In view of the breadth of the topic, coverage is limited to identifying the events and commenting on the types of impacts on agriculture rather than stating specific empirical estimates of impacts. Numerous researchers in agricultural economics have examined the quantitative dimensions of impact from particular scenarios of future courses of some of the events identified here.

With only one or two notable exceptions, the current commodity output mix of southern agriculture is similar to that for U.S. agriculture as a whole. Ranking the top eight farm enterprises of the south in dollar value (1976) shows tobacco in the southern region replacing wheat in the national ranking; dairy, corn, and hogs are more important nationally and broilers and eggs are more important in the southern complex. Therefore, if those dimensions of agriculture associated with geographic location, such as population, climate, or transport net, are excluded, the major events affecting southern agriculture in the 1970s can be discussed in terms of U.S. agriculture.

The fundamental issue of the 1980s will be whether agriculture will preserve its identity. The 1980s will be the decade decision as to the structural organization of agriculture. It is not anticipated that the agricultural sector will be preserved intact, or, alternately, totally transformed by 1990, but by then the die will have been cast. In a different idiom, a point of no return will have been reached.

Structural questions touch virtually every policy issue in agriculture. Income tax, estate tax, environmental protection, availability of farm credit, terms of price and income support — these and other issues are interwoven. Agricultural economists relate to structural issues in two ways. We are concerned for our clients. The kind of agriculture to prevail makes a difference to farmers and their families, to rural communities, and to the citizenry of the South. It makes a difference also to agricultural economists professionally. In 1969 many of our analytical skills were developed for a dispersed market-oriented agriculture. If a different kind of agriculture materializes, the need for economic guidance will not end, but many of us will find ourselves technologically obsolescent.

There is considerable overlap between events of lasting significance in the 1970s and policy issues of the 1980s, perhaps because of an implicit requirement (in my own mind at least) that policy implications are a prerequisite to significance. At any rate, past developments in their full dimensions seem closely interwoven with future events.

Repeated invitations to Harold Breimyer to “look ahead” are evidence of our profession's view of his ranking in the trade of seers. Because, at best, we can only “see through a glass darkly,” it may be a futile effort to forecast developments beyond a two- or three-year horizon. Yet several of the unexpected events within our individual spheres of existence might have been spotted on the more distant horizon if we had really strained a bit to peer through the fog. Even knowing that the forecasting balance is tilted heavily on the side of events that cannot be foreseen, we feel it beneficial to keep peering ahead. I believe that is why, in spite of records that do not sparkle with accuracy, Breimyer continues to prophesy and we continue to listen.

In the final year of an eventful decade, it is appropriate to take stock of where we are, what the events of this decade really mean, and what the next decade holds in store. What really happened in the 1970s? As for any other decade, that question is not easy to answer. It will be easier to answer a few decades hence when we are better able to see the events of lasting significance in historical perspective, and to distinguish them from the short-lived phenomena that cloud both our vision and our understanding because we are still too close to them. Furthermore, decades are simply 10-year units in a continuum of events and are not necessarily logical units of time to study.

Each year, heads of agricultural economics departments meet to discuss mutual issues related to our teaching, extension, and research programs. A major continuing issue is our portion of research and extension funds— with a natural suspicion that we are not being allocated our “fair share.” An additional, and perhaps larger, concern has arisen in the last few years as we recognize the apparent movement toward increasing use of competitive grants for funding agricultural research. It is not the grants idea that concerns us as much as it is the research areas which have been developed and/or may be developed within which we must make our proposals.

Each department in a university draws its sustenance from the same pie. Each is concerned with the size of the pieces devoured by animal science, crop science, and the others. The following comments relate to both share and “pie enlargement.”

Farm firm growth has been an important topic for research and discussion since the 1950s. Incentives for farm growth have been and continue to be substantial. An agricultural economy characterized by technological improvement, decreasing costs, competition, and an inelastic demand for farm products leaves little alternative but growth for a commercial farm. Farm growth is stimulated by the need to achieve size economies that arises partly from new technology and partly from large investments in machinery and equipment. Growth is encouraged by the improving managerial ability of the operator as he matures and gains experience. Increased family living needs and the desire to overcome the adverse effects of inflation on purchasing power spur interest in improving the farm's earning potential. In addition, the operator's goals may include size aspirations to satisfy the desire for a large operation or to support the family of a son or daughter attempting to become established in farming. Because the pressures for growth, both internal and external to the firm, are long-run phenomena in agriculture, continued study and evaluation of the process of entry, firm growth, and exit coordination are essential.

A traditional approach to defining problems or needs is to compare a situation (what is) with objectives or valuations (what ought to be). A more elaborate version of this approach introduces some dynamics into the scheme by projecting current trends to determine how the expected situation some time in the future compares with what we would like the situation to be. One difficulty in such an approach is deciding what dimensions of the situation are important.

In considering the problems of small farms, do we primarily examine income and the measures of wellbeing — or emphasize the structure of agriculture and its implications for our society? Must we consider the extent to which concern for conservation of soil and energy resources is related to size of farms? Should we complicate the picture even more, as is often argued, by including the non-market-goods dimensions [18]? Some researchers would merely use a change in the number of small farms as indicative of a problem, but this is only symptomatic of more basic factors at work.

West is to be commended for (1) the organization of his discussion, (2) the careful delineation of the research areas, (3) the thoroughness of his research and the excellent documentation of the research efforts of social scientists in treating the problem/s of the small-farm operator, and (4) the development of a means-end schema of “what is,” “what ought to be” with implications for future research, programs, and public policy.

As West indicates, there is need for a redefinition of small farm. The $20,000 gross sales limit is inadequate. Most definitions do not include the value added of products produced and consumed by the family. Some states, for example Florida, use figures much lower than $20,000 to characterize small farms. The distinction between full-time and part-time farmers and their incomes is not clearly delineated. A national concern should be the redefinition of the term, “small farm.” Heterogeneous characteristics of small farms should not inhibit the generation of profile information by geographic regions.

U.S. feeder cattle markets discriminate among a wide variety of animal characteristics such as weight, sex, breed, grade, and age. In recent years, concern has been expressed that price premiums paid for steers over heifers no longer reflect estimated differences in their feedlot performance or carcass value [2,8]. Another question is whether observed regional differences in steer-heifer price differentials are justified. The sources of feeder price differentials by sex are investigated and variations in these differentials across time and space dimensions are analyzed. The results provide preliminary evidence on the efficiency with which feeder markets establish price spreads.

Writing about empirical tests of stock market efficiency, Fama et al. [2, p. 1] noted that

Hedging livestock historically has been practiced mainly by midwestern and Great Plains producers because they are the dominant force within the U.S. cattle industry. Likewise, futures contract definitions and delivery points have been tailored to the needs of these producers. Recent growth in the feeder cattle industry in the Southeast, and particularly in Florida, suggests that greater hedging use may be applicable to southeastern producers. Interest in expanding the usefulness of the feeder cattle contracts to these growth regions is indicated by the recently established delivery point in Montgomery [2].

Cotton producers in the Lower Rio Grande Valley (LRGV) of Texas face continuing economic pressures arising from increasing costs of productive inputs, yield-reducing infestations of insecticide-resistant pests, and often adverse climatic conditions. The input price increases in the LRGV are similar to those in other production regions of the U.S. However, insect problems arising from the LRGV climate are unique. LRGV farmers have been unable to control late-season tobacco bud-worm infestations which often reach damaging levels when beneficial insects are destroyed by insecticide treatments for boll weevils [3]. These late-season insect infestations are a result of the predominantly excessive rainfalls which occur during the harvest months of August and September. Moreover, high rainfall during harvest reduces both the quality and level of cotton yields [1].

In recent years, extremely variable price movements have caused a high degree of price risk in the cattle industry. Cattle producers who chose to accept this price risk at the correct time had extraordinary gains, whereas those who accepted this risk at the improper time had returns below cost of production. Hedging offers the cattle producer an excellent opportunity to transfer a portion of the price risk to another party. Selective transfer of the risk can both increase the magnitude of returns and decrease their variance [1, 2, 4]. The family of technical tools called oscillators, one of the most useful tools employed by commodity traders [6, p. 34], was used to develop hedging strategies for feeder cattle.

Irrigated crop production on the Texas High Plains accounts for more than 80 percent of the value of total crop production in the region. Total economic activity associated with crop production was estimated to be $2.18 billion in 1967 [11]. Because of the importance and contribution of irrigation to the regional economy, any significant adjustments in irrigation create repercussions throughout the region.

The price of natural gas within Texas is not subject to interstate regulations. Since 1973, dramatic increases in natural gas price (from $0.50 to more than $2.00/mcf) in the state have caused considerable concern about the economic feasibility of continued irrigation. Research was conducted to estimate the effect of continuing natural gas price increases on irrigation [8].

Agricultural transportation is often characterized by seasonal and cyclical traffic flows that unfavorably affect the logistical efficiency of the marketing system. Congestion problems arise in the truck-to-ship intermodal grain transfer system at the Port of Houston. Seasonal peaks in truck-delivered grain receipts create problems with efficient interfacing of the port elevators' grain-receiving capacity and truck arrival patterns. During peak volume periods, the elevators' receiving capacity is inadequate; long truck queues develop and congestion or waiting occurs. Queues of 3-4 miles are common during the peak receipt periods, whereas the facility may be idle for extended periods of off-peak time.

Many decisions made by farm producers are based on expectations. The process of formulating and incorporating these expectations into decision making is difficult when high variability occurs in product prices, crop yields, production costs, or other factors affecting net income. Farm producers may be influenced by a number of goals in selecting combinations of crops to produce and marketing outlets for the crops. Two goals generally held to be important to farm decision makers are maximization of net income and net income stability. Given the price, yield, and cost of production variability characteristics of a farm enterprise and these two goals of farm decision makers, a fundamental problem is to determine what combination of alternative marketing actions can best satisfy the two objectives. A systematic examination of the relationship between the level of net income and net income variability for combinations of marketing alternatives would aid farmers in deciding on marketing actions to attain these goals.

In recent years, producers in West Texas have sought alternatives to traditional field crops in an effort to maintain or increase farm income. Declining groundwater supplies available for irrigation and sharply increasing fuel costs have served to reduce returns from traditional field crops. Vegetables, which offer much higher average returns per acre, are one alternative to field crops. However, production of vegetable crops introduces some difficult problems. The price of most vegetables is very erratic from season to season and often within the same season. Though on the average the income received per acre from vegetables is much higher, the risk of loss due to low prices for vegetables is also much higher.