FARM NUMBER: 42


5/7/77


INITIAL CONTACT:

AGE:

MARITAL STATUS:

EXPERIENCE:


Lifetime


SITUATION:


This operator was on a hilltop farm with little land resources,
poorly drained, low fertility and clay soil. Soon after he came on the
program a much more productive farm became available and we put together
a package deal which finally got this operator onto the new farm. A
complete conservation plan was set up and today the herd has increased
from 30 cows to 52 cows with 30 heifers. Forage is produced for the
herd with abundance. The conservation plan made more tillable land,
capable of growing more crops and roughage per acre.


Group A


AREA OF EMPHASIS:


-65-






























































-66-


FARM1 NUIMBER: 43


7/27/79


INITIAL CONTACT:

AGE::


Married, three children

Lifetime


US:


MAR~ITAL blATI

EXP'LR IE NC :


SITUATION:


The family has a large debt load and were using farming
methods of 15 years ago (hay put up too late and heifers neglected). A
conservation plan was put into effect and work done on raising better
heifers, large enough to freshen at 24 months. In 1979 another
silo was added (total of three) making it possible to put most of the
first crop hay in the silo and still have room in the fall for 20 acres
of good corn for silage.



Group A


AREA OF EMPHASIS:








FARM NUMBLR: 45


INITIAL CONTACT:


7/20


MARITAL STATUS:


Single, lives with parents.


EXPLRIENCE:


SITUATION:


Very difficult for this operator to change his farming methods
as long as the parents have ownership. Parents are not about to sell
but want the son to carry on the farm operation. The farm is small but
the soil is fertile and mostly well drained.


Little change can be expected until the son acquires the farm.



Group C





















AREA OF EMPHASIS:


-67-








FARM NUIMBLR: 46


INITIAL CONTACT:


6/11/78 Sold 11/78


41 & 42 Partnership Brothers


MANIlAL STATUS:

EXPLRIENCE:


238 acres (generally sloping). One brother was working for
the farm full time and the other part-time. Little crop work was
being done. Number of cows was 25. After discussing the situation,
the decision was made that they should sell the cattle, machinery,
rent the farm and both continue to work off the farm.


SITUJAT ION:


Group D






















AREA OF EMP'HASIS:


-68-








FARM1 NUMBLR: 48


INITIAL CONTACT:

ACGL:

MAKllAL 51A1US:


12/20/78 Sold 3/12/79


EXPERIENCE:


SITUATION:


150 acres tillable. Operator renting from parents. Buildings
were in need of repair and land was in need of lime and fertilizer
but the father refused to put anything into the property or sell to
the son. A decision was made that there was no future here for the
son and he sold his cows and went to work in a shop.


Group D
























AREA OF EMPHASIS:


-69-
































APPENDIX D

















LIMITED RESOURCES FARM MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

CATTARAUGUS COUNTY

QUARTERLY REPORT

12/12/77 4/1/78


Starting December 6 & 7 Ithaca


COOPERATIVE EXTENSION
CATTARAUGUS COUNTY %
New York State College of Agricultulre and Life Sciences,
and New York State College of Hrson Ecology,
Statutory Colleges of the State University, at Cornell University
Cooperative Extension Center
Parkarde Drive
Ellicottville, New York 14731
Phone (716) 609-2377


Ed'ucation~al Programs in:
AGRICULTURE
COMMUNITY RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT
CONSUMER ECONOMICS
4~-H YOUTH DEVELOPMENT
HOUSING & HOME ENVIRONMENT
NUTRITION & HEALTH


Inservice on use of the computer terminal and least cost feeding program.

December 19

William Gerling, Farm Management Agent, and I spent part of a day in
Ithaca with the College Advisory Committee and the-rest of the day with
Prof. C. Arthur Bratton on counseling and working with farm families. Also
met other program leaders.

December 20

Bill and I spent a day in Chenango County to gain an insight on how
they had and were carrying out their program. (This is the only other
program of this nature in the state.)

The first task appeared to be obtaining a list of farm families to meet
the qualifications for the project. (40 cows or less and a yearly gross
income of less than $40,000.)

A list of potential farm families (158 names) was obtained with my
visits to machinery dealers, feed stores, FmHA, banks, etc. Agri-business
people have been very cooperative and are apparently interested in seeing
a project of this kind for these people.


(more)


-70-


I=r











To Date

Twenty (20) farm families have been contacted and given the information
which we asked. On the first visit, no attempt was made to get all the
financial figures for the farm business, but to get general information
on a questionnaire. This was helpful in stimulating conversation and also
the material revealed some of the areas that needed immediate attention.

To get an idea of the variations in the operations, a few factors
were selected:

Age of operators 26-46 years
Number of cows 16-44 cows
Pounds of milk per cow 9,200-13,306 1bs.
Corn silage tons per acre 5-14 tons

On the first visit an attempt was made to explain some of the Extension
programs and even supply some of them with previous months service letters
and Extension In Action. Bulletins, farm account books and inventory books
were also available at each family visit, if they were needed.

Six (6) county Extension memberships were picked up and two (2)
Cornell account books were put into use as well as three (3) Cornell
Recommends.

It is interesting and encouraging that on all the farm visits, but one,
the wife was also present during the interview.

There has been little trouble getting families interested in the program,
in fact only one person turned down the opportunity, and at least four (4)
have heard about the program and asked if they could qualify. More names
are being added to the list all the time.

Future

With twenty (20) families who have had the initial visit and agreed
this would be a program they would like to be a part of, it is now planned
to do an intensive program with them while the remaining families (10-15)
are being contacted. Some parts of the program planned are:

1. Preparation of a monthly newsletter (include timely reminders,
recommendations, news etc.).

2. Make calls on each of the families to see that farm records
are being kept current, machinery is ready to operate, crops planted
on time, etc.


-71-












3. Obtain from each farm family more information from the
farm business records which will be needed for a Farm
Business Summary later.

4. One or two farms will be selected for the test plots (varieties
of corn and methods and rate of seeding mixtures).

One assistant and perhaps a part-time assistant will be hired for
the summer months.

An Advisory Committee is being set up and will consist of two
program participants, one from the agriculture program committee and the
FmHA Director.

Submitted by,



M. Edlgar Chapman
Assistant Director
Limited Resources Farm Management Program

4/10/78

MEC:cs


-72-






COOPERATIVE EXTENSION
CATTARAUGUS COUNTY
New York State College of Agriculture and Life Salences.
and New York State College of Human Ecology,
Statutory Colleges of the State University, of Cornell University
Cop rtiv Extension cente'
Ellicottville. New York 14731
Phone (716) 699-2377


Educational Programs in:
AGRICULTURE
COMMUNITY RESOURCE DEVELOPM~EN1
CONSUMER ECONOMICS
4-H YOUTH DEVELOPMENT
HOUSING & HOME ENVIRONMENT
NUTRITION & HEALTH


LIMITED RESOURCES FARM MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

CATTARAUGUS COUNTY

QUARTERLY REPORT

4/1/78 6/30/78


The past three months have proved to
early in April got the cropping season off
oats and seedings were planted. Then came
oats went in late.


be busy ones. Good weather
to a good start and some early
the usual spring rains and some


Most of our farmers are interested and willing to accept assistance,
they are concerned about their situation. Many cannot or will not spend
money to make money. A good example being when FmHA suggested I call on a
farm operated by two brothers and when I got there I found a herd producing
about 9,000 lbs. (no records). They had quit testing a few years ago. The
county average is about 14,500 1bs. They were feeding no grain but had
60 tons of ear corn in the crib and said they could not afford to feed grain.
A trial project will be tried with this family by purchasing feed for a
limited time for two recently fresh cows and keeping accurate milk production
weights to demonstrate what the feed could do for milk production.

The majority of the corn went in early and the old saying "knee-hi by
the 4th of July makes good corn" makes these people very happy as much of
the corn is 12 to 14 inches high as of 7/1/78. Due to the short hay crop,
for the second year in succession, I have been able to get several of the
farmers to take the hay off an old meadow early and plow and plant to corn.
If we get an average growing year they should get satisfactory silage,
but it is DRY now and who knows what the results will be. Many still
remember last year's high hay prices and are looking at some old meadows
that look very slim this year. Total hay crop will be on the light side if
the present weather persists.




(cont'd.)


-73-










The last month (June) has been dry so the majority of the hay is In the
barn and you just don't bother a farmer during good weather in June, therefore
most of my visits were with farmers who had called asking me to stop by,
or I would stop, but not for long, to call on families along the way.

I was able to add to the number of participating farm families and now
have 29, one short of my goal for July 1, 1978. There is no problem finding
farm families to work with and I have yet to be turned down by a possible
farm family I feel fits our program qualifications. It is certainly
enjoyable to approach a family and have them eager to accept the program.

We advertised for a summer aide (2 to 3 months) to help with the program
but were not successful and re-advertised for a part-time aide (2 days a
week for 52 weeks) and interviewed three candidates. The position was offered
to one of the candidates but he asked for time to think over the offer.
Hopefully he will make a decision in our favor to acccept the position.

The cooperation of the agricultural agent has made it possible for us
to have three demonstration plots with the Limited Resources Farm Management
Program farm families. They are:

Fred Oakes 8 corn varieties to demonstrate maturity
Milton Krotz meadow topdress
Robert Chadwick nitrogen vs. weed control in corn

There are also four other demonstration plots in the county by the
agricultural program that I will encourage all participants to see. Perhaps
a tour can be arranged at a time when all plots will have something to show.

There is a special area which I feel needs some immediate attention
among the LRFMP families. FARM ACCIDENTS. Of the 29 families on the program
there are three who have had tractor accidents within the last three months.
The injuries included fractured ribs, a broken leg and a death from a
compound fracture of the chest and other internal injuries.

Trying to look or project for the next two or three months, I can see
the need for me to get more farm business records from each participant in
an effort to have better records for the Farm Business Summary, which we will
attempt to do on all participating families later this fall and winter.
We plan to increase the number of participants to 3S.




(cont'd.)


-74-











The foremost thought in working with these families is, of course, to
improve management and hopefully this will reflect on the income. The high
price of cull cows and bob calves has helped considerably. Cull cows are
selling for .40 to .60/1b. and bob calves up to $1.00/1b. It will be fall
before we can compare the yearly income to give us much indication as to
increased income this year.

Submitted by,



M. .~ Chapman
Assistant Director
Limited Resources Farm Management Program

7/18/78

MEC:cs


-75-







COOPERATIVE EXTENSION
CATTARAUGUS COUNTY
New York State College of Agrlculture and Life Slcines'
and New York State College of Human Ecology,
Statutory Colleges of the State University, at Cornell University

Cooperative Extenslon Center
Parkside Drive
Ellicotiville. New York 14731
Phone (716) 899-2377


Educational Programs in:

AGRICULTURE
COMMUNITY RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT
CONSUMER ECONOMICS
4-H YOUTH DEVELOPMENT
HOUSING & HOME ENVIRONMENT
NUTRITION & HEALTH


LIMITED RESOURCES FARM MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

CATTARAUGUS COUNTY

7/1/78 10/1/78


farmers in the county
filled with very good
it looks like milk


A good growing season has made it possible for most
to make an average amount of good hay and silos are
well-dented corn. Milk cows are very expensive and
should be a good price for the coming months.


The summer has been busy but I was able to call on all participants at
least twice a month and more often on those who had special questions or
problems. One good measure of the success of the program is the increased
number of phone calls for consultation or suggestions of how to solve
problems.

A representative from the LRFM program, William Jarrett, was selected to
attend the Northeast Regional Small Farm Conference upon the recommendation
of myself, county Ag agents and county SCS committee. This conference
is co-sponsored by the Community Service Administration, the U.S. Dept.
of Agriculture and Action. The conference was held September 26-28, 1978
in Portland, Maine. Bill has agreed to give the highlights of the program
at the next advisory committee meeting. He has been assigned to three
or four special committees and should be able to contribute first hand
information. I think we are fortunate to have a representative selected.

During the three months covered by this report, the following information
was taken from my daily records which included two weeks for vacation.

Farm visits 138.
Telephone calls 97.
Took part in two demonstration plot tours and held another for
the LRFM participants.
Prepared New, Views, and Mostly Comments (monthly news for
participants) 3.
LRFM feature article in September Extension in Action.
One press release for the LRFM representative to Northeast Regional
Conference.


(more)


-76-


r











We lost one participant (dcath resulting from tractor accident) and added
three so we now have 31 actively involved in the program.

An effort was made to involve the LRFM participants in the mini crop tour
held in the county but attendance was not good and no LRFM people showed
up so a special tour was set up a week later for the LRFM participants
alone. We felt there was some good teaching tools here. Two of these
demonstration plots were on the farms of participants and could or would
demonstrate the same results on most any one of their farms. The -other
was a hilltop farm.

1. Early Corn Varieties and Production Problems.
2. Nitrogen vs. Weed Control in Corn.
3. Corn Varieties.

This was more successful, still not enough participation, but those
who attended had good questions and went home talking and were convinced.

We were successful in working out a conservation program (drainage) for
one participant and involved a neighbor, also a LRFM participant, in a Cost
Sharing endeavor that will give both parties more for their dollars spent.
This is an example of how agencies can work together.

Looking to the coming months, I would like to pull together information on
each farm as to income over feed cost, cash flow problems, etc. and how
better can this be done than by doing a Farm Business Summary on each farm.
I will be also working closely with SCS and ASCS to try to look at the
long range need for each farm and how many dollars each one can be expected
to spend if matching dollars were available. This will help each county
committee to plan for the future and each participant to plan for the
needed dollars to do the practices needed.

Submitted by



M. gar Chapman, Assistant Director
Limited Resources Farm Management

MEC: cs

10/5/78


-77-






COOPERATIVE
EXTENSION Educational Programs in:
AGRICULTURE
tea e rk Sae HC leeE It rutoueo adol gof clnt~r tn Ue v r COMMUNITY RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT
at cornell university. CONSUMER ECONOMICS
4-H YOUTH DEVELOPMENT
Cooperative Extension Center HOUSING & HOME ENVIRONMENT
Parkside Drive
Ellicottvillle, New York 14731 NUTRITION & HEALTH
Phone (716) 699-2377 or 945-5200


LIMITED RESOURCES FARM MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

CATTARAUGUS COUNTY

QUARTERLY REPORT

10/1/78 12/31/78

The 1978 year for the LRFM program is now history. We now have our feet
wet and hopefully are wiser. There were frustrating days that would lead us
to believe we were moving too slowly; but one must be patient in order to
achieve success or a little progress.

Working on a one-to-one basis with the participants we realize, and better
understand, each individual situation. The things that motivate some has
little affect on another or at least at a different level. Farming is no
different than the day-to-day operations of our lives, priorities need to
be set and your wants and goals established. Farming also has its person-
alities.

It has been said that the most valuable tool to the farmer is "credit", but
I believe there is another that is equally as important and that is management
knowledge. I feel they go hand in hand; without one the other cannot be
fully utilized. Certainly to begin farming and the continuation of farming,
in most cases, depends upon knowledge and the use of credit. To the people
anticipating or recently entering the field of farming, the "debt load per
cow" is scarey and long term loans are important and necessary. A short
term loan usually demands a repayment schedule that may stand in the way of
progress.

Too often the participants in the program have gotten into business without,
first of all, learning the capabilities of the farm or knowing enough in
the field of "farm credit" and "credit management". Farming is big business
and we need to educate farmers or better yet, future farmers and those that
serve him as well.


(more)


-78-











With the high costs today many participants are experiencing a minus
"cash flow" which is due, in some cases, to nothing more than the debt-10ad.
This usually ends up in disaster.

The LRFM program in Cattaraugus County is working. There are 31 farm
families on the program and they are making improvements in management
practices and production. Cooperative Extension programs are becoming more
a part of their plans. As with every program there are some families making
greater strides and even some that are making little or no improvements.

The field demonstrations (on participants farms) was one of the best teaching
tools used this year. In 1978 one demonstrated the use of varying amounts
of fertilization on hay ground. Another demonstrated nitrogen vs. weed
control in corn and still another on maturity of corn and soil fertility.
A tour was held to these plots and although the attendance was not high
those attending asked many good questions and did appear to get a great deal
from what they saw. When you connected dollar values to the results they
became more interested.

Collective buying saved money for several of the participants last spring.
Many had to buy hay after the unforgettable fall when many acres were not cut
or in many cases were lost because of the continuation of rain. We managed
to get the needs of the farmers together and purchased hay in large lots at
a better price and spread the savings among those needing hay.

Business summaries and analyses are the name of the game now. Not one of
the participants has been in the regional summary before and some feel it is
one more headache to get the needed information ready. I think once they
see how much this can tell them about their business they will be more willing
to do a summary next year.

The State Advisory Committee held two meetings in Ithaca and one field trip
to Cattaraugus County to visit some of the participating families. The
County Advisory Committee met twice to set priorities and suggested guidance
for the assistant director.

We are trying to find an assistant which would make it possible to expand the
program. Two interviews were held and the position offered to one candidate
but he didn't accept. We will continue to search for candidates.

One of the county participants was selected to attend the Northeast Regional
Small Farms Conference in Portland, Maine on Sept. 26-28, 1978. A follow-up
state delegates meeting with the small farm task force was held to discuss
future plans for regional or county level small farm meetings.


(more)


-79-











SOME WILL GRADUATE SOON. Some of the families have come along so well I think
they are nearly ready for the next step, Cattaraugus County's "Points for Profit"
program. By moving some of these families they will continue to receive the
help they need and I can add others from the waiting list to the LRFM program.

Submitted by,



M. Edgar Chapman, Assistant Director
Limited Resources Farm Management

MEC:cs

1/25/79


-80-




1~~1~_~ _


(3 COOPER ATTIVE Educatio~nal Programns mn.
EXTENSION
AGRICULTURE
New York state College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, and New York COMMUNITY RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT
tatoCnoliteg~eno ve-uran Ecology, Statutory Colleges of the State University' O S M R C N MC
441 YOUTH DEVELOPMENT
Cooperative Extension Center HOUSING &r HOME ENVIRONMENT
Parkside Drive NUTRITION & HEALTH
Ellicottvtlle, New York 14731
Phone (716) 699-2377 or 945-5200






LIMITED RESOURCES FARM MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

CATTARAUG!(S COUNTY

QUARTERLY REPORT

1/1/79 4/1/79


Since December (the last Quarterly Report), I have tried to get business
summaries completed and managed to get ten. This does not appear to be
as many as one might expect, but 10 out of 29 is not so bad when this was
their first year. Plus the fact that only 57 were reported in the Western
Plateau summary for 1978.

The summaries were frustrating to some of the farm families, particularly
until they were able to see how the information could be used to their
advantage. I feel that when the summaries are broken down with averages
they can be of more use, not only to those who furnished information but all
LRFM participants.

It was a most challenging job to work out "cash flow" budgets for several
of the participants for refinancing, cropping loans, purchasing a new farm
or additional land.

It has been very encouraging to see two participants get relocated on farms
with a much greater potential. One was on top of a very high hill that had
nothing but clay low producing soil and he relocated on a farm with soil
that is better drained and much more productive. The other family moved from
the low, annually flooded, wet farm to a gravel-alfalfa soil farm. It will
take awhile for each of them to make the adjustments for maximum production
on the new farms but they do have greater land resources.

When this program began it appeared to me that one of the most critical
problems on several of the farms was the mastitis. One of the reasons it
was such a problem was that some of the families did not think it was serious
and refused to accept it as such. Realizing the problem, I put it in my
Plan of Work for 1979. I felt there were two families in particular that
were loosing too much production and money, so I have made an effort to
improve the situation. The milking procedures were checked in each case
and recommendations made. In each instance the operator was TRYING to use
four units and NO strip cut.

(over)
-81-











Improvements are being made but it will be some time before a problem as
serious as this can be completely turned around and the mastitis wiped out.

Test plots are again planned, as they appear the best way to get the point
across to these families.


Recommended lime and fertilization on corn.
Weed and grass control in corn.
Nitrogen vs. weed control in corn.


Working closely with SCS and ASCS, about half of the participants will be
put on a long term conservation plan and given priority rating for ACP funding.

A request for a grant or special project was made through the ACP for a state
project but as yet no reply. This would amount to $150,000or $50,000 for the
ten farmers involved for conservation practices over a ten year period.

Our County Advisory Committee meeting was held to set priorities for the
Assistant Director to use in formulating the Plan of Work.


A summer assistant has been
majoring in Agronomy. Dean
This should help expand the
on the present participants.


hired. He is Dean Smith, a junior at Cornell
will work May 29th through August 26th, 1979.
program as well as making more regular visits
I look forward to working with Dean this summer.


The State Advisory Committee is expected to visit Cattaraugus County in late
May and I plan to have them visit four more of the participating families.
I did take the committee to visit four participants last year. This gives
the committee members the opportunity to visit with the families and ask
questions they may want a direct answer to.


Submitted by,



M. Ed r Chapman,
Limited Resources


Assistant Director
Farm Management


-82-






COOPERATIVE
EXTENSION Educatiilnal Programns in
New York State College of Agriculture anid Life Sciences, and New Yolk AGHICU H~OR~ D LTURFN
slate college at Human Ecology. Statutory Colleges of the State University. OMNT EORt EEOMN
at cornell University CONSUMER ECONOMICS
4- YOUTH DEVELOPMENT
r oksl~e ti Ext~ension Cente' HOUSING &. HOME ENVIRONMENT
Ellicotiville, New York 14731 NUTRITION & HEALTH
Phonle (716) 699-2377 or 945-5200






LIMITED RESOURCES FARM MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

CATTARAUGUS COUNTY

QUARTERLY REPORT

4/1/79 8/1/79



The spring and summer were busy days and crops got in fairly early with
this years hay yields much greater than last and the same was true of
the second and third cuttings. Most farms should have the necessary
amount for winter if they get the corn in the silo. The recent rain and
high waters from Frederic etc. has made the ground very wet and little,
if any field work can be done (9/15). Some fields are under water and
others so wet the tractor can't get on them.

Last year was an exceptionally good year for corn as the killing frost did
not appear until mid-October so many more acres were planted this year.
Some will not have silo capacity enough if they are able to get on the
ground to get it all.

I felt the meeting and tour with the College Advisory Committee was fruitful
and I hope they feel the same after visiting four more participants, making
a total of eight that have now been visited by the committee.

Starting May 29th, Dean Smith came to work as summer assistant and the
majority of his time was spent with the program, making visits. This was
very helpful as I was unable to work most of the month of June.

"The big push" came to the program as a result of some work with the ASCS
office on a special funds application. We were not accepted on the state
level but were looked upon favorably by the National Committee and granted
$150,000 to be used for conservation practices as outlined by the SCS
personnel. This was fine except that some of the farmers could not come up
with the necessary matching funds $3,000-$13,000. The FmHA county supervisor
(a member of our county LRFM advisory committee) came up with $100,000 of
3% money if used in conjunction with this project. Fifteen participants will
spend $90,903.45 in addition to the $110,049.95 ASCS share. The program is


-more-


-83-











set up for a three-year conservation and environmental project with each
farm doing some improvements each year.

Another interesting phase of the program which we have not talked about
before is the work I am doing with the Amish families.

It has been my hopes to eventually get one or more of these families on the
LRFM program but I guess their religion or beliefs would not permit this.
I have, never the less, been asked to advise in different ways. There are
at least six families that have come to me for cropping advice, land and
farm values and suggestions if they should purchase a particular farm.

These are not active participants of the program but are a group not
reached by any other Extension program. It will be difficult to measure
improvements except that I already have a couple of those with good land
resources growing alfalfa rather than the usual red clover and one of them
is cutting a third crop alfalfa which is unheard of on the farms of these
people in this area. WHO KNOWS WHAT MAY COME FROM THIS?

As mentioned in a previous report, I hoped to advance some of the families
who are making good progress, to the "Points for Profit Program" which
would mean I would then work less with them and be able to take on new
families. The invitation to these families has been made for the program
to start this fall. The amount of participation by each of the families
in a new program will help determine the amount of time I will need to
spend with them in the future.

Submitted by,



M. Edgar Chapman, Assistant Director
Limited Resources Farm Management

MEC:cs


-84-






Educational Programs in :
AGRICULTURE
COMMUNITY RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT
CONSUMER ECONOMICS
4-H YOUTH DEVELOPMENT
HOUSING & HOME ENVIRONMENT
NUTRITION & HEALTH


LIMITED RESOURCES FARM MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

ANNUAL REPORT

M. EDGAR CHAPMAN ASSISTANT DIRECTOR

DECEMBER, 1979



The Cattaraugus County Limited Resources Farm Management Program is working'
What was listed as high priority by the county agricultural committee and
agents four or five years ago is now in the second year of a three year
trial program. When we started the program in 1977, it was not known
exactly what the program could do in the county. We did know there were
a number of farmers which Extension had little or no contact with. These were
generally the smaller farms with about 35-40 cows.

In many cases they were young families trying to buy a farm with limited
capital or resources. These families were too busy trying to make a living
and paying bills to look into the future. They needed to determine where
they wanted to go and what management tools to use to get there. I think
this is a good place to look at some figures from the 1978 Business Summary.
Ten LRFM farms did summaries and they are compared to the 57 Western Plateau
farms reporting for 1978.


Avg.
LRFM
Farms

34
426,800
101
$ 43,657
4,632
23,390
96,400
$168,079


Avg. 57 Farms
Western Plateau


58
810,500
164
$ 64,480
19,564
48,413
113,713
$246,170


Average Number Cows
Lbs. Milk Sold
Acres of Crops
Livestock Investment
Feed & Supplies
Machine & Equipment
Land & Bld .


(continued)


-85-


COOePERATIVE
E)(TEENSIC)N
Now York state change~ ofI Agacullare ai; :tl oo sert rE 11' am !J V '"
State College of Humiran Ecology, Statutonl. ;.l!':es of thre St-a'e Un r:vrtasty.
at cornell universty
Cooperative Extenlslon Centrer
Parkside Drive
Ellicottville, New York 14731
Phone (716) 699-2377 or 945-5200












Receipts:


Avg.
LRFM
Farms

$ 42,835
1,998
63,887
23,230
55,000
8,887

31%

12,553
196,682


Avg. 57 Farms
Western Plateau


$ 82,493
8,243
114,800
43,155
95,918
16,320

24%

13,974
360,333


Milk Sales
Dairy Cattle Sold
Total Farm Receipts
Total Receipts/Man
Total Farm Expense
Labor & Management
Income/Farm
Scheduled Debt Payment
as % of Milk Sales
Lbs. Sold/Cow
Milk Sold/Man


spectacular results
are used.


that can be


It is an inspiration to see some of the
accomplished when good management tools


Example Participant #40


1977


1979


2.9 Topdress demonstration
17,162 plot 1977.


1.2
13,002


Yield of hay/acre
Lbs. of milk/cow


Hay yield accomplished: This was accomplished by a good conservation plan.
Strip cropping, diversion ditches, tiling, Time and seeding methods improved.
Manure on corn ground, etc.


Better forage hay & silage (early harvest).
Up-to-date balanced feeding program.
Better records & herd health improved.
During the last two years the number of milk cows
has increased from 39 to 53.
All the hay needed is produced on the home farm.
Prior to 1977, about half was grown on rented land,
located several miles away.


Milk per cow:


(continued)


-86-











Another "big push" camnle tI the LR;-M Program'c~ in 1979. Coopert'Ya t ive Ex ten s ion ,
Soil Conservation Service and Agrilculfurll.c Ctabil/izatiion Conservationi Service
joined forces on a special pr-ogram.r Thre re~sullts were~ $150,0000 to be used on
LRFM farms for a conservation program as outlinied L,, t~he SCS personnel. The
Farmers Home Administration also saw the need for some low cost money for
matching funds so the farmers could carry out the project. FmHA earmarked
$100,000 of 3% money. The end result is that 13 fann famiies will be using
this money on a long term (3 years) conservation plan.

Mini LTA's conservation plans developed for 13 farms covering 2,600 acres.

Practices included in plans:

Permanent Seeding 369 acres
Striperopping 211.5 acres
Diversions 35,450 feet
Streambank Protection 3,600 feet
Sod Waterways 6,350 feet
Animal Waste Control 11 projects
(Barnyard Water Mgt.)
Woodland Fencing 40 rods

Practices installed to date (since 9/1/79):

Permanent Seeding 8 acres
Diversions 2,405 feet
Tile Outlet 900 feet
Tile Component 1,000 feet
Animal Waste Control 5 projects

More progress:

One of the goals of the LRFM program was to work closely with those farm
families and when it was felt they were ready (using good management practices),
to graduate them to the "Points for Profit" program. A program where the
participants meet 8-10 times per year together for professional training in
farm management. This fall I felt there were five families that could get
most of the necessary answers by attending the monthly meetings of "Points
for Profit". This means less time will be spent with them and more families
will be added to the program. Five additional families are participating in
the PFP program. I have added to the program and am working with 39 farm
families with the expectations of adding a few more. I do expect to get
business summaries from these graduates and continue to visit with them if
needed.

The work with the Amish has been challenging. They usually do not believe
in joining any organization or using long term rotations (alfalfa). Corn and
red clover are grown on a two or three year rotation. I now have at least
one Amish cutting three crops per year of alfalfa after getting the pH to a
6.8 level. Others are asking for advice on weed spraying, forage varieties
etc. This fall in Cattaraugus County, 12 Amish did a good tiling job on
their farms. This is the first time they have done more than drain a wet
hole by means of a ditch dug with a back-hoe.
(conrtin ued)
-87-












More work to be done:

Two of the last four participants placed on the program would not have
gotten through the winter without a great deal of management help. The
other two have more of a cash flow problem which, of course, came about as
the result of poor management practices.

Names are continuing to be added to the waiting list but we now have
participants from all parts of the county, not just a few townships.
Points of interest:

1. Three participants are no longer on the program. One lost his life
in a tractor accident. The second had a part-time job which became a
full time job after we analyzed the farm business and debt load.
The third participant was trying to operate a very small farm with
15 cows. We looked at the alternatives and he agreed he would be
better off to work on a large dairy farm which was near-by.

2. The attitude of the participants has changed remarkably. For example:
One year ago, participant #19 was having trouble with the creditors
to the extent that they were ordered off his farm. He sold his cows
without prior approval or notice to his creditors and we were unable
to do much work with him. This fall he came asking for help exhibiting
each of our monthly "News, Views, and Mostly Comments". We now have
worked out a new larger operation with some new structures and have
it accepted by the creditors who can't understand what happened.

3. Excellent feedback. Two months ago a return tear sheet was attached
to the monthly newsletter and the response was almost unheard of.
Some questions were:

1. Number of years on the program.
2. Areas of help received.
3. Would you like to see the program continue? Yes or No

From the 35 receiving the newsletter, 18 returned favorable comments
and no-one wanted to see the program discontinued.


Submitted by



M. gar Chapman
C erative Extension Assistant
Cattaraugus County

MEC:cs


-88-







(COOPERATIVE Educational Programs in:
EXTENSION
AGRICULTURE
Now York state College of AgriCultate, and Licfe Scie:,es ando Ne ior~k COMMUIN!TY RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT
State College of Huiman Ecology, IStAtutory Collenes I') the State Universi!'i CONSUMER ECONOMICS
at ornn Uivesey4-H YOUTH DEVELOPMENT
Cooperative Extension Center HOUSING & HOME ENVIRONMENT
Parkslde Drive NUTRITION & HEALTH
Ellicottvllie, New York 1473'1
Phone (716) 699-2377 or 945-6200





LIMITED RESOURCES FARM MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

CATTARAUGUS COUNTY

QUARTERLY REPORT

1/1/80 4/1/80



Time marches on and the Cattaraugus County LRFM program will terminate on
December 31, 1980 UNLESS funding is found.

The agricultural program leader, and the chairman of the county LRFM advisory
committee were in Washington the week of April 15th looking for funding for
the program after 12/31/80. The program now has a track record following the
2-1/2 years of intensive work with up to 38 farm families.

On April 23rd, the ag program leader and the program assistant presented a
"Special Report" to the County Legislature. Many interesting comparison tables
were put together for the above occasions and I would like to share some of
them.

Table A, B & C (attached)
Table D Revised (attached)
Extension Special Report (presented to Legislature, attached)

This quarter we had one participant sell out to take a job in a related field.
We also added four participants. One very encouraging part of the program
this year was the increase in the number of participants doing Business Summaries.
For 1978, there were ten summaries compared to 22* in 1979. This is an indication
of the interest and cooperation. The summaries were completed by the farmer
or his wife, in many cases. The program assistant went to the farm on the
assigned day to help complete and pick up the summaries. Next year, to encourage
the idea of using the facilities at the center, as well as the personnel, the
schedule of the appointments will be sent asking each family to come to the
center to discuss the summary and complete any necessary section. This will save
time and travel expense on the part of the program assistant.

*22 farm families filed summaries but only 19 were in the LRFM report.
Three farms lacked information and were excluded from the report.

(over)


-89-








-2-



Demonstration plots are again planned on the participants' farms for 1980.
This appears to be one of the best methods of self-education.

1. Topdress on established hay ground.

2. Weed and grass control in corn.

Submitted



M. dgar Chapman
Cooperative Extension Assistant
Cattaraugus County

MEC:cs

Attachments: Table A, B, C, D-Revised
Extension Special Report


-90-








Extension LIMITED RESOURCES

Spacar FARM MANAGEMENT PROGRAM


Report

WHAT: A program for farm families with less than 40 dairy cows or
producing less than 4,800 cwt. milk annually. It is an intensive
educational program designed to improve the quality of life of
the participants through improvement of business and production
management skills.
WHERE: There are currently 38 participant families from 13 towns in
Cattaraugus County. There is also a waiting list of 13 additional
families who wish to participate in the program.
WHY: Agriculture is important to Cattaraugus County; providing approx-
imately 38 million dollars gross value of dairy products (milk);
generating over 30 million dollars worth of input purchases within
county businesses and maintaining about 1,800 jobs in supplying
associated goods and services.

Roughly 35% of the total farms in Cattaraugus County could qualify
for this program. The objectives of the program are to improve
the quality of life of the farm families either by continuance in
agricultural production or by helping to identify viable non-farm
alternatives. To maintain the agricultural economy both in terms
of perserving viable farm land and the associated producers of
goods and services.
HOW: Intensive one on one contact by LRFM staff on at least a monthly
basis. Identification of family and farm resources and goals.
Analysis of strengths and weaknesses of the business from a
production and managerial point of view. Individual plans for
maximizing available resources to meet objectives. Demonstrations
of approved production and management practices. Coordination
with other U.S.D.A. agencies to maximize financial and technical
help available. (Special $100,000 grant from ASCS for long term
conservation measures on cost-share basis and matching amount
from FmHA for low interest loans to meet farmers' share.)

RESULTS: Family disposable income is increasing. Productivity is increasing.
Debt structure is more manageable. Three families have found non- I
farm alternatives and discontinued farming. Five families have
been graduated from the program. Families have a brighter outlook
on life and an improved self-image.

4/23/80
COOPERATIVE Cooperative Extension Assn. of Cattaraugyus County
Cooperative Extension Center
EXTENSION i Ellicottville, NY 14731

-91-






Appendix


TABLE A


Comparison of Selected Business Factors
1979 Farm Business Summaries


1 2
Western Young3
Plateau Farmers LRFM3

Number of Farms 68 23 19
Average Age of Operator 40 34 37
Education (Years) 13 13 12
Average No. Cows 57 40 36
Average No. Crop Acres 169 102 117
Average Man Equivalent 2.3 1.8 1,7


Capital Investment

Livestock $ 87,623 $ 59,931 $ 55,156
Feed & Supplies 22,330 11,532 6,288
Machinery & Equipment 57,577 40,088 34,601
Land & Buildings 132,231 78,652 104,234
$302,761 $190,203 $200,279

Financial Measures

Labor & Management Income $ 27,629 $ 14,976 $ 3,735
% Equity 67% 57% 58%
Debt/Cow $1,785 $ 1,971 $ 2,336
Debt Payments/Cow 350 322 389


Production Measures

Milk Sold/Cow 14,551 12,743 12,097
Hay Yield/Acre(tons) 2.8 2.6 2.1
Corn Silage/Acre(tons) 14.5 12.5 11.1


Labor Efficiency

Man Equivalent 2.3 1.8 1.7
Cows/Man 24 23 22
Milk Sold/Man(1bs.) 355,966 291,257 260,778



(continued)


-92-