AGRICULTURAL FINANCE 3 



3. A brief history and description of the farm. This included such things as 

 date of acquisition, purchase price and mortgage, original mortgage holder, age 

 of operator, etc. 



The farmers to be interviewed were chosen In the following way: 



L Areas were chosen which, in the knowledge of those working with Massa- 

 chusetts agriculture, best represented one of the following types of farming: 

 dairy, poultry, vegetable, fruit, and tobacco and onions. 



2. A representative town or towns in each area was picked. 



3. As nearly as possible all commercial farmers in each of the selected towns 

 were personally interviewed. A commercial farmer was considered one receiving 

 50 percent or more of his gross income from farming. The county agent not only 

 helped to draw up the list of farmers but also aided by sending each farmer a 

 letter announcing that an interview was to be expected. 



All tabulation and analysis of the records were done by hand with only the aid 

 of adding and calculating machines. 



The periods during which records were taken covered five months, March 1 to 

 July 31, 1941. 



Reliability of the Sample 



Because of the way in which the study was made and because the study is 

 based on a sample, reliability is considered to rest on: 



1. The size of the sample in order to minimize sampling error. 



2. The types of farming in the sample as compared to types of farming in the 

 State. 



3. The ability of the interviewers to take survey records.^ 



The results are presented for all farms regardless of location or type; therefore 

 the sample is compared with totals for the State. Table 1 gives a comparison of 

 the source of gross farm income for the study and for the State. There are dis- 

 crepancies between the study and the State in proportions of income from various 

 types of agriculture. The differences are not large and the emphasis on types is 

 properly placed in the study. For comparable types of agriculture the sample 

 represents 2.5 percent of the total income. 



The areas from which the different types of farming were taken are shown in 

 Table 2. The areas from which the dairy and poultry samples were taken were 

 scattered. The onion and tobacco farms were from only one area, but this type 

 of farming is localized and one area is sufficient. The same situation exists also 

 for fruit farms. The vegetable areas of the State are primarily around Boston. 

 The sample did not cover the areas to the west and south of Boston. 



The proportion of farms by type in the study does not coincide with the pro- 

 portion as indicated by the 1940 census. Neither of these proportions coincides 

 with the proportion of income received from different farm enterprises (Table 1) 

 but the proportion of farms-by type in the sample is slightly more in line with the 

 proportion of farms by type as indicated in the State income figures. Assuming 

 that income would represent the approximate number of farms engaged in each 

 type of farming, the comparison of farms by type with income by type of enter- 

 prise would favor the sample over the census in representing the proportions of 

 commercial farms in the State by type. 



^All records except those in Hatfield, Hampshire County, were taken by the senior author. In 

 Hatfield, Anthony Rojko, a graduate of Massachusetts State College, took the records. His 

 knowledge of Polish was invaluable for this purpose. 



