The Mechanization of Agriculture:
A Historical Case Study of the Implications
for Families and Communities
Don E. Albrecht
Don Albrecht is associate professor of rural sociology at
Texas A&M University.
The huge displacement of human beings, and the social
and economic transformations that occurred in rural America
as a result of the mechanization of agriculture, has been
called one of the most astonishing events of this century
(Beale 1993). The raw numbers are incredible: the number of
farms declined from over 6 million in 1940 to less than 2 mil-
lion in 1992; and the farm population declined from over 30
million in 1940 to about 3.9 million in 1990.1 There have been
vast amounts of research looking at the factors related to
various levels of farm decline and the social and demo-
graphic consequences (e.g., Cochrane 1979; Albrecht and
Murdock 1990; Beale 1979). However, in looking at hard data
and national trends, the effects of these historical transforma-
tions on the lives of individuals, families, and relationships in
communities are often lost. In this paper I will provide a
deeper understanding of the effects of agricultural mechani-
zation by examining trends in one county for a half century.
The Setting
Wayne County is an isolated rural county in south-
central Utah. The total population of the county has never
exceeded 2,400. The nearest urban area to Wayne County is
a city of 5,000 people located about 50 miles away, and the
nearest metropolitan area is about 150 miles away. Perma-
nent settlement and cultivated agriculture in the county are
limited to several small communities and surrounding farms
located in a mountain valley. Less than 7 percent of the land
in the county is in farms. Most of this farmland is used for
grazing, and less than 1 percent is in cultivated cropland. The
mountains surrounding the valley are high and scenic, with
several peaks reaching over 11,000 feet. The valley eventually
drops into a desert almost devoid of vegetation offset by
sheer red-rock cliffs highlighted by the Capital Reef National
Park. The vast majority of county land is under federal gov-
ernment jurisdiction. In addition to lands managed by the
National Park Service, large tracts of the remaining mountain
Culture & Agriculture
and desert lands are managed by the U.S. Forest Service and
the Bureau of Land Management (BLM).
The county was first permanently settled in the late 1870s
and early 1880s by Mormons. They established communities
with an economy based almost totally on agriculture. Because
of low annual rainfall in the valley, agricultural production
was almost totally dependent on irrigation. Irrigation was ini-
tially accomplished by building canals and diverting streams.
Later, federally funded reservoirs were built to capture snow
melting from the mountains. This greatly increased the water
available for irrigation and allowed the number of cultivated
acres to increase. Despite these advances, however, thou-
sands of level, fertile acres remain uncultivated because there
is little water for irrigation. While lack of water was the major
obstacle to successful agriculture, farmers also had to deal
with problems caused by an extremely short growing season.
The majority of land elevation is over 7,000 feet, which results
in an average of less than 90 frost-free days.
Despite these limitations, soils were rich, and extensive
amounts of grazing land were available for cattle and sheep
on Forest Service and BLM lands. In time, farmers de-
termined which crops could be effectively produced in the
high mountain climate, and a viable agricultural economy
emerged.
A County of Family Farms
In Tables 1, 2, and 3 data are presented from the Census
of Agriculture and the Census of Population indicating
county trends in farm structure (Table 1), the agricultural
commodities produced (Table 2), and population characteris-
tics (Table 3) from 1940 to 1992. An overview shows the
county was incredibly agriculturally dependent in 1940.
There were 259 farms in Wayne County in 1940, and 65 per-
cent of the labor force was employed in agriculture. This pro-
portion exceeded virtually any county in the country at that
time. Furthermore, most of the nonfarm population consisted
of persons operating businesses that served the agricultural
industry or were dependent on the farm population for their
clientele.
Farms in 1940 fit the mold of the diversified, full-time,
family-operated farm prevalent throughout the United States
at that time. The average farm in the county was 179 acres,
24 Vol. 19, Nos. 1/2 Spring/Summer 1997
Table 1
Structure of Agriculture Characteristics for Wayne County, Utah, 1940-1992
Variable 1940 1950
Number of Farms 259 288
Land in Farms (Acres) 46,289 85,232
Average Farm Size (Acres) 179 296
Farms with Harvested Cropland 255 250
Acres of Harvested Cropland 10,335 11,494
Acres Irrigated 13,617 15,575
Farm Operators with 100 or more
Days of Off-Farm Employment 42 75
and only two farms had more than 1,000 acres. The amount
of harvested cropland averaged 40 acres per farm. Only 4 of
the 259 farms had no harvested cropland. Farm families pro-
vided most of their own labor and only 16 farms (6 percent)
had regular hired workers who worked 150 days or more. In
addition, farm families depended almost entirely on agricul-
ture for their livelihood. Only 16 percent of farm operators
had 100 or more days of off-farm employment, and only 7.6
percent of the adult females were in the labor force.
The fact that so few women were employed outside the
home resulted largely from their total farm involvement. Sim-
ilarly, children also worked. The gendered division of labor
is consistent with findings in other areas of the country. Spe-
cifically, there was an obvious spatial dimension, with
women and girls primarily responsible for the house and
yard. Females did most of the cooking, cleaning, and child
care, and also took care of those animals kept near the home,
including chickens and milk cows. Men and boys worked
with crops and livestock. During peak labor times, mixed-
gender work crews were often developed (Adams 1994; Fink
1987,1992; Neth 1995; Scott 1996).
Virtually every household in the county consisted of a
married couple, and family sizes were relatively large. In fact,
over half of the 2,394 residents were dependent children
under 18. The large family sizes can be attributed to Mormon
doctrine and also to the economic benefits of children as
farmworkers.
A visit to a typical family farm in 1940 would reveal
remarkable similarities to family farms throughout the coun-
try. While the climate limited the commodities produced, the
structure and operation of the farms were similar to millions
of others. Nearly all had a few chickens that provided meat
and eggs for the family. The 1940 census revealed that 242 of
the 259 farms had milk cows, with the average farm having
Culture & Agriculture 25
1959 1974 1982 1992
234 146 185 189
108,525 107,568 105,501 105,576
464 737 570 559
211 128 166 164
11,010 10,731 12,700 13,039
14,909 12,303 16,178 16,955
81 42 100 92
about four cows; cows provided milk, cream, and butter.
Also, 226 farms had hogs used for family meat needs. Farms
with excess eggs, milk, and hogs sold them in the market.
Chickens, hogs, and milk cows were fed alfalfa hay and
grain grown on farms. Over half of the harvested acreage was
devoted to alfalfa. The next most prominent crop was barley.
Barley and alfalfa hay flourished in the cool, high elevations.
Smaller acreage were devoted to oats and wheat, and 81
farmers grew an acre or two of potatoes to feed the family
and sell as cash crops.
Though the crops and animals discussed above played
important roles, the most prominent agricultural commodity
was beef cattle. The census reported that 250 farms produced
beef cattle with an inventory of 6,481 animals, an average of
approximately 26 per farm. Most of the farmers had obtained
grazing permits from the Forest Service, where their cattle
were allowed to graze during the summer months in the
mountains surrounding the valley. Some farmers held per-
mits to graze cattle during the winter on desert land managed
by the BLM. These permits, limited and based on the sustain-
able capacity of the land, once obtained, could be bought and
sold in the open market. During the winter months, calves
and bulls—as well as cows without winter grazing permits—
were fed hay and grain produced in the valley.
In 1940, Wayne County was a place with a relatively
narrow range in class structure. There were no extremely
large farms to comprise an elite class, nor would any of the
nonfarm population fit within such a class. At the opposite
extreme, while incomes were only about two-thirds the state
average, there was little unemployment and few made a
living from the low wages associated with farm labor.
Another critical aspect of farm life invoked the extensive
amount of cooperative behavior. Many large pieces of farm
equipment were neither affordable to individual families nor
Vol. 19, Nos. 1/2 Spring/Summer 1997
 in the production of three commodities: alfalfa hay, dairy
Table 2 cows, and potatoes.
Major Agricultural Commodities Produced
for Wayne County, Utah, 1940-1992 Alfalfa Hay
The most prominent crop has always been alfalfa hay. In
Variable 1940 1950 1959 1974 1982 1992
1940, 239 of the 259 farms produced this crop, and 5,900 of
Alfalfa the 10,335 acres of harvested cropland were devoted to hay
Farms 239 227 199 122 152 154 production. Hay production was time consuming and the
Acres 5,900 5,350 6,619 8,035 10,121 11,499 labor backbreaking. During the summer, irrigation was re-
quired several times for hay growth. However, most labor
Potatoes
Farms 81 83 60 10 3 was required during harvest, which began with cutting by a
Acres 120 204 439 100 5 mower pulled behind a team of horses, and later by a tractor.
Then, hay was raked into windrows by a machine called a
Barley "side rake," again pulled by horses or a tractor. Then a "dump
Farms 149 155 122 75 84 46
2,343 1,953 1,770 1,821 1,055
rake" was pulled along the windrows to make individual
Acres 2,081
piles. After three passages over the field, it was ready for
Cattle harvest.
and Calves To harvest, a wagon was drawn between rows of piled
Farms 250 262 205 113 128 118
Inventory 6,481 12,377 12,841 14,929 18,542 17,638
hay. One person would walk along each side of the moving
wagon, picking up piles with a pitchfork and lifting them
Dairy Cows onto the wagon. Another person would ride on the wagon
Farms 242 245 179 50 44 16 positioning and tromping the hay as it was thrown on. Once
Inventory 942 1,039 944 691 745 1,227
loaded, the wagon was taken to a hay stack where ropes and
Hogs chains pulled the hay onto the stack. Other workers distri-
and Pigs buted the hay to accommodate as much as possible.
Farms 226 225 170 32 24 14 Harvest was more efficient with a relatively large work-
Inventory 1 ,410 1,968 2,008 350 1,512 2,369
force. Some wagons could be loaded while others were un-
loaded at the haystack. Thus, crews working in each location
could remain in their respective places, and only the drivers
economically justifiable on small farms. Furthermore, credit would have to make the time consuming trip back and forth
was difficult to obtain. In response, two or more families from field to haystack. While women and children were often
often purchased farm equipment cooperatively. In addition, fully involved in harvest, only a few families had sufficient
some labor-intensive tasks were best performed with a larger workers or machines for an efficient hay-hauling crew. Thus,
crew of workers. Rather than hire help, families would often two or more families would agree to work cooperatively.
assist one another. They would work together until a job was completed and
then move to the next. Tasks were divided according to the
Technological Developments and Social Change physical strength required: men and older boys worked tasks
involving heavy lifting, while women and children drove
Since 1940, technological developments have tremen- wagons and shared other tasks where physical strength was
dously transformed the process of agricultural production. less relevant.
The most prominent were machines that replaced human The 1940s and 1950s saw the transition from horses to
labor in the production process (Berardi and Geisler 1984; tractors. Tractors provided faster and more efficient hay har-
Bertrand 1978). Among the most readily observable conse- vesting, however, their impact was more extensive for other
quences of this mechanization were increases in average farm tasks than for hauling hay. Alone tractors did not greatly alter
size, reductions in the number of farms, and declines in the the hay harvest; other technologies changed these processes.
total farm population (Albrechtand Murdock 1990). The con- One was the hay loader; it picked hay from the windrow and
sequences of agricultural mechanization are as apparent in dropped it onto the wagon. The hay loader made obsolete the
Wayne County as elsewhere. Yet, some consequences of dump rake: one passage over the field was eliminated. In
mechanization are more subtle and not readily evident in addition, the loader eliminated the most difficult task associ-
examinations of secondary data. To explore both the ated with hauling—picking up piles of hay and throwing
apparent—and the not-so-apparent—consequences of agri- them onto the wagon. The harvest as a result could be com-
cultural change, I will discuss the transformations occurring pleted quicker and with a smaller workforce. With this new

Culture & Agriculture 26 Vol. 19, Nos. 1/2 Spring/Summer 1997

Table 3
Population Characteristics for Wayne County, Utah, 1940-1990

Variable 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990

Total Population 2,394 2,205 1,728 1,483 1,911 2,177
Percent Family Households
that are Married Couple 93.2 93.5 94.3 95.3 94.0
Average Number of Persons
per Household 4.19 4.19 3.67 3.25 3.07
3.11
Age Structure of Population
Percent Under 18 52.7 52.2 45.6 38.2 37.3 37.7
Percent 18-64 44.1 43.9 46.9 49.6 49.1 46.9
Percent 65 and Over 3.2 3.9 7.5 12.2 13.6 15.4
Median Family Income
Wayne County - $1,962 $3,721 $5,836 $12,402 $22,017
State $3,001 $5,899 $9,320 $20,024 $33,246
Percent in Poverty - - - 10.5 22.3 16.4
Percent of Females 16 and Over
in Labor Force 7.6a 12.8a 17.9a 32.2 29.4 49.9
Percent Employed by Industry
Agriculture 65.0 59.1 37.5 30.5 23.6 22.0
Forestry & Fisheries 0.6 0.6 1.9 b
5.6 b

Mining 0.2 2.5 6.5 0.0 7.0 0.0

Manufacturing 0.4 5.6 2.9 5.6 11.5 17.3
Services 13.6 15.7 12.3 13.2 16.8 27.8

"Computed on 14 and over.

"Included with agriculture.

technology, families could complete jobs independently and
cooperative arrangements with others were no longer
needed.
Later, diffusion of the hay baler further reduced the total
amount of labor invoked in hauling, making it possible for
even smaller crews to efficiently complete jobs. The hay baler
picked hay from the windrow and tied it into rectangular
bales weighing an average of 60 pounds. The bales were
picked from the ground by hand and lifted onto a wagon.
Another worker stacked them. When loaded, the wagon was
taken to the haystack where the bales were unloaded and
stacked again.
Hauling baled hay was still arduous physical labor, but
it could be completed more rapidly and with fewer workers.
Then, about 1970, the first "bale wagons" appeared in the
county. They were either self-propelled or drawn by a tractor,
but the machine was operated by a single driver. This bale
wagon picked bales from the field and stacked them mechan-
ically in built-in storage areas until the machine was loaded.
The loaded wagon was then driven to the haystack where the
bales were slid onto stacks. This innovation virtually elimin-
ated the physical labor of hauling hay and allowed one
person to quickly and efficiently complete tasks formerly un-
dertaken by large crews.
Cost was the major problem for Wayne County farmers.
As they began making decisions about purchasing bale wag-
ons, the expansion of the banking industry—and increased
credit availability—provided means for individuals to pur-
chase large machinery. Even so, the purchase of large and
expensive machines could not be economically justified on
most small farms. Efforts to achieve economies of scale thus
provided a strong force toward larger farm sizes. Another so-
lution for early adopters of bale wagons was contract labor.
Bale-wagon owners harvested their own hay and then con-
tracted with neighboring farmers to harvest theirs. These pay-
ments helped make the machine's purchase possible.
In less than 30 years, hay harvesting had moved from
being labor intensive—families working cooperatively—to a
process requiring only one person and a very expensive
machine. Now dominant were financial contracts between

Culture & Agriculture 27 Vol. 19, Nos. 1/2 Spring/Summer 1997

families where mutual cooperation had once existed. The
consequences are numerous and complex: grinding, back-
breaking labor was eliminated, a benefit enjoyed by anyone
involved in hauling hay; machines provided a strong push
toward fewer, but larger farms. Thus, by 1974, the number of
farms producing hay had declined to 122, despite the fact that
land devoted to alfalfa hay had increased to over 8,000 acres.
In 1940, the average farm produced 25 acres of alfalfa. By
1974, it had increased to (•><•> acres. The greater ease of hauling
further increased the crops' attractiveness. Since 1974, there
has been a steady increase in acreage and proportion of crop-
land devoted to alfalfa. By 1992, there were 11,499 acres of
alfalfa in Wayne County, comprising ScS percent of the har-
vested acreage.
In 1940, nearly all dairy cows were
part of a general, diversified farm.
The farms in 1992 were different
They are no longer family farm
operations....
Despite the trend toward fewer and larger farms, the
emergence of contract labor has allowed the survival of some
small farms. Small farmers could simply contract with the
owners of harvesting machines, making it unnecessary to
purchase the machines themselves. The reduced labor re-
quirements have made it possible for both farm operators and
their families to obtain off-farm employment.
Dairy Cattle
At one time nearly every Wayne County farm had dairy
cows. Typically, they were milked by hand, and the milk was
then poured through strainers to remove impurities. Farmers
able to produce excess milk sold it to a local cheese factory.
The first major change in the Wayne County dairy
industry resulted from the emergence of milking machines;
these reduced the labor associated with milking and greatly
improved sanitary conditions and the safety of milk. Ma-
chines, however, could not be economically justified for those
with only four or five cows. Initially, machines were often
adopted by farmers with larger dairy operations, and many
purchasers chose to expand to meet economies of scale. Con-
currently, many with only a few cows continued to milk by
hand.
During the 1960s, milking machines—as well as bulk
storage tanks—were federally mandated for those wanting to
sell for public consumption. Though primary motivation was
food safety, the results for the dairy industry were dramatic.
Many larger operations, already in position to meet the policy
Culture & Agriculture
requirements, made the transition; however, those with fewer
cows often chose not to expand sufficiently to justify the pur-
chase of the necessary equipment. For the most part, the latter
farms were diversified operations producing a variety of
commodities. Rather than specialize in dairy production, the
cows were sold.
By 1974, the number of farms with cows had declined to
50 (from a high of 245 in 1950), and dairy cows numbered
691, an all-time low. Since 1974, the trend toward fewer, but
larger, dairy farms has continued. In 1992, there were only 16
dairy farms, but the number of cows (1,227) was higher than
at any time. And current production exceeds past levels. In
1940, the average Wayne County dairy farm had four cows.
By 1992, the number had increased to 77. In 1940, nearly all
dairy cows were part of a general, diversified farm. Feed for
cows was produced on farms, and cows were milked by fam-
ily members. The farms in 1992 were different: they were
specialized, highly mechanized, most of the feed was pur-
chased, and most labor was hired. They are no longer family
farm operations; rather, they resemble the industrialized
dairy farm described by Gilbert and Akor (1988).
Potatoes
Early Wayne County farmers found that Irish potatoes
grew well in their high, cool climate. Initially, potatoes were
grown only in home gardens for family consumption. Then,
a few farmers began to grow them commercially. Potato pro-
duction reached a peak in the late 1950s and continued
through most of the 1960s. Although potato acreage was min-
imal compared to alfalfa hay and other crops, they did pro-
vide an important source of cash. Potato production was
limited to the upper end of the county where the elevation
was highest and the weather coolest.
Earlier, potato production required time-consuming tasks
that continued throughout the year. During late winter and
early spring, potatoes saved for seed were cut into sections.
After soil preparation, the sections were planted by machines.
It was necessary to irrigate and remove weeds throughout the
summer. As with other crops, the greatest amount of labor
was required during fall harvest. To harvest, a digger was
pulled by a tractor along a row. This machine cut under the
potatoes and lifted them from the soil. They were then carried
along a conveyer with spaces large enough for soil to filter
through. Potatoes remained on the conveyer until they drop-
ped to the ground.
To pick potatoes, workers walked the rows. This involved
wearing a belt with a wooden frame in front. The frame had
two hooks and a sack fastened to the hooks. The sack, placed
between the workers' legs, was pulled while they walked
down the rows. As they walked, workers would bend over
and place potatoes in the sack. Pulling a loaded sack while
walking in a bent position was arduous; once filled, it was left
28 Vol. 19, Nos. 1/2 Spring/Summer 1997
in the field and the worker would fill a new one. Later, work-
ers loaded sacks onto trucks, which were then driven to a
potato pit for unloading; these were holes dug into hillsides
supported by wooden frames, similar to mine shafts. In pits,
potatoes were protected from moisture and frost.
Labor associated with potato production continued dur-
ing the winter, though the pace slowed and the timing was
less critical. The major winter task was sorting potatoes of
sufficient quality for commercial sale from those relegated to
other uses, including seed and animal feed. Sorting was
accomplished with machines in the pits, where a conveyer
ran potatoes to workers for separation into various compart-
ments, depending on their ultimate use. The best potatoes
were usually shipped to grocery stores in Salt Lake City or
Southern California.
With the exception of fall harvest, tasks associated with
potato production could be accomplished by families. Not
only was harvesting brutal, but extensive work needed to be
accomplished in a limited time. Potatoes were always har-
vested in October, after they had matured and ripened, but
before killing frosts. The time frame was so critical during the
1950s and 1960s that local schools began closing for a week so
youth would be available for work. In addition, Navajo
Indians were hired from a nearby reservation to work in the
brutal, temporary, low-wage employment.
Mechanization of potato harvesting began about 1970. By
thattime,a harvesting machine was in use in the large fields
of southern Idaho; it could dig several rows at one time and
separate soil from potatoes. Instead of dropping potatoes on
the ground, it ran them across a large conveyer—with seats—
where workers could sort them into commercial and other
uses. The difficult work of picking potatoes—loading them
into sacks, and then loading sacks onto trucks—had been
eliminated. Moreover, the need to close schools and import
Native American labor had been eliminated. Sorted potatoes
were stored directly on the machine until loaded. Potatoes
destined for market could then be transferred directly to stor-
age areas until delivery to grocers.
The problem with harvesting machines for Wayne
County farmers was in meeting the economies of scale.
Expensive machines made little economic sense for those
growing only four or five acres. Furthermore, the machines
performed well on the large, flat fields of southern Idaho, but
were less effective on the smaller—often steeper—rocky
farms of Wayne County. Thus, after initial trials, they were
not adopted for use by county farmers. Nationally, however,
the harvesting machines lowered production costs for large
farms in the major producing areas; consequently, potato
prices declined. Wayne County farmers were unable to com-
pete, and production declined rapidly. By 1974, there were
only 100 acres of commercial potatoes. By the 1980s, the crop
was no longer commercially grown in the county.
Culture & Agriculture
Changing Farm Structure
A half century of rapid technological change resulted in
vast adjustments in the structure of county agriculture. The
trends of farm structural change mirror closely what has oc-
curred in the rest of the country. Nationally, from 1940-1970
there were fewer and larger farms, a declining farm popula-
tion, and a declining total population in agriculturally depen-
dent rural areas (Albrecht and Murdock 1990). The same
trends were apparent in Wayne County. Over these 30 years,
the number of farms in the county declined from 259 to 146
(a decline of 44 percent), the size of the average farm in-
creased from 179 to 737 acres (an increase of 312 percent),
and the total population decreased from 2,394 to 1,483 (a de-
cline of 38 percent). During this era, when a small farm was
no longer economically viable, there were few options except
to leave: nonfarm employment opportunities were rare.
Between 1974 and 1992, the number of
farms actually increased from 146 to
189, while average farm size
decreased from 737 acres to 559 acres.
Since 1970, however, this movement has slowed dramati-
cally. Nationally the trend is toward dualism and concen-
tration (Harper, Fliegel, and Vanes. 1980; Stockdale 1982).
These same trends have been prominent in Wayne County:
an increase in the number of very small and very large farms;
a continuing decline in the number of medium-sized farms;
and most production from a relatively small number of very
large, highly capitalized farms. As well, the proportion of
county agricultural commodities produced by large commer-
cial farms has grown substantially in recent years. The promi-
nence of a few, large dairy farms has already been discussed.
Similar changes have occurred in the hog and pig industry.
In 1940, there were 226 farms in the county with hogs, and
the average farm inventory was about 6 animals. By 1992, the
hog and pig inventory had increased greatly, and hog pro-
duction was limited to only 14 farms. These farms, however,
had an average inventory of over 171 animals. In the beef cat-
tle industry, farm concentration was also apparent. There
were 118 farms with beef cattle in 1992, but over one-third of
the cattle were owned by the 8 largest farms. In terms of
acreage, the 13 largest farms controlled over half of county
acreage. Some large farms are owned by individuals residing
outside Wayne County and are totally operated by managers
and hired workers.
The opposite of this trend is the growth in number of
very small farms. Between 1974 and 1992, the number of
29 Vol. 19, Nos. 1/2 Spring/Summer 1997
farms actually increased from 14b to 189, while average farm
size decreased from 737 acres to 559 acres. This trend largely
occurred because of the emergence of small, predominately
part-time farmers. For an increasing proportion of farm fam-
ilies, income from nonagricultural sources is playing a major
role. By the 1980s, about half of farm operators had 100 days
or more of off-farm employment, and 50 percent of the adult
females were employed. Both represent major changes from
1940.
A Service-Sector Economy
The rapid population declines in Wayne County (be-
tween 1940 and 1970) were comparable to hundreds of other
rural counties throughout the United States during this same
time period (Cochrane 1979). Most agriculturally dependent
rural counties continued to experience population declines
during that decade (Albrecht 1986; Bender et al. 1985); and
population loss intensified during the 1980s when the turn-
around had ended (Albrecht 1993; Johnson 1989). Since 1970,
Wayne County has avoided the fate of continuing population
declines because the beautiful scenery and National Park and
Forest lands have provided the basis for the emergence of a
growing service economy. Thousands of tourists visiting
these attractions have created opportunities for employment
in motels, restaurants, and other businesses. In addition,
many residents have found employment with the Park
Service, BLM, or Forest Service because of the increased load
these agencies face relative to growth in tourism.
. . . Wayne County is a different place
than it was in 1940. Transitions in
agriculture have been accompanied
by profound changes in the way of
life for county residents.
The service industry has provided the basis for two
decades of population growth and the source for off-farm
employment. Many small farms that previously would have
been forced out of business have survived because family
members have found employment not available in prior
years. As Table 3 shows, by 1990, 27.8 percent of the labor
force was employed primarily in the service sector; and
service exceeded agricultural employment. County popula-
tion reached a low of 1,483 in 1970, but increased to 1,911 in
1980 and to 2,177 in 1990 (an increase of 47 percent). That a
county so small and so agriculturally dependent would ex-
perience such rapid rates of population growth is rare. That
this growth continued through the 1980s is even more rare.
Culture & Agriculture
Since Goldschmidt's (1947) classic study of Arvin and
Dinuba, researchers have been concerned about the con-
sequences of agricultural change for rural communities.
Goldschmidt (1947) concluded that the quality of life in a
community (Dinuba) surrounded by smaller family farms
surpassed the quality of life in a community (Arvin) sur-
rounded by large-scale agriculture. Other researchers (e.g.,
Davidson 1990; Lasley et al. 1995; Fitchen 1991; Barlett 1989)
have echoed this concern and maintain that the emergence of
large-scale farming can completely reconfigure rural social
structures. The complexity of relationships between agricul-
tural structure and the quality of life in rural communities is
apparent in the number of studies that have challenged the
Goldschmidt hypothesis (e.g., Barnes and Blevins 1992;
Lobao, Shulman, and Swanson. 1993; Young 1994). The pri-
mary problem with this line of research is in defining quality
of life, and the conclusions largely reflect the variables used
to identify quality of life.
Regardless of how quality of life is defined, there is no
question that Wayne County is a different place than it was
in 1940. Transitions in agriculture have been accompanied by
profound changes in the way of life for county residents. A
number of residents maintain that the closeness and sense of
community that once existed has diminished. Other, more
concrete examples of change are evident. First, levels of crime
and delinquency have greatly increased. During the era of
family farms, crime was virtually unknown. Many homes
had no locks and most residents left car keys in ignitions all
of the time. No longer. Second, transitions in agriculture have
accompanied types of institutional decay. These impacts are
not surprising given that Heffernan (1982) found that family
farmers were more likely to be involved in the community
than hired farmworkers. Perhaps the most apparent prob-
lems in Wayne County have been associated with youth
service organizations. For example, a little league baseball
program—once flourishing in the county—ceased to exist
during the 1980s, lacking adult leadership and involvement.
The changes appear to support Goldschmidt's hypo-
theses. There is no doubt that the implications of agricultural
transitions have been dramatic. It would be overly simplistic,
however, to assume that a loss of sense of community, in-
creased levels of crime, and institutional decay were solely
the result of agricultural industrialization. Today, Wayne
County is better categorized as a tourist county than a farm
county. Researchers note that many jobs in the service sector
pay low wages, require little skill, and are relatively unstable.
The community benefits for these jobs remain uncertain
(Kassab 1992; Kassab, Luloff, and Schmidt. 1995; Kassab and
Luloff 1993; Noyelle 1986). Without question, some changes
in community life result from the transition of an
agricultural-based economy to a service-based one. Further-
more, improved transportation and communication have
30 Vol. 19, Nos. 1/2 Spring/Summer 1997
resulted in greater contact with the outside world that has
likely had important implications for community norms and
values (Vidich and Bensman 1958).
The mechanization of agriculture has produced massive
implications for families and communities in this country.
Agricultural changes will continue and it is imperative that
our understanding of these implications be improved
through continued research. Because agriculture is only one
of many factors affecting rural communities, the task is
difficult.
References Cited
Adams, Jane
1994 The Transformation of Rural Life, Southern Illinois, 1840-
1990. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
Albrecht, Don E.
1986 Agriculture Dependence and the Population Turnaround:
Evidence from the Great Plains. Journal of the Community
Development Society 17:1-15.
1993 The Renewal of Population Loss in the Nonmetropolitan
Great Plains. Rural Sociology 58:233-246.
Albrecht, Don E., and Steve H. Murdock
1990 The Sociology of U.S. Agriculture: An Ecological
Perspective. Ames: Iowa State University Press.
Barlett, Peggy
1989 Industrial Agriculture. In Economic Anthropology. Stuart
Planner, ed. Pp.253-291. Stanford: Stanford University
Press.
Barnes, Donna, and Audie Blevins
1992 Farm Structure and the Economic Weil-Being of
Nonmetropolitan Counties. Rural Sociology 57:333-346.
Beale, Calvin L.
1979 Demographic Aspects of Agricultural Structure. //;
Structure Issues of American Agriculture. ESCS
Agricultural Economic Report 438. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Agriculture.
1993 Salient Features of the Demography of American
Agriculture. In The Demography of Rural Life. D. L.
Brown, D. Field, and J. J. Zuiches, eds. Pp. 108-127.
Publication No. 64. University Park, Penn.: Northeast
Regional Center for Rural Development.
Culture & Agriculture
Bender, Lloyd D., Bernal L. Green, Thomas F. Hady, John A. Kuehn,
Marlys K. Nelson, Leon B. Perkinson, and Peggy J. Ross
1985 The Diverse Social and Economic Structure of
Nonmetropolitan America. Economic Research Service,
Rural Development Research Report No. 49 Washington,
D.C.: U. S. Department of Agriculture.
Berardi, Gigi M., and Charles C Geisler
14K4 The Social Consequences and Challenges of New
Agricultural Technologies. Boulder, Colo: Westview Press.
Bertrand, Alvin L.
1978 Rural Social Organizational Implications of Technology
and Industry. In Rural U.S.A.: Persistence and Change. T.
R. Ford,ed. Pp. 75-88. Ames: Iowa State University Press.
Cochrane, Willard W.
1979 The Development of American Agriculture: A Historical
Analysis. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Davidson, O.G.
1990 Broken Heartland: The Rise of America's Rural Ghetto.
New York: The Free Press, Macmillan.
Fink, Deborah
1987 Farming in Open Country, Iowa: Women and the
Changing Farm Economy. In Farm Work and Field-Work.
Michael Chibnik, ed. Pp.121-144. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell
University Press.
1992 Agrarian Women: Wives and Mothers in Rural Nebraska,
1880-1940. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina.
Fitchen, Janet
1991 Endangered Spaces, Enduring Places: Change, Identity,
and Survival in Rural America. Boulder, Colo: Westview
Press.
Gilbert, Jess, and Raymond Akor
1988 Increasing Structural Divergence in U.S. Dairying:
California and Wisconsin Since 1950. Rural Sociology
53:56-72.
Goldschmidt, Walter R.
1947 As You Sow: Three Studies in the Social Consequences of
Agribusiness. Montclair, N.J.: Allenheld and Osmun.
Harper, Emily B., Frederick C. Fliegel, and J.C. van Es
1980 Growing Numbers of Small Farms in the North Central
States. Rural Sociology 45: 608-620.
Heffernan, William D.
1W2 Reducing Uncertainty: Changes in the U.S. Poultry
Industry. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
Rural Sociological Society, San Francisco.
Johnson, Kenneth M.
1989 Recent Population Redistribution Trends in Nonmetro-
politan America. Rural Sociology 54: 301-326.
31 Vol. 19, Nos. 1/2 Spring/Summer 1997
Kassab, Cathy Noyelle, T.J.
1992 Income and Inequality: The Role of the Service Sector in 1986 Economic Transformation. The Annals. AAPSS, 488
the Changing Distribution of Income. New York: (Nov.): 9-17.
Greenwood Press.
Scott, Shaunna L.
Kassab, Cathy, and A.E. Luloff 1996 Drudges, Helpers and Team Players: Oral Historical
1993 The New Buffalo Hunt: Chasing the Service Sector. Accounts of Farm Work in Appalachian Kentucky. Rural
Journal of the Community Development Society 24: 175- Sociology 61:209-226.
195.
Stockdale, Jerry D.
Kassab, Cathy, A.E. Luloff, and Fred Schmidt 1982 Who Will Speak for Agriculture? In Rural Society in the
1995 The Changing Impact of Industry, Household Structure, U.S.: Issues for the 1980s. DA. Dillman and D.J. Hobbs,
and Residence on Household Weil-Being. Rural Sociology eds. Pp. 317-327. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press.
60: 67-90.
Vidich, Arthur ) . , and Joseph Bensman
Lasley, Paul F., Larry Leistritz, Linda M. Lobao, and Katherine 1958 Small Town in Mass Society. Garden City, N.Y.: Anchor
Meyer Books.
1995 Beyond the Amber Waxes of Grain. Boulder, Colo.:
Westview Press. Young, Frank A.
1994 The Goldsmith Hypothesis in Chile. Rural Sociologist 59:
Lobao, L. M., M. D. Shulman, and L. E. Swanson 154-174.
1993 Still Going: Recent Debates on the Goldschmidt
Hypothesis. Rural Sociologist 58: 277-288. Notes

Neth, Mary 1. These data, as well as the data in the tables, are obtained from the
1995 Preserving the Family Farm. Baltimore: The Johns Census of Agriculture from 1940 through 1992, and from the
Hopkins University Press. Census of Population and Housing from 1940 through 1990.

Culture & Agriculture 32 Vol. 19, Nos. 1/2 Spring/Summer 1997