ethnicity and farm entry behavior

Rural Sociology 65(3), 2000, pp. 461-483Copyright © 2000 by the Rural Sociological Society

Ethnicity and Farm Entry Behavior

John A. CrossDepartment of Geography, University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh, Oshkosh, Wisconsin54901-8642

Douglas Jackson-Smith *Bradford BarhamProgram on Agricultural Technology Studies, 202 Taylor Hall, 427 Lorch Street,University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin 53706

ABSTRACT The persistence of ethnic traits in both the visible agriculturallandscape and the practices of established farmers in the United Stateshas been well documented but not unchallenged. One limitation of moststudies is that they have focused on relatively special populations of farm-ers who could be expected to have unusually strong ethnic identity . It hasnot been clear that ethnic background could serve as a useful variable inexplaining variation in farmers' behavior in the general farm population.The present study examines the role of ethnicity in a large random sam-ple of recent entrants into dairy farming in Wisconsin. In particular, weprovide some confirmation that the farm operator's ethnic identity can belinked to differences in entry paths, current farm characteristics, and cul-tural beliefs in our sample . We also suggest that ethnicity plays a strongerrole in affecting the resources and opportunities available to young farm-ers than the strategic decisions made to employ these assets.

Geographers, landscape historians, and rural sociologists have longnoticed and described visible patterns that various ethnic groupshave left on the agricultural landscape in the United States. In ar-eas of early French and Spanish settlement, long narrow fields ex-tending at right angles from rivers or irrigation ditches (acequinas)are conspicuous . Although the U .S. Public Land Survey placed lim-its on the shapes of farms and on the ability of many later-arrivingimmigrant farmers to cluster their houses in agricultural villages, aswas common in parts of Europe, many cultural traits neverthelessare displayed . Numerous varieties of "German bank barns" and"English barns," as well as distinctive Dutch, Finnish, Belgian, andFrench Canadian farm buildings, have attracted the attention oflandscape scholars (Noble 1984 ; Noble and Cleek 1995) . Similarly,scholars have noted particular ethnic groups' affinities for special-izing in certain types of agriculture, such as Norwegians in tobaccoin Wisconsin (Raitz 1975) and Portuguese and Dutch in dairying inCalifornia (Gilbert and Akor 1988).

* Please address all correspondence to : Douglas Jackson-Smith, Program on Agri-cultural Technology Studies, 202 Taylor Hall, 427 Lorch Street, University of Wis-consin, Madison, Wisconsin 53706 .

462

Rural Sociology, Vol. 65, No. 3, September 2000

From a rural sociological perspective, considerable controversyhas been generated by evidence that farm operators' ethnic iden-tity, even generations after immigration, can strongly influence con-temporary patterns of intergenerational transfer of farms, landtenure, adoption of new agricultural technologies, and the use ofvarious management practices (Foster, Hummel, and Whitten-barger 1987, 1989; Khawaja 1989; Salamon 1989, 1992) . Most pre-vious research focused on targeted groups of farmers thought tohave strong ethnic identities, but few studies have demonstratedthat ethnic variables can prove useful in explaining behavior ingeneral samples of farm operators . In this study we attempt todemonstrate that ethnic identity helps to structure patterns of en-try, current farm characteristics, and certain cultural beliefs andorientations in a random sample of recent entrants into dairy farm-ing in Wisconsin.

Ethnic Landscapes and Population in Wisconsin

The European ethnic imprint on Wisconsin's countryside was par-ticularly impressive. A half-century ago Fred Holmes ([1944] 1990)described how the traveler could experience the cultures of Europeby journeying around the state . Although many cultural differencesare less visible today, ethnic heritage is visible in the architecturalstyles of many older farm buildings, the denominations and stylesof rural churches, the farmers' surnames, and the occasional dis-play of the homeland's national flag.

Wisconsin's population remains highly ethnic ; it is composedlargely of descendants of European immigrants who arrived in thesecond half of the nineteenth century. Persons of German descentaccount for 57 percent of Wisconsin residents reporting their eth-nicity in the 1990 census . Nearly one-quarter trace their heritage tothe British Isles (13 percent are Irish ; 9 percent claim English orScottish heritage) . Polish ancestry was declared by 11 percent, andNorwegians account for another 9 percent of Wisconsin residents(U.S. Bureau of the Census 1992) . Wisconsin also contains signifi-cant concentrated rural settlements, though fewer in number, of Bel-gians, Czechs, and Swiss. The state's 1980 rural farm population was66 percent German ; only 14 percent of the farmers were of Britishor Yankee (English and Scottish) ancestry (Salamon 1992 :34).

Ethnic Influences on Farmers' Behavior : The Literature

Because most Wisconsin farmers are descendants of groups that im-migrated more than a century ago, the persistence of ethnic traitsis a topic of considerable interest . Even when outwardly visible cul-tural features disappear, many ethnically linked cultural beliefs arethought to be reproduced at the family level . Although the contentof ethnic traditions is likely to change as it is reproduced over time

Ethnicity and Farm Entry Behavior - Cross et al.

463

in a new setting (German-American farm culture is not the same asin farm communities in the former homeland), the value systemsretain distinctive characteristics and may influence the structureand behavior of farms across generations. Sonya Salamon(1984:162) claims that these "cultural beliefs, linked to practices de-rived from ethnic origin . . . are relevant to who survives in familyfarming and who does not. " Studying California strawberry growersof Anglo, Mexican, and Japanese heritage, Miriam Wells (1991 :745)argues that "there are systematic contrasts by ethnic group in their`knowledge systems,' the social networks and institutions throughwhich they obtain, evaluate and apply farming information . Theseknowledge systems in part arise from, and also reinforce, growers 'background differences ."

In addition to Salamon's prominent work in Illinois, differencesbetween descendants of German and Scots-Irish settlers in theOzarks have been described by Gerlach (1992) ; variations in farmpersistence and expansion of farm size have been noted betweenfarmers of German and American heritage in Kansas (Flora andStitz 1985) ; and Zeitlin (1977) has written about differences in atti-tude toward landownership between German and Yankee farmersin Wisconsin, Comparing "century farms" in Illinois established byBritish and by German settlers, Foster et al . (1987:377) concluded," [O]ver the previous 100 years or more, many of the differing eth-nic patterns of agriculture, though dissipating, have persisted, likeechoes from the past."

In all of this literature, Germans are viewed as having a strongsense of proprietorship toward their land, regarding it as "an estatethat could be passed on to succeeding generations" (Zeitlin1977 :25) . Because of this attachment, stability and longevity areviewed as keys to the German-American built environment andland ethic (Tishler 1986) . As Carl Sauer observes, "Property ishanded down from father to son, and in many cases the descen-dants of the original entrymen still retain the land " (quoted in Ger-lach 1992 :297).

In contrast, farmers of British heritage have been described aslacking such affinity for their land . Richard Zeitlin (1977:25) writes,"Many Yankees, on the other hand, thought of their land as a re-source to be exploited, to be used for speculation, and perhaps to besold. " Indeed, in describing differences in attitudes toward farmingexpressed by German and Scots-Irish farmers, Gerlach (1992 :296)concludes that Germans "(have) a greater commitment to farming ."

Similar comparisons between German and Yankee farmers havebeen made in Illinois, where Salamon noted that "German farmersare obsessed with land ; obtaining, keeping, or transferring it is thestuff of community discourse . Land control allows yeomen toachieve what they consider of highest priority : to own and work a

464


farm" (1992:100) . Salamon concludes by observing that German-American farmers, in comparison with Yankee (Americans of Britishheritage) farmers, (1) own a greater percentage of their farmland;(2) are less likely to rent land; (3) have smaller farms ; (4) are morelikely to have farms similar in size to those of their neighbors ; (5)limit their farm size to their family capabilities ; and (6) are lesslikely to have heavy debt (Salamon 1992:93) . In addition, Salamonnotes that rural settlements of Germans (especially if these Germansare of the same religion) are more likely to survive as economicallyand socially vibrant small towns and villages than those of mixedethnicity and religion, such as characterize Yankee settlements.

Inheritance practices and modes of intergenerational land trans-fers have been linked to specific ethnic groups, and either hinderor enable the efficient establishment of farms by succeeding gener-ations. For example, Salamon (1987) comments that althoughfarmers of both German and Yankee descent emphasize equal in-heritance for their children, families of German heritage stressmaintaining family ties to the land and are more likely to leavewills, even when lands may become highly fragmented . Farmers ofBritish ancestry with fewer heirs are less likely to make planned in-tergenerational transfers . (Also see Carroll and Salamon 1988) . In-deed, Salamon (1993 :588) suggests, "Yankees usually treat land as acommodity and means of production . In contrast, Germans moreoften treat land as a sacred trust of a family line, a means to achiev-ing continuity of ownership and farms ." Thus German-Americans,particularly those of the Catholic faith, "shape family strategies tomaintain family farms significantly longer than other groups"(Conzen 1996 :77) . Furthermore, in supporting the father-son dyad,the German farmer is more likely to select early and orderly retire-ment, enhancing his successor's autonomy, while a Yankee farmerhas less motivation to retire early, or to retire at all (Salamon1993 :593).

The Current Research Problem

The presence of ethnic traits in both the visible landscape and thepractices of many well-established farmers is well documented butby no means unchallenged . In particular, Khawaja (1989) and Can-non (1991) have raised serious questions about the selectivity biasesof the cases and the statistical reliability of the research methods.For example, Cannon (1991 :31-32) observes that Gerlach, Sala-mon, and Foster and colleagues "may have skewed their findings byselecting samples from environments that favor ethnic retention: arelatively isolated economic backwater of the nation [the Ozarks],an unusually homogeneous German township in Illinois, and farmswhose owners are usually aware and proud of their familial her-itage." Yet if ethnicity is to emerge as an important variable in


465

mainstream social and geographic research, it is important to learnwhether an appreciation of ethnic identity can improve our under-standing of farmers' behavior in the population at large.

Similarly, prior studies have often compared farms that producea wide range of commodities . Ethnic identity may be linked tochoice of enterprise type : Salamon (1985) found a greater propor-tion of German-descended farmers engaged in livestock, dairying,and other mixed crop/livestock enterprises . Therefore it is possiblethat some of the differences noted between ethnic groups are struc-tured by the investment and labor requirements associated with dif-ferent types of farming operations.

Previous studies also focused on the behavior of farmers fromtwo prominent ethnic groups: German and Yankee (or British).The literature contains case studies of the influence of ethnicity onthe farming strategies of other ethnic groups in the Midwest, suchas Salamon's (1984) work on the Swedish and Irish, Almaas's(1991) study of Norwegian-Americans, and Vogeler's (1975) com-parison of Norwegian Lutherans and Polish Catholics in westernWisconsin regarding land transfer practices . Few of these studies,however, include detailed empirical comparisons with other ethnicgroups (Bliss 1992) . Comparative studies that consider larger num-bers of European immigrant groups, who established their farmscontemporaneously with German settlers, should help us to under-stand more clearly how ethnicity influences farmers' behavior.

In the present study we hope to contribute to the literature by fo-cusing on ethnic influences in a large random sample of farmerswho established new dairy herds in Wisconsin during the mid-1990s. In its sample size and design, its dispersed survey popula-tion, and its attention to a highly specialized type of agriculture,this study differs profoundly from others reported in the literature.

First, it can be argued that ethnic differences should be mostpronounced when two highly homogeneous ethnic communitiesare compared, such as Yankee and German, Irish and German, orYankee and Swedish communities in Illinois (Salamon 1980, 1985;Salamon, Gengenbacher, and Penas 1986) . Indeed, these ethniccommunities were settled by individuals emigrating from highly lo-calized regions of their old countries ; one would expect these com-munities to be more internally homogeneous than a sample repre-senting a much larger number of settlements of farmers withsimilar national origins. Thus, although in-depth studies and com-parisons of a small number of specific ethnic farming communitiesmay be highly valuable for highlighting differences, they may bemore likely to discern differences than a larger, more dispersedsample utilizing a more heterogeneous sample of members of spe-cific ethnic groups . However, if similar differences can be discernedfrom a statewide random sample survey such as ours, the results

466


would provide even stronger evidence that ethnicity exerts long-term influences on farming management among the farm popula-tion in general.

Second, entry into dairying is a far more complex process thanentry into cash cropping of corn and soybeans ; thus there are manyopportunities for ethnically influenced kinship relationships andbeliefs to either assist or hinder successful entry. Because dairyfarming requires greater and more specialized types of capital in-vestment and typically involves more intense and more sustained la-bor commitments from family members, the advantages or disad-vantages associated with ethnic background may be accentuated forthese farmers.

Third, by focusing on beginning farmers, the sample allows us toexamine the effect of ethnicity on the process of entry: the sequenceof asset acquisitions and the role of family resources in facilitatingthe establishment of a new farm. The literature suggests that thisprocess is likely to be structured by ethnic background . We alsolook at evidence indicating whether ethnic heritage influences thescale of operation and the technological profiles of recently estab-lished dairy farms.

Finally, we examine whether observed ethnic patterns in theprocess of entry and the structural characteristics of farms arelinked systematically to different "attitudes, objectives and values"(Austin et al . 1996 :464).

Given our review of the published literature, we expected to findsome significant differences between the entry behaviors of British-American and German-American dairy farmers in Wisconsin . Wealso recognize, however, that because our samples of each groupare far less homogeneous and more geographically dispersed thanthe community groups that typically have been studied, these dif-ferences may be less striking than previously reported . Insofar asethnic identity is still important among randomly sampled youngdairy farmers, we would expect British-American farmers to be lesslikely than those of German heritage to be farming family land, tobe more willing to rent farmland, to use more hired labor, to havemore debt, to use more production or profit-maximizing farm prac-tices, and to be generally more entrepreneurial.

With respect to the other ethnic groups involved in Wisconsindairying, the literature provides only limited clues about a hypoth-esized relationship between ethnic background and the process ofentering farming, current farm characteristics, or philosophical ori-entation. In general, we expected farmers of eastern European her-itage to strongly resemble the German farmers in our study . Be-cause the Norwegian farmers described by Almaas (1991) and theSwedes described by Salamon (1984) appear to display elements ofboth the entrepreneur and the yeoman, we expected the Scandina-


467

vians to be located somewhere in the middle of the British-Germancontinuum. We had no clear basis for making hypothetical state-ments about the Belgian/Dutch subsample.

Methodology

To all individuals who formally established dairy herds in Wiscon-sin between April 1994 and September 1995, we sent a detailedmail questionnaire in spring 1996. We identified new dairy herds bycomparing the complete lists of licensed dairy enterprises main-tained by the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade, andConsumer Protection. All recipients of the 24-page survey were in-cluded in the State Dairy Producer List in September 1995 butwere not also listed in March 1994 ; we identified a total of 1,399 in-dividuals. (These farms represented 5 .2 percent of the 26,724 dairyfarms licensed to sell milk in September 1995 .)

We employed a modified Dillman technique : to all persons whodid not respond to earlier mailings, we followed the initial surveymailing with a reminder postcard, a second mailing of the survey,and a final reminder letter and copy of the survey (with an optionalreturn postcard enclosed).

Because entry can mean different things to different people, weformally defined a dairy entrant as "an individual who owns someor all of a milking herd, makes some financial and managerial de-cisions on a dairy farm, and has begun doing so since 1993 ." A to-tal of 321 completed and usable surveys were returned by operatorswho met our definition of "new dairy entrant ." Another 377 indi-viduals returned surveys or postcards, or contacted us by phone, in-dicating that they were not qualified to fill out the survey : eitherthey were not currently dairy farmers or were not new dairy en-trants but had moved herds to the present farm from another loca-tion, had returned to dairying after a brief hiatus, or had farmedotherwise for more than three years . l

Dividing the number of completed surveys by the adjusted sam-ple size produced a simple response rate of 31 percent . Because alarge proportion of respondents failed to meet our definition ofnew entrant (mainly because they had entered before 1993), and tohelp explore the reasons for the low overall response rate, we con-

1 The large number of respondents who failed to meet our definition of new en-trant should not be construed as a sign that the state's list of dairy producers isfaulty, but as evidence of inherent difficulties in defining the point at which an in-dividual has entered dairying. For some persons, the purchase of a few cows placed ina rented barn would be a mark of entry. For others, the transfer of operator's namefor a large herd, for which the entrant had incrementally assumed greater manage-ment responsibilities over a decade or more, resulted in the first appearance of hisname on the list, even though by all other indications he was not a new entrant .

468


ducted a nonresponse survey. 2 The results suggested that roughly halfof the nonrespondents did not meet our definition of new entrant.

Removing the known disqualified operations from the sampleframe, and estimating that roughly half of the nonrespondents didnot qualify, we computed an adjusted response rate of 55 percentof actual new dairy farm entrants in the sampling frame, a responserate only slightly less than the 60 percent we typically receive frommail surveys of the general Wisconsin dairy farm population.

The primary purpose of the 1996 Wisconsin Survey of New DairyFarmers was "to gather information about new dairy farmers inWisconsin and the steps they followed to establish their dairy en-terprises ." These new farmers were questioned in detail about priorfarm experiences ; entry steps they took to establish their dairyfarm; reasons why they started farming at their current location;the seriousness of various obstacles to entering dairying, mechan-isms for obtaining their farmlands, whether owned or leased ; typesof farm technologies and practices used ; their farm business orga-nization; and their personal and business goals . Among a variety ofsocioeconomic questions on their farm background, survey respon-dents were asked about their own ethnic heritage and that of theirspouse . The specific question was worded "With what ethnic groupdo you most identify?" The survey included a number of ethnic cat-egories as well as an "other, describe" category.

Results

Ethnicity of Entering Dairy Farmers

We obtained ethnicity data for 305 of the 321 new Wisconsin dairyfarmers in the sample (Table 1) . The entering farmers were groupedinto seven ethnic clusters for purpose of analysis in this study : Ger-man (including Swiss, Amish, and Austrian) ; part German (Ger-man combinations with any other European group) ; British (Eng-lish, Scottish, Irish, Welsh, and Cornish) ; Scandinavian (Norwegian,Swedish, and Danish) ; Benelux3 (Belgian, Dutch, Luxembourgian,and French, but excluding French Canadian) ; eastern European(Polish, Czech/Bohemian, Lithuanian, and Hungarian) ; and"other," which included mixtures of two or more non-German eth-

2 In the nonresponse survey, we mailed postcards to nonrespondents and madetelephone calls to 63 randomly selected nonrespondents. Of those we contacted byphone, roughly half (32 persons) were determined to be actual new dairy entrantswho would have been qualified to respond; the other 31 nonrespondents were de-termined to be disqualified, either because they were no longer milking cows or be-cause they were not recent dairy entrants.

3 The regional name Benelux, a contraction of Belgium, Netherlands, and Luxem-bourg, is widely used by geographers, who also sometimes call these three countriesthe "Low Countries ." We added the three respondents claiming French ethnicity tothis group .

Ethnicity and Farm Entry Behavior - Cross et al .

469

Table I . Sample Characteristics and Farm Background, by Entrants'Ethnic Identity

Ethnic GroupNumber of

Respondents

Percentage ofSample with

Known Ethnicity

Percentage ofEntire Entrant

Sample

German 161 53 50British 28 9 9Scandinavian 23 8 7Benelux/French 14 5 4Eastern European 22 7 7Part German 36 12 11Other Ethnicity 21 7 7Ethnicity Not Reported 16 - 5All Entrants 321 100 100

nic groups such as British-Scandinavian, and individuals claiming"American," "American Indian," or "French Canadian" heritage.Those with German ancestry accounted for just over half (53 per-cent) of the respondents reporting their ancestry; part Germansfor 12 percent; British, 9 percent; Scandinavians, 8 percent ; easternEuropeans, 7 percent; Benelux, 5 percent; and other, 7 percent. Inaddition, we placed in the "other" category 16 cases for which eth-nic background was not reported, bringing the proportion of all re-spondents in that category to 12 percent . The ethnic profile of oursample of entrants suggests concentrations of German or part-Ger-man farms residents (roughly two-thirds) similar to those reportedin the 1980 U .S. Census of Population, but lower proportions ofBritish farm residents (as reported in Salamon 1992 :34).

Although we found some regional differences in the entrants'ethnic distribution, no group other than German ethnics ac-counted for as many as half of the farm entrants in any regionwhen we disaggregated the sample by the nine crop-reporting dis-tricts in Wisconsin . German ethnics were most dominant in thewest central and the combined southeastern and south central dis-tricts, where they accounted respectively for 67 and 63 percent ofthe entrants. Thirty-nine percent of British-heritage respondentswere located in southwestern Wisconsin, where they constituted 24percent of the entrants . Thirty-six percent of the Benelux entrantswere located in east central Wisconsin, although they made up only12 percent of the respondents in that region . Scandinavian ethnicswere dispersed more evenly across the state, accounting for no morethan 14 percent in any region . On the basis of anecdotal informa-tion, we suspect that these regional summaries may mask more sig-nificant ethnic concentrations in particular localities, but the sizeand geographic dispersion of the sample preclude such analysis.

470


Entrants' Demographic Characteristics

For most of this paper, characteristics of individual "entrants" referto the person identified as someone who owns cows and recentlybegan to make important management decisions on a dairy farm.In each case for our sample, this person was a male farm operator.We also collected information about the spouse of this "entrant ." Insome situations, spouses play a key role in the dairy business . In al-most all cases, however, the entrant referred to here made a dispro-portionate share of the decisions and did most of the farm labor.

Almost 78 percent of the entering dairy farmers were between 25and 45 years old . Another 12 percent were under 25 at the time ofthe survey, and 10 percent were over 45 . The entrants ' mean agevaried only slightly across ethnic clusters . British entrants wereslightly more skewed toward younger age classes, eastern Euro-peans were somewhat older, and Scandinavian and Benelux en-trants were represented more strongly in the middle age categories(43 percent were between 35 and 44, as opposed to 33 percent ofthe entire sample).

Roughly 78 percent of the entrants were married at the time ofthe survey. German respondents were more likely than the Britishentrants to be married ; Scandinavian and Benelux entrants weremost likely to be married, although the differences were not statis-tically significant . Two-thirds of the entrants had no more than ahigh school diploma; only 9 percent reported completion of abachelor's degree or higher. German and Scandinavian farmershad the lowest levels of education among ethnic groups in the sam-ple, while British and Benelux entrants had the most education.

Ethnicity and the Process of Entry into a Dairy Farm Career

Most dairy farmers in Wisconsin, regardless of ethnic heritage, haveextensive family ties to farming, particularly dairy farming (Jackson-Smith 1994) . Almost 76 percent of our sample grew up on a dairyfarm; an additional 5 percent grew up on another kind of farm.When the spouse's farm background is considered, almost 9 out of10 entrant households had some kind of direct family ties to farm-ing. Nonetheless, as shown in Table 2, German entrants were morelikely than their British counterparts to have grown up on a farm,and significantly more likely to have had a family tie to farming.Scandinavians also reported comparatively high levels of familyfarm background . Although all of the Benelux entrant householdsreported family farming experience, only a relatively small propor-tion of Benelux operators grew up on a dairy farm.

The fact that an overwhelming majority of dairy entrants in allethnic groups come from farming backgrounds suggests that fam-ily ties are important to a young person's ability or desire to enter

Table 2. Farm Background, Land Tenure Status, and Access to Family Land, by Ethnic Identity (Percentages)

Percentage of Either Ever InheritedOperators Operator's or or Purchased Currently Rents

Whose Parents Spouse's Parents Currently Ownsany Farmland

Parcels fromRelatives

Currently Rentsany Farmland

Parcels fromRelativesOperated a Farm Operated a Farm

Ethnic Group

German (g) 85 91 60 24 56 24(b* ; pg*) (b*** ; pg*) (b**) (s** ; x* ; pg*)

British (b) 70 71 46 7 57 18(g*; x*) (g*** ; s** ; x**) (pg*) (g**) ( s ** ; x*; pg*)

Scandinavian (s) 86 96 48 -

22 57 44(b** ; pg* ) (pg*) (g** ; b**)

Benelux/French (x) 93 100 50 7 79 43(b*) (b**; pg*) (g*; b*)

Eastern European (ee) 82 86 59 14 59 27

Part German (pg) 72 83 69 14 69 36( g*) (g*; s* ; x*) (b*; s*) (g*; b*)

All Entrants 81 89 60 18 59 26

Significance of Chi-Square .23 .01*** .40 .21 .46 .14

NOTES: Fisher's Exact Test for one sided difference was used to test for significant differences between specific pairs of ethnicgroups. Significant differences are indicated in parentheses.

*p< .10; **p < .05; ***p< .01 .

ti

472


the dairy farm sector. Family background can be important in lead-ing to privileged access to land, livestock, machinery, and financialassets . Indeed, previous work on ethnicity and agriculture often fo-cused on the effects of ethnicity on the transfer of a particular farmproperty within a family. Therefore one might expect that ethnicgroups with the closest ties to family farms would show distinctivepatterns of acquiring farmland assets. Because fewer than one-thirdof all entrants ' parents were still farming at the time of the survey,it appears that most of the entrants had the opportunity to takeover the family farm.

Outright inheritance of farmland figured in only nine of the 321recently established dairy farms in our sample (seven were Ger-man ; two were eastern European) . 4 More notably, purchase andrental of family land were far less common than is typically as-sumed: Table 2 shows that 60 percent of all entrants owned somefarmland at the time of the survey. Only one-third of theselandowners (18 percent of all entrants) had acquired their farm-land from a parent or relative through inheritance or purchase.Rented land was reported by 59 percent of entrants ; fewer than halfof these rented from a relative (26 percent of the overall sample).

Perhaps because of their closer ties to family farming, Germanentrants were more likely to own land, and three times more likelyto own family land, than the British respondents in our sample.Somewhat surprisingly, British entrants were not more likely thanGermans to be renting land, though they were less likely to rentfrom relatives . Given that rentals often precede purchase of partic-ular parcels, it seems likely that in the long run the British entrantswill continue to farm the lowest proportions of family land . Al-though Scandinavian farmers were among the least likely to ownany land, they were more likely than most entrants to have acquiredsome family land and significantly more likely to be renting someland from relatives. Benelux entrants were notable for relying mostheavily on rental land, particularly farmland rented from parents orrelatives. We expect that as this group matures, more of them even-tually will assume ownership of many of these rented parcels.

Many entering dairy farmers obtained their first milk cows sev-eral years before they established separate, independent herds reg-istered with state officials . This practice was particularly common

4 Although this finding might appear surprising at first, Germans elsewhere havebeen noted for "retiring early, and making pre-death land transfers" (Salamon andLockhart 1980:325), while Swedish-Americans are more noted for delayed retire-ments, with lengthy joint father-son operations (Salamon, Gengenbacher, and Penas1986) . Both situations would result in entry well before inheritance . Indeed, giventhe young ages of the great majority of entrants, it is evident that many dairy farm-ers in Wisconsin establish their operations before they would have had the opportu-nity to inherit land .


473

among dairy entrants of German and Scandinavian heritage. In-deed, 29 percent of each group had obtained their first milk cowsat least five years before they started an independent dairy opera-tion. In contrast, among British-heritage entrants this figure was 19percent; none of the Benelux farmers had obtained dairy cows be-fore starting out on their own.

Ethnicity and Current Farm Characteristics

Overall the dairy farm entrants in our sample milked an average of44 cows, operated 176 acres, and produced a rolling herd averageof 16,570 pounds of milk per cow per year. Size of dairy farm oper-ations, measured both by the farm acreage and by the number ofmilk cows, varied among the farmers of different ethnic backgrounds(Table 3) . British entrants typically milked slightly more cows thanmembers of the other ethnic groups, but operated significantly lessacreage than the German, part German, and eastern Europeanfarmers in our sample. As a result, British operators had signifi-cantly less tillable land available per milk cow for growing cropsand disposing of manure than did any of the other ethnic groups.This result is not surprising in view of our earlier findings thatBritish farmers had less access to family land and less propensity forlandownership than did the German entrants . In contrast to previ-ous studies, which found that farmers of British descent tended tooperate larger farms, we found that our sample of British entrantsdid not use rented land to build up larger acreages, nor did theymaintain unusually large dairy herds . Similarly, although otherstudies have linked British farmers to a more "productionist" orien-tation, our British entrants' farms did not tend to be more produc-tive than farms in most of the other groups. Indeed, mean milk pro-duction per cow varied by only 12 percent across all ethnic groups.

The average German entrant in our sample had $122,356 worthof equity invested in his operations, with debts equal to half thevalue of all farm business assets . British entrants had significantlyless equity than Germans and part Germans, and had the highestdebt-to-asset ratio among all the ethnic groups . This also may re-flect their relative lack of direct access to family farmland re-sources . Their larger-than-average herd size, however, led to lowerlevels of debt per cow than among German and Scandinavian dairy-men. Scandinavian operators reported relatively high levels of eq-uity, but because they also had significant debts and relatively fewcows, they were among the most highly leveraged group of respon-dents. By contrast, typical Benelux entrants had the least equity andthe least leverage of any of the ethnic categories.

We also noted differences among new dairy farmers with respectto their adoption of several dairy farm technologies . Comparedwith the Germans and most of the other ethnic groups, slightly

Table 3. Farm Enterprise Characteristics, by Ethnic Identity

Herd Size(Milk Cows)

Acres OperatedAcres Tillable Land

per Milk Cow.

Operator Equity

Percentage UsingManagement-

IntensiveRotational Grazing

Ethnic Group

German (g) 44 179 4.7 $122,356 32(b***) (b**) (b*)

British (b) 47 121 3 .4 $81,800 18(g*** ; ee** ; pg**) (g** ; ee** ; pg**) (pg**) (g*

; pg*)

Scandinavian (s) 37 158 4.6 $112,099 22

Benelux/French (x) 41 152 4.2 $73,558 21

Eastern European (ee) 45 204 5.1

(pg**)

$117,505 27

Part German (pg) 39

(b**)

186

(b**)

5 .1 $205,918 36

All Entrants 44

(b**)

176

(b**)

4.6

(b**, x**)

$129,114

(b*)

29

One-way ANOVASignificance Test .82 .31 .35 .08* (.53)a

All Dairy Farmsin Wisconsinb 66 350 4.3 n.a. 15

NOTES: Significance tests reflect two-tailed t-test for difference in means between ethnic group pairs (first four columns), andFisher's Exact test for one-sided difference for comparison of percentage distributions (last column) . Significant differences are shownin parentheses.

a Significance of chi-square test across all ethnic groups.b Based on results of 1997 Wisconsin Dairy Farm Poll (Nevius et al . 1998).*p< .10; **p< .05; ***p< .01.


475

larger proportions of British entrants had adopted most of the"production-maximizing" practices typically recommended by uni-versity scientists in Wisconsin: herd production testing, total mixedration (TMR) machinery, computers, parlor milking facilities, andthe use of bovine growth hormone or rBST. For example, fully one-quarter of the British entrants used TMR machinery, in contrastwith 15 percent of the Germans, one-tenth of the Scandinavians,and none of the Benelux ethnics . Indeed, the Benelux operatorsshowed the lowest rates of use for most of these productivity-ori-ented technologies.

We found a very different pattern for the use of a "low-capital, in-put-cost minimizing" production practice, namely management-in-tensive rotational grazing or MIRG (Jackson-Smith et al . 1996).Germans were significantly more likely to adopt MIRG than weretheir British counterparts, and 1 .5 times as likely as Scandinavianand Benelux ethnics . With an adoption rate of 29 percent, MIRGhas been a preferred strategy of entrants from all ethnic groups.This is particularly noteworthy when we consider that only about 15percent of the overall Wisconsin dairy farm population followedthe practice in 1997 (Hassanein, Jackson-Smith, and Ostrom 1998).

Ethnicity and Cultural Beliefs

Observed relationships between ethnic heritage and farmers' be-havior or the structural attributes of farm operations are usually at-tributed to beliefs or value orientations that are linked to ethniccultural traditions . In most of the literature, farmers of Germanheritage are expected to express "yeoman" beliefs by generallyavoiding risk, placing higher priority on landownership, and mak-ing decisions designed to facilitate the continuity of their farmacross generations (Salamon 1992) . "Yankee" beliefs are ascribed tofarmers of British descent, as exemplified by a more entrepreneur-ial spirit, less attachment to particular plots of land (or even to as-set ownership per se), and an orientation toward short-run profitmaximization rather than long-run business continuity.

In our survey of new dairy entrants, farmers were asked to ratethe importance of various goals to the operation of their own farmbusinesses . The results allow us to examine whether ethnic groupsin our sample express different cultural orientations that might ex-plain the differences in the process and farm characteristics docu-mented above . The first three goals listed in Table 4 reflect a moreentrepreneurial orientation (maximizing profits, desire to be a topdairy farm, and spending time as a manager) ; the fourth and fifthgoals represent aspects of what has been considered a more yeo-manlike set of motivations (keeping expenses low and passing thefarm on to the next generation) .

Table 4. Percentage of Respondents Listing Various Farm Management Goals as "Very Important," byEthnic Identity

cr

To Set Up One orMore of My

To Maximize To Be Among the To Spend More To Keep My ChildrenFarm Profits Top Dairy Farms Time as a Manager Cash Expenses Low in Farminga

Ethnic Group

German (g) 79 18 23 77 26

British (b) 81

(b*; x**)

35

(b*; s**; x*)

37

(ee**)

85 24

Scandinavian (s) 65

(g*; ee** ; pg*)

17

( g* ; s*** )

4

(s*)

65 11(x*) (x*) (g* ; b*** ; x***; ee*; pg*) (b* ;; ee**)

Benelux/French (x) 92 46 46 85 9

Eastern European (ee)

(s* )

76

(g** ; s* ; ee** ; pg** )

10

(g*; s***)

24 95 31

Part German (pg) 80

(b** ; x**)

17

(s*)

23

(g** ; s** ; pg*)

77 13

All Entrants 79

(b*; x**)

21

(s*)

23

(ee*)

77 23Significance of Chi-Square .54 .05*** .05*** .21 .40


a Percentage of farm operators who have children.*p< .10; **p< .05; ***p< .01.


477

The results suggest that British entrants were much more "entre-preneurial" than the German respondents, though the two groupsexpressed similar views on the importance of maximizing profits.Surprisingly, however, British operators also were more likely tosupport one "yeoman" value-keeping cash expenses low-and re-ported very similar support for the notion of passing the farm onto their children . Among the other groups, the Benelux respon-dents consistently supported more of the entrepreneurial goals,while the eastern European farmers expressed the most consistentagreement with the yeoman goals . Scandinavian entrants appar-ently were less likely to view any of the listed goals as very impor-tant: they were among the least likely to support either the entre-preneurial or the yeoman goals.

To further assess the motivations associated with entering as adairy farmer, we also asked entrants to tell us why they decided tofarm at the particular location where they operated. (Results arepresented in Table 5.) Taking over a family farm and being nearrelatives were more important to German than to British farmers,though entrants of Scandinavian and Benelux heritage were by farthe most likely to list "family" reasons for selecting their farm.British operators were least likely to cite family factors ; they weresignificantly more likely than Germans and several other ethnicgroups to have chosen a farm because it had modern buildings andwas a good deal.

Ethnic Intermarriage Among German Entrants

In all of the analyses presented thus far, the primary farm opera-tor's ethnic identity has been used to classify households by ethnicorigin. One might hypothesize that ethnic influence would bestrongest when the farmer and his or her spouse had the same eth-nic heritage. Furthermore, exogamous marriages, as noted byDavis-Brown, Salamon, and Surra (1987 :49), are more commonamong couples sharing similar "goals for family continuity in agri-culture;" thus fewer intermarriages would be expected betweenmembers of ethnic groups with divergent goals . For most of ourethnic categories, relatively small subsample sizes and the high pro-portion of farmers in exogamous marriages made it difficult toevaluate ethnic homogeneity. Germans, however, were well repre-sented in our sample ; furthermore, they were the most likely tomarry someone from the same ethnic group (69 percent, as com-pared with roughly one-third of British, Scandinavian, and Beneluxentrants) . Thus we were able to evaluate whether the homoge-neously married German households were more likely to expressthe classic yeoman characteristics than were mixed German house-holds involving marriage across ethnic lines .

Table 5. Percentage of Respondents Listing Various Motivations for Farming at This Particular Location as"Very Important," by Ethnic Identity

To Take Over MyFamily Farm

To Be Near Parents'or Relative's Farm

In an Area in WhichWe Wanted to Live

Modern Buildingsand Equipment

The Best Deal ICould Find

Ethnic Group

German (g) 30 26 62 27 46

British (b)

(s***)

24

(b* ; s*)

12

(s*)

64

(b*)

44

(b**; x*; pg*)

67(s***) (g*; s**) (g* ; x** ; ee*) ( g**; s*)

Scandinavian (s) 71 45 81 24 40(g** * ; b*** ; (g* ; b**) (g*; ee*) (b*; x*)

Benelux/French (x)

ee*** ; pg***)

46 27 79 8 69

Eastern European (ee) 32 23 59

(b**)

19

(g*; s*)

46(s***) ( s*) (b*)

Part German (pg) 31 29 72 28 60(s***) (g*)

All Entrants 34 26 65 29 52

Significance of chi-square .01*** .23 .36 .22 .15


*p< .10; **p< .05 ; ***p<0.01.


479

Among married German respondents, those in ethnically homo-geneous marriages were more likely to have a family farm back-ground than those in ethnically mixed households. They also weremore likely to own land and less likely to rent land, and typicallyoperated slightly larger herds on significantly less acreage . Homo-geneous households tended to have more equity, but also higherlevels of debt, than either mixed households or unmarried Germanentrants. On most of these dimensions, although the differencesare small, it would appear that the homogeneous households areslightly clearer examples of the German ideal discussed in previousresearch. Moreover, the ideological outlook of the German opera-tors married to German spouses conformed more strongly to theyeoman (rather than the entrepreneurial) views outlined by Sala-mon (1992) than did the outlook of those in mixed marriages.Maximizing profits and being among the top dairy farms were citedless frequently as important goals in homogeneous households,while setting up the children in farming was much more important.

Discussion and Conclusions

At the beginning of this paper and in the presentation of our re-sults, we discussed how ethnicity might affect the process by whichpeople enter agriculture, how they organize and manage theirfarms (once established), and the importance of certain beliefs andgoals that influence farmers' behavior. The results suggest that in alarge random sample of dairy farm entrants, certain patterns seemto be linked to the farm operators' ethnic identity. Most of thesepatterns are connected to different levels of farm background andto the skills, beliefs, and access to direct and indirect family re-sources that come with growing up on a dairy farm.

Although the paths that new dairy farmers follow to establishtheir operations are similar in many respects, they appear to varydepending on the new operator's ethnic heritage. In our sample ofdairy farm entrants, the contrast between German- and British-de-scended farmers follows closely the patterns outlined in previousresearch. German entrants are far more likely than British farmersto inherit or buy farmland from their parents or relatives ; manyhave worked or are working with their parents as farmhands or ju-nior operators. In the sample, British entrants report the lowestlevels of family farm background, are less likely to own farmland atall, and are more likely to have worked as hired managers or at anoff-farm job before setting out on their own in the dairy business.

When the characteristics of current farm operations are com-pared, the evidence is less clear. Contrary to Salamon's observa-tions in Illinois, British-descended operators farmed less land anddid not milk significantly more cows than those of German descent.British entrants in Wisconsin, however, typically had larger debts

480


than farmers in most of the other ethnic groups . German entrantstypically used fewer technologies oriented toward maximization ofproduction, and were significantly more inclined to use input-costminimizing approaches such as management-intensive rotationalgrazing. Finally, the results suggest that ethnic heritage is linked tocultural beliefs and goals in predictable ways . Farmers of Germanheritage typically expressed stronger yeoman orientations, whileBritish farmers reflected a more entrepreneurial spirit . These dif-ferences in beliefs also may help to explain the different entrystrategies pursued by our sample of recent entrants as well as thecharacteristics of current farm operations, although we have nottested this possibility directly.

The survey findings also suggest that other ethnic groups may fitinto the entrepreneur-yeoman dichotomy in various ways . Scandi-navian farmers appear to have the closest ties to their parents'farms, as evidenced by high rates of family farm background and byacquisition and rental of land from relatives . They are also the mostlikely to have used off-farm employment as a stepping-stone towardfarm entry. In contrast to the British entrants, Scandinavian farm-ers tended to have smaller herds and larger acreages, with relativelyhigh levels of debt. In our sample, they expressed low levels of sup-port for both entrepreneurial and yeoman goals.

Benelux operators report high levels of family farm background,though a significant share did not grow up on dairy farms and rel-atively few had acquired ownership of any family land at the timeof the survey. For this group, renting farmland from relatives ap-pears to be an important strategy. Benelux farmers also had thesmallest operator equity and the lowest debt levels, and placed theleast emphasis on productivity-oriented technology. They scoredrelatively high on the entrepreneurial value scale, and low on theyeoman items.

Part-German and eastern European entrants failed to show con-sistent patterns in our sample, perhaps because we combined sev-eral different nationalities to form these categories . Just as Austinet al. (1996) found that individuals can embody aspects of both theentrepreneur and the yeoman, it is also possible that the yeoman-entrepreneur dichotomy is oversimplistic . This idea tends to beconsistent with the recent work of Taylor, Norris, and Howard(1998), who found that many Canadian farmers failed to fit theyeoman-entrepreneur classification.

Our results also support the view that the ethnic identity of boththe lead operator and the farm spouse may be important in char-acterizing the operation's ethnic orientation. In our study, the "ho-mogeneous" German entrant households fit Salamon's yeomanideal more closely on several indicators: they had more family farmbackground, operated smaller acreages, were more likely to own


481

land, and expressed stronger support for yeoman beliefs . Some ofthese differences, however, were relatively small.

Overall, earlier work by Salamon (1992) and Foster et al . (1987)is confirmed by our findings that ethnic differences in entry paths,current farm characteristics, and cultural beliefs occur in a randomsample of respondents to a statewide survey of Wisconsin dairyfarmers. Our results underscore the continuing applicability of eth-nicity to the study of farmers ' behavior and farm characteristics inthe United States, even a century after most of the immigrants ar-rived. Ethnicity appears especially to play a role in structuring theresources and opportunities available to the next generation of farm-ers: farm background, technical experience, and access to family landor other material assistance. Even when different opportunity setsare taken into account, ethnicity also can affect entry objectives andstrategies used to acquire assets, to select technologies or managementpractices, or to interact with parents, relatives, and neighbors.

In summary, ethnic heritage affects the entry process throughboth material and cultural pathways . Materially, accumulation pat-terns and farm production strategies may be reproduced acrossgenerations . Culturally, ethnic identity can be linked to specific setsof beliefs and behavioral norms that affect patterns of inheritance,relations between parents and children, and orientations towardfarm management.

The contribution of this paper to academics and practitioners isboth modest and significant . It is modest conceptually because itprovides only a description, not a causal analysis, of the interactionsbetween ethnic heritage and other factors influencing the processof entry into agriculture. It is also modest empirically because itblurs some potentially important distinctions between ethnic sub-groups. Indeed, we suspect that religious affiliation may provideimportant insights into diversity within the German majority, al-though our survey unfortunately did not collect this information.Because substantial numbers of both German Catholics and Ger-man Lutherans live in Wisconsin, along with other German Protes-tants and a rapidly growing number of Amish of German-Swiss an-cestry, a study of the mediating role of religion should provefruitful.

Our statewide sample design also precluded a careful examina-tion of geographically concentrated ethnic communities . Thus amore detailed study of Wisconsin's Norwegian ethnic farmers, itsBelgian ethnics, and its Czech and Polish rural communities mightprovide useful contrasts with the German majority. Further re-search on larger samples of farmers would facilitate construction ofmore complex statistical models that explore the importance ofethnicity, religion, and patterns of geographic concentration (ver-sus intermixing) of ethnic groups .

482


Perhaps the most significant contribution of this paper is that itunderscores, in a statewide random sample, the continuing value ofincluding cultural and social factors in an analysis of structuralchange in North American agriculture . In an era when much at-tention is given to the apparent "industrialization of agriculture"(Jackson-Smith and Buttel 1998), it is easy to overlook the centralrole still played by families and family background (including cul-tural identity) in shaping the choices of the next generation offarmers regarding their operations. Failure to appreciate social andcultural diversity leads to a loss of opportunities both to acquire afuller understanding of farmers' behavior and to tailor programsand outreach efforts that are appropriately sensitive, even if notspecifically targeted, to the differing opportunities, approaches,and motivations of young farm families.

ReferencesAlmaas, R. 1991 . "Ethnic Values and Survival Strategies Among Norwegian-Ameri-

can Farmers." Research in Rural Sociology and Development 5:223-39.Austin, EJ., IJ . Deary, GJ. Gibson, MJ . McGregor, and J .B. Dent . 1996. "Attitudes

and Values of Scottish Farmers : `Yeoman' and `Entrepreneur' as Factors, NotDistinct Types ." Rural Sociology 61:464-74.

Bliss, J .C. 1992 . "Evidence of Ethnicity: Management Styles of Forest Owners inWisconsin ." Forest and Conservation History 36(4) :63-72.

Cannon, B.Q. 1991. "Immigrants in American Agriculture . " Agricultural History65:17-35.

Carroll, E.V. and S. Salamon . 1988 . "Share and Share Alike : Inheritance Patterns inTwo Illinois Farm Communities ."Journal of Family History 13:219-32.

Conzen, M .P. 1996 . "The German-Speaking Ethnic Archipelago in America ." Pp. 67-92in Ethnic Persistence and Change in Europe and America . Traces in Landscape and Society,edited by K. Frantz and RA. Sauder. Innsbruck : University of Innsbruck.

Davis-Brown, K., S. Salamon, and C .A. Surra. 1987 . "Economic and Social Factors inMate Selection: An Ethnographic Analysis of an Agricultural Community."Journalof Marriage and the Family 49:41-55.

Flora, J .L . and J .M. Stitz . 1985 . "Ethnicity, Persistence, and Capitalization of Agriculturein the Great Plains During the Settlement Period : Wheat Production and RiskAvoidance." Rural Sociology 50:341-60.

Foster, G., R. Hummel, and R. Whittenbarger. 1987 . "Ethnic Echoes Through 100 Yearsof Midwestern Agriculture." Rural Sociology 52:365-78. . 1989 . "Ethnic Echoes: A Rejoinder to Khawaja." Rural Sociology 54:256-61.Gerlach, R .L. 1992 . "A Contrast of Old World Ideology : Germans and Scotch-Irish in

the Ozarks . " Pp. 289-302 in Ideology and Landscape in Historical Perspective, edited byA.R.H. Baker and G. Biger. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Gilbert, J. and R. Akor. 1988 . "Increasing Structural Divergence in U .S. Dairying:California and Wisconsin Since 1950." Rural Sociology 53:56-72.

Hassanein, N ., D . Jackson-Smith, and M . Ostrom. 1998 . "Pleasure, Work, and the GrassBug." Presented at the annual meetings of the Rural Sociological Society, August5-9, Portland, OR.

Holmes, F.L. [1944] 1990 . Old World Wisconsin . Around Europe in the Badger State.Minocqua, WI : Heartland Press.

Jackson-Smith, D .B. 1994 . Getting In While the Going's Tough: Entry into the Wisconsin FarmSector. Technical Report 1, Agricultural Technology and Family Farm Institute,University of Wisconsin, Madison .


483

Jackson-Smith, D .B., B. Barham, M . Nevius, and R. Klemme . 1996 . Grazing in Dairyland.The Use and Performance of Management Intensive Rotational Grazing Among WisconsinDairy Farms . Technical Report 5, Agricultural Technology and Family FarmInstitute, University of Wisconsin, Madison.

Jackson-Smith, D .B. and F.H. Buttel . 1998. "Industrialization in U .S. Dairying?Explaining the Uneven Process of Transformation ." International Journal for theSociology of Agriculture and Food 7:113-50.

Khawaja, M. 1989. "Ethnic Echoes Through 100 Years of Midwestern Agriculture:Commentary on Foster et al ." Rural Sociology 54:246-55.

Nevius, M., D. Jackson-Smith, and L. Chen. 1998 . Dairy Farming in the 1990s: TheExperiences and Perspectives of Wisconsin Dairy Farm Families . Program on AgriculturalTechnology Studies, University of Wisconsin, Madison.

Noble, A.G. 1984 . Wood, Brick, and Stone: The North American Settlement Landscape, vol . 2,Barns and Farm Structures. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.

Noble, A.G. and R.K. Cleek. 1995 . The Old Barn Book : A Field Guide to North AmericanBarns and Other Farm Structures . New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.

Raitz, KB. 1975. "The Wisconsin Tobacco Shed : A Key to Ethnic Settlement andDiffusion." Landscape 20 (1) :32-37.

Salamon, S . 1980 . "Ethnic Differences in Farm Family Land Transfers ." Rural Sociology45:290-308. . 1984. "Ethnic Origin as Explanation for Local Land Ownership Patterns ."

Research in Rural Sociology and Development 1 :161-86. . 1985 . "Ethnic Communities and the Structure of Agriculture ." Rural Sociology

50:323-40.1987. "Ethnic Determinants of Farm Community Character ." Pp. 167-88 in

Farm Work and Fieldwork : American Agriculture in Anthropological Perspective, edited byM. Chibnik . Ithaca : Cornell University Press. . 1989 . "The Uses of Ethnicity to Explain Agricultural Structure : A Rejoinder to

Khawaja ." Rural Sociology 54:262-65.1992 . Prairie Patrimony: Family, Farming and Community in the Midwest. Chapel

Hill : University of North Carolina Press. . 1993 . "Culture and Agricultural Land Tenure ." Rural Sociology 58:580-98.Salamon, S ., KM. Gengenbacher, and DJ . Penas. 1986. "Family Factors Affecting the

Intergenerational Succession to Farming." Human Organization 45:24-33.Salamon, S . and V. Lockhart. 1980. "Land Ownership and the Position of Elderly in

Farm Families . " Human Organization 39:324-31.Taylor, J .E ., J .E. Norris, and W.H. Howard . 1998 . "Succession Patterns of Farmer and

Successor in Canadian Farm Families ." Rural Sociology 63:553-73.Tishler, W.H. 1986. "Midwestern Germans ." Pp. 142-47 in America's Architectural Roots:

Ethnic Groups That Built America, edited by D. Upton. Washington, DC: PreservationPress.

U.S. Bureau of the Census . 1992 . 1990 Census of Population Supplementary Reports,Detailed Ancestry Groups for States (1990 CPS 1-2) . Washington, DC : U.S . Departmentof Commerce.

Vogeler, I. 1975 . "Ethnicity, Religion, and Farm Land Transfers in Western Wisconsin ."Ecumene 7:6-13.

Wells, M J . 1991 . "Ethnic Groups and Knowledge Systems in Agriculture." EconomicDevelopment and Cultural Change 39:739-71.

Zeitlin, RH . 1977 . Germans in Wisconsin. Madison : State Historical Society of Wisconsin .

ethnicity and farm entry behavior

Documents