During 1981 two major pieces of legislation were passed that will greatly influence the economic welfare of farmers in the United States. First to be passed was the Economic Recovery Tax Act, and second was the Agriculture and Food Act. These two laws will likely have significant impacts on commercial farmers throughout the next decade.

It is clear, even to the most casual observer, that the era of intensive spending for rural development ended with the 1970s. The combined effects of inflation and recession, and the efforts of the Reagan administration to reduce government spending to combat these problems, signal the beginning of a new era in rural development. While there has been considerable disenchantment with the morass of unrelated federal agencies and spending programs that have constituted the actors and means in the process of rural development policy, the current milieu seems to have created considerable pessimism concerning the future of rural areas. The degree to which such a pessimistic outlook is justified is debatable, although there is certainly some reason for concern for the short-term human suffering that is already evident as programs are cut and services are reduced.

Considerable research has been conducted over the years to determine optimal rations for dairy cattle. Dean et al. extended earlier work through a comprehensive examination of milk production functions, isoquant shapes, and feed systems to maximize income over feed cost (IOFC) for a given point in time.

The mechanization of American agriculture has played a key role in the technological progress of U.S. agriculture in this century (Heady and Tweeten). In turn, the demand for farm tractors and other farm machinery has been highly dependent on the year-to-year strength of the agricultural economy. Unit sales of tractors have varied by as much as 50 percent from one year to the next (Royal Commission on Farm Machinery).

The role of the economist in agriculture has increased in significance in the 1970s and 80s. A review of the recent history of agriculture begins with the period of stability and relative certainty of agricultural input and product prices in the 1950s. But by the 1970s, the economic impacts of the oil crisis, inflation, and orientation to free market prices of agricultural products necessitated a transition in the role and importance of the agricultural economist. Economists became vital to farmers who had to make economic decisions on appropriate cropping patterns, when and how to market products, and how to invest wisely.

The teaching of economic theory has become a major topic in the economics literature. Siegfried and Fels point to the growing number of economists who consider their special interest to be economic education.

The agenda for marketing research in the 1980s, to a great extent, has already been set by the events of the 1970s. Agriculture is in a period of transition in which commodity surpluses are expected to be less of a problem area. International markets are expanding, and the delivery systems have become complex in both structure and in the functions performed. The dynamics of the marketplace obviously influence the research agenda.

Before looking at the changing research needs for agricultural marketing, a definition of the concept is needed. For the context of this paper, marketing research is defined to be the process of assimilation and creation of information on the economic performance of potential and existing arrangements that facilitate the assembling, distribution, and consumption of foods, fibers, and ornamentals.

The production of feeder pigs as a cash commodity has been widespread in the southeastern U.S. during the past several years. One indication of the extent of marketing pigs at this intermediate stage is the fact that in 1979, 41 percent of the total Tennessee pig crop was sold through organized feeder pig sales (Rawls). This specialized production is continuing in many areas of the Southeast, although a trend has emerged that has more producers holding feeder pigs and feeding them to market weight.

Meat imports have been a source of controversy in United States agriculture for more than 20 years. Beef producers early contended that imports unduly restricted their incomes and placed the domestic livestock industry at a disadvantage.

Backgrounding of feeder cattle is a growing specialty operation in the so-called “Fescue Belt” grasslands of the South (Bradford et al.). Backgrounding is largely a seasonal enterprise, consisting of the purchase of weaned calves that are placed on pasture and supplemental feed for several months and then resold for placement in feedlots. Since feeder calf and feeder cattle prices are among the most volatile of all classes of cattle, backgrounders face considerable price risk (Russell and Franzmann). In principle, hedging could shift this risk, but there has been a question whether hedging can be worthwhile, given the additional costs and financial obligations involved.

Natural resource economics has long been identified as a policy science. Its chief concerns—problems attributable to “market failures” of various kinds (e.g., Castle 1965) and the special difficulties that arise in intertemporal and intergenerational resource allocation (e.g., Solow)—inherently require some kind of public solution, whether it be by reaffirmation or redefinition of property rights, regulation, taxation policy, or public enterprise.

In a time of some general disenchantment with government and selective retrenchment of public sector activity, resource economists (and many other social and economic scientists) are receiving mixed signals. Mostly we tend to work in or for the public sector, the political stock of which is not exactly booming.

Throughout the principal fresh fruit and vegetable (FFV) growing areas in southeastern and southwestern states, trucking is the dominant mode for transporting fresh produce to the northeast and upper Midwest. The dramatic shift to trucks in the last 30 years has virtually displaced the railroads from FFV transportation.

During 1981 there was much in the news about the Medfly (Mediterranean fruit fly) infestation of California. During the summer of 1981, a USDA quarantine on produce from California was imposed by 11 states–North Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Texas, Tennessee, Florida, and South Carolina.

During the last two decades, the feeder pig industry in Virginia has undergone significant growth in the number of pigs sold and in the value of total sales, along with improvement in marketing procedures. From 1959 to 1978, the number of feeder pigs sold in state-sponsored auctions increased from 2,195 to more than 150,000 per year (Virginia Department of Agriculture). Tele-Auction sales, conducted by the Virginia Feeder Kg Association, use a conference telephone system that allows distant buyers to bid for pigs described by lot size, grade, weight, and tail docking. Pigs from various producers are co-mingled into lots that are homogeneous with respect to these characteristics. The Tele-Auction system permits out-of-state buyers to participate easily in sales, thus increasing the demand for Virginia's feeder pigs. In 1979, the Association sponsored 128 sales at 8 locations.

Achieving water quality goals will necessitate adoption of best management practices (BMP's) by some or all farmers. Water quality is expected to improve as farmers adopt BMP's such as conservation cropping systems, structural measures, and conservation tillage methods. Currently, there is an absence of pollution abatement incentives strong enough to induce farmers to abate sediment, nutrients, and pesticides to desirable social levels. Although a specific socially optimal level of pollutants may be difficult (or impossible) to quantify, the U.S. Congress, by passing the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (P. L. 92-500), has demonstrated the need for improvements in water quality.

In 1979, the USDA implemented a new feeder cattle grading system that is distinctly different from the old, both in concept and terminology. Under the old grading system, the traditional grade categories of Prime, Choice, Good, and so on were used. Animals were graded according to their ability to satisfy a number of qualitative characteristics. The new system is based upon a dual criterion of framesize and muscling. Cattle are graded as either having large, medium, or small framesizes and No. 1, No. 2, or No. 3 muscling (thickness).

Casual observation of the two grading systems indicates that cattle graded as Choice under the old system will in most cases be classified as Medium Frame, No. 1 Muscled cattle under the new system. Likewise, cattle previously graded as Good will in most cases likely be graded as Medium Frame, No. 2 Muscled animals.