Every spirit builds itself a house; and beyond its house a world; and beyond its world, a heaven. Know, then, that the world exists for you. For you is the phenomenon perfect. What we are, that only we can see. All that Adam had, all that Caesar could, you have and can do. Adam called his house, heaven and earth; Caesar called his house, Rome; you perhaps call yours, a Cobbler’s trade; a hundred acres of plowed land, or a scholar’s garret. Yet line for line and point to point, your dominion is as great as theirs, though without fine names. Build, therefore, your own world.
Excerpt from “Nature” by Ralph Waldo Emerson
Aside from mariners, most people used to find themselves tied to the land. It is estimated that at the founding of the Republic eighty percent (80%) of the population owned the land they lived and farmed on. This estimate should not be interpreted to mean that at the outset the majority of land in the thirteen states was more or less evenly distributed, but rather that the majority of the population had at least some direct connection and ownership with a tract of land put to agrarian use. The great majority of these tracts would have been relatively small in size as farmers in society just on the cusp of industrialization would have been quite limited in the amount of land they and their families could work and manage themselves. The vast majority of the first generation of American citizens didn’t just live on the land, it sustained them. Their land wasn’t just their home site, but also where they grew the crops and raised the livestock that kept themselves and their families alive as well as provided them with the economic resources to interact with the community at large. When they or their children started to move westward it was not in search of jobs, but new and more land.
And so on down the years the story would remain much the same. Families would acquire and hold acreage with which to sustain themselves and as the generations progressed new land was needed and acquired thus perpetuating the constant creation of new homesteads and towns in the push westward. As the first immigrants came to the nation, they too would seek out their plot of land on which to live and work. The major difference between where they came from and where they settled in the United States was that now they likely owned the land they worked as opposed to living and working on land owned by someone else. As the nation entered the Industrial Revolution, these settlers and landowners used the newly available tools and equipment not just to make their existing land more efficient and productive, but also to increase the feasible size of their land holdings. As the nation developed westward the average size of a family’s homestead and farm increased far beyond what a colonial farmer could have managed. Regardless, though, throughout the first century of America’s existence the basic impulse and drive remained constant; the land on which a family lived sustained them and set their place in the world. Starting in the Gilded Age and continuing down to the present day the percentage share of Americans living in what are today considered rural areas and having a direct occupational tie to the land has been reduced from the original eighty percent (80%) in 1780 to approximately eighteen percent (18%) today. As new waves of immigrants came to the United States they settled not on farms and ranches but in factory towns and in the ever-expanding cities. Never have fewer American citizens had an occupational attachment to the land than in the present. Sadly, the number of rural landowners is in danger of reducing even further over the coming years as rural America has an outsized percentage of elderly inhabitants and there does not seem to be a ready solution as to what will be done with their land when they can no longer act as its steward.
Chart No. 1 (above) is taken from the U.S. Census Bureau and shows the breakdown between where the over-65 aged population lives on a state-by-state basis. Of particular note is the basic trend that the more rural a state, the greater the percentage of its over 65 population lives in a rural setting as opposed to an urban one. This is not intended to mean that more of America’s elderly population lives in rural areas, just that the population of rural areas tend to skew higher in terms of average age and percentage elderly. With the exception of Texas and California, every farm and ranch state has a greater percentage of its elderly population living in its rural areas than the total U.S. average. Texas and California bucking this trend can be explained by the very high overall populations those states have and the several large metropolises they each contain. Even the large agricultural sectors in each of those states cannot offset cities such as Los Angeles, Dallas/Fort Worth, Houston, and the San Francisco Bay Area. But population distribution by age does not by itself detail ownership trends as residency and ownership do not necessarily go hand in hand. It is therefore necessary to understand the make-up of those owning farm and ranch land in the rural areas.
Figure No. 1 – Farmland Ownership Type by Region USDA – Economic Research Service
The above figure is taken from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s “Tenure, Ownership, and Transition of Agricultural Land (“T.O.T.A.L.”) Report and depicts the current ownership breakdown of farmland within the lower 48 states. Sixty-one percent (61%) of this land is owned by the operator of the land, thirty-one percent (31%) of the land is rental land owned by a non-operating party and worked by another unaffiliated party that will operate on the land, and the remaining eight percent (8%) is owned by an operator (just one that will not or cannot operate the tract they own) leasing the tract out to a third party who will operate it.
Figure No. 2 – Farmland Ownership Type by Age USDA – Economic Research Service
Figure No. 2 applies age to the same three ownership categories. Eighty percent (80%) of all owner-operated land (dark blue in the figure above) is owned by individuals aged fifty-five (55) years or older. Seventy percent (70%) of all farmlands that are owned by non-operating landlords are owned by individuals aged sixty-five (65) years or older (orange in the figure above). This means that a majority of the farmland owned by individuals (as opposed to corporate and foreign entities or trusts) is owned by individuals nearing or at the normal retirement age. The impact of their decisions regarding asset and operational transfers will have a tremendous impact on the security, availability, and cost of the nation’s food supply in the coming decades.
So, what choices does a sixty-five-year-old farmer or rancher have as they contemplate the future of their acreage? An only child enthusiastic to take over the family farm is the easiest and simplest possible outcome, but this is very rarely the case. Often the best and most realistic scenario would be having several adult offspring that are willing and competent to take over the ownership of the land and the operations on it. This is the key to starting or continuing a generational farm or ranching operation. Instead, they could sell it to a local who wishes to expand their own holdings and operations, that at least would keep the acreage productive even if for another family. These are the most likely options for a landowner wishing to see the acreage stay productive with a local owner-operator (whether it be their family or another’s). Beyond these, it becomes more likely that either ownership of the acreage will pass out of the community, or the farming or ranching operations will cease and be replaced by a non-agrarian operation.
This decision usually carries less emotional angst with urban (the few that own in an urban environment) and suburban landowners. While many of us love our homes and neighborhoods and towns, we recognize that they are likely temporary. Many will repeatedly move as work or circumstances dictate and we know that the house we live in while our children are in school is likely not the home we will retire in. The house is as much a financial asset allowing us to send our children to college and afford retirement as it is a dwelling place. This notion of forced temporality makes it somewhat easier to part ways at some point in the future. The same cannot be said of many rural landowners. For many the connection with the land runs deep. Many are current owners of a generational endeavor, and they feel the burden of maintaining that lineage. They are genuinely concerned about the impact their actions will have on their local community. It is likely that they have spent a lifetime as members of the local co-ops, been joined together by church and school ties, and have known and watched out for the neighbors for decades. You don’t just walk away from that.
I have found that when working in these communities you must be aware of the feelings and pressures that are naturally felt by the landowners I am interacting with even when offering stabilizing financial revenue streams or making life-changing offers. It must be understood that you are not just discussing their acreage and financial assets with them but also their way of life and, in many ways, their identity. Likely without knowing it, these individuals have taken to heart Emerson’s exhortation to, “Build, therefore, your own world.” Due regard and care should be shown in such circumstances. For some disposing of their property will lift a weight from their shoulders. For others, it will seem like they failed where multiple generations of their ancestors had succeeded. Regardless, the process and decision that an incredibly large number of aging rural Americans face will have a lasting impact not only on their families and the acreage they currently own and work, but on all Americans who rely on them for both a stable and secure food supply and in many ways a link to our own past.
Discover more from Wander Untethered
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.