家庭农场外文翻译

中文3715字

外文文献翻译

题目家庭农场

学生姓名

专业班级市场营销09-1

学号 540906050151

院（系）经济与管理学院

指导教师（职称）

家庭农场

Lee, Jennifer Dukes U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Economic Research Service New York

摘要

家庭农场是一个农场拥有和经营的家庭像其他家族企业和房地产的所有权，往往会给下一代的传承。这是许多人类历史的主要是农业经济的基本单元，并继续在发展中国家。家庭农场的替代品，包括那些由农业，俗称“工厂化农场，或通过集体农业。

关键词家庭农场/现代农业/发展/策略

1 美国的法律定义

所定义的美国农业部规定农场的贷款项目（例如那些由农业服务局管理），一个家庭农场是一个农场：

（1）生产销售的农产品，这样的数量，是在社会公认的一个农场，没有农村住宅；

（2）产生足够的收入（包括非农就业）支付的家庭和农场经营费用，偿还债务，并保持性能；

（3）是由运营商管理；

（4）具有通过运营商和运营商的家庭提供大量劳动力

（5）可能在高峰时段和全职雇佣劳动力合理使用季节性劳动。

2 家庭农场的看法

在发达国家的家庭农场是感伤的，为的是保存传统的缘故，一种生活方式，或是与生俱来的权利。它往往对农业政策变化的政治口号是在这些国家，最常见的是在法国，日本，和美国，在农村的生活方式经常被看作是可取的。在这些国家，同床异梦常常可以发现争论类似措施尽管在政治意识形态否则巨大差异。例如，帕特里克布坎南和拉尔夫纳德，两位候选人在美国总统办公室举行集会，农

村一起为维护所谓的家庭农场措施说话。在其他经济事项，它们被视为普遍的反对，但发现这一共同点。

家庭农场的社会角色变化很大的今天。直到最近，在与传统和保守的社会学，线家庭的头通常是最古老的人，紧随其后的是他的儿子。妻子一般照顾家务，养育孩子，和财务事项有关的农场。然而，农业活动已采取多种形式和随时间的变化。农艺学，园艺，水产养殖，造林，和养蜂，随着传统的植物和动物，构成了今天的家庭农场方面。农场的妻子常常需要找到工作离开农场，农场收入和儿童补充有时以农业为所选择的工作领域不感兴趣。

大胆的推动者认为，农业已成为更有效的与现代管理技术和新技术的应用在每一代，理想化的经典家庭农场现在是完全过时的，或更经常，无法无规模经济更大和更现代化的农场。支持者认为，所有国家的家庭农场需要保护，为基础的农村社会与社会稳定。

3 家庭农场的可行性

根据美国农业部，在美国所有的农场百分之九十八是家庭农场。百分之二的农场不是家庭农场，和那些百分之二弥补在美国农业总产量的百分之十四，尽管他们中的一半已经低于50000美元/年销售总额。总的来说，在美国的农场百分之九十一被认为是“家庭小农场”（以低于每年250000美元的销售），这些农场生产的美国农业产量的百分之二十七。

根据不同的类型和规模的独立运作，一些限制因素：

（1）规模经济：更大的农场，可以讨价还价更具竞争力，购买更多的竞争，从高点和低点的经济利润，天气更容易通过货币惯性比小农场。

（2）肥料和其它投入成本可以大幅波动较大的季节，部分基于石油价格，范围为25%至200%是常见的几年。

（3）石油价格：直接（农机）和不那么直接（传输距离长；农药生产成本），石油的成本有很大的影响，今年所有机械化传统农场年存活率。

（4）商品期货的商品作物，生猪，粮食等价格，预测，可以决定提前一个赛季似乎变得经济可行的。

（5）技术的用户协议：一个不公开的因子，专利的GE的种子，被广泛用于

多种作物，如棉花和大豆，有限制的使用，甚至可以包括那些作物可以卖到。

（6）批发的基础设施：农民日益增长的大量的作物可以直接销售给消费者，必须满足一系列的标准出售进入批发市场，其中包括收获时间和分级质量，并且还可以包括品种，因此，市场渠道真的决定决策方面的农场。

（7）融资可用性：更大的农场，今天通常依靠信用额度，通常从银行，购买农药，并为每个生长年限需要其他用品。这些线是由几乎所有的其他制约因素的严重影响。

（8）政府的经济干预：在一些国家，尤其是美国和欧盟，政府对农民的补贴，旨在减轻对其他经济领域的经济和政治活动的国内农民的影响，可以是农场收入的一大来源。当危机救助，如干旱或“疯牛病”问题影响的农业部门，也依赖于。很大程度上，这种情况是由于大规模的全球市场的农场不得不参与。

（9）政府和行业监管：配额范围广，营销委员会和立法强加限制农业复杂，往往需要大量的资源导航。例如，在小农场，在许多司法管辖区，有对牲畜的销售严重限制或禁止，奶制品和鸡蛋。这些来自各方的压力：食品安全，环境，市场营销。

（10）房地产价格：世界各地的城市中心的增长，以及由此产生的城市扩张导致了位于市中心的农田飞涨的价格，同时减少必要的支持农业的基础设施，许多农民将有效压力卖掉。

在第二十世纪，发达国家的人们都把大部分的步骤走下去，这种情况。个体农民选择了新技术的连续波，高兴的马匹拖拉机交易，增加他们的债务，他们的生产能力。这反过来又需要更大，更遥远的市场，更重和更复杂的融资。公众愿意购买越来越商品化，加工，运输和相对便宜的食品。日益多样化的一个新鲜的，未固化的供应，在一年四季的新鲜农产品和肉类（桔子在一月，刚宰杀的肉牛在七月，鲜猪肉，而不是盐腌，烟熏，或钾浸渍火腿）打开了一个全新的美食和消费者谁从来没有享受过这样的产生之前，数以百万计的人前所未有的健康饮食。这些能力也为市场带来了前所未有的多种加工食品，如玉米糖浆和漂白粉。为家庭农场这一新技术和日益复杂的市场营销策略提出了前所未有的新挑战，并不是所有的家庭的农民已经能够有效地应对不断变化的市场条件。

4 二十一世纪的家庭农场

它究竟有什么“田园”生命的存在，对于大多数的家庭农场消失了近几十年来，数以百万计的人。在第二十世纪初，在美国北部一个农场的平均每英亩比现在少得多的食物。一个可能的结论是，在上世纪中叶的几十年的时间，大量的农场利用迅速崛起的新技术，市场取得了暂时的舒适的位置，和生长取向的哲学。由于经济增长和“生产效率”的不断增加，这个位置开始改变明显，至少在20世纪70年代。农场的数量，以及生活在这个土地的农场家庭，下降每十年在美国自1920。这部分是规模经济和竞争压力的函数。部分，这可能被视为一个迹象表明，“家庭农场”，在其原始形式，现实，只是普通的辛勤工作，与有限的社会和文化的机会，竞争对手不作为一种职业，城市和郊区的一个“生活方式”的机会。

在当前的形势下，为独立的“农家”恢复任何实际的经济独立，它似乎是必要的，整个食品行业重组。此外，给出了失效的家庭农场的极数，这是没有那么多的储蓄或维护家庭农场一事，但使用剩余的知识，技能和农场的“新家庭农场的框架。一个严重的问题，但是，是整个食品系统应该是“重组”为了保存一个失败或者神话的理想，或是世界上的人口，现在接近7000000000人，将持续的返回劳动密集型农业和当地的妈妈和流行的营销实践。然而，答案，很难被认为是显而易见的，尤其是因为许多这些7000000000人可能发现他们喜欢种植食物的当前城市下层选项如数据录入，食品服务，电话。

在“家庭农场”的进化的一个例子，北达科他州的历史是照明。虽然最初作为巨大的“富矿农场”在19世纪70年代，这些被拆分出售成小集团和国家其他地区移民节段（160英亩（0.65平方公里））的农场。国家主要养殖由20世纪20、30年代的个人和家庭的国家。早在第二十世纪，享有一个民粹主义的繁荣，农民控制议会获得了农产品营销和销售放在国家资助的合作社，使小生产者摆脱铁路和工业化食品商握力控制。这些政策长期以来被遗弃。2007，在北达科他州的大部分土地仍归个人所有。农地所有权已在1933个州的选民倡议是违法的。农业的规模在北达科他州，然而，不是混合农业家庭经营的实践。典型的旱地小麦农场在北达科他州由几千亩的规模上的设备匹配。这些农场的生产组装120辆火车运送到遥远的市场作为国际商业流的一部分。

场等这通常是由十五，二十或更多的移民节段，同时含有“家庭农场”的土

地，由大量的废弃的农场，鬼城的见证，和被遗弃的乡村教堂和墓地纪念一个更大的农村人口，早已消失。

成千上万的废弃或闭塞的农场，在北达科他州的农村人口减少的其他证据，包括许多蓬勃发展家庭农场到70年代现在空置和恶化的家园，是一个与浪漫的概念中的“家庭农场”在第二十一世纪。

5 当地的食品和有机运动

在过去的几十年里，已经有一个在有机和自由放养的食物的兴趣的复苏。消费者的一个百分比也开始质疑工业农业实践的可行性和转向有机食品销售家庭农场上不仅包括肉类和生产，而且由于小麦胚芽面包和天然碱肥皂之类的东西，所生产的产品（如反对漂白的白面包和基于洗涤剂条石油）。有些人买这些产品直接来自家庭农场。“新家庭农场”提供了一种替代市场在一些地方与阵列的传统和自然产生的产品。

这样的“有机”和“自由”的农业是可以达到的，富裕的城市和郊区的相当数量的消费者愿意支付溢价的理想的“本地生产的产品”和“人道对待动物”。有时，这些农场的爱好或兼职的合资企业，或从其他来源的财富支持。可行的农场规模足以支持现代家庭的收入水平与城市和郊区的中产阶级的家庭往往是大型活动相适应的，无论在面积和资本要求。这些农场，家庭拥有和在技术上和经济上的常规的方式运行，生产的农作物和动物产品面向国内和国际市场，而不是当地市场。在评估这一复杂的经济形势，这是要考虑所有这些农场收入来源的重要；例如，农业补贴，美国政府提供的每年数百万美元。由于燃料价格上涨，运到国内和国际市场食品已经涨价。

参考文献

[1]J. Arbuckle.Non-operator landowner interest in agroforestry practices in two Missouri watersheds[D].Agroforestry Systems, 75 (2009), pp. 73–82

[2]C. Barbieri, E. Mahoney, L. Butler.Understanding the nature and extent of farm and ranch

diversification in North America[J].Rural Sociology, 73 (2008), pp. 205–229

[3]C. Barbieri, E. Mahoney.Why is diversification an attractive farm adjustment strategy? Insights

from Texas farmers and ranchers[J].Journal of Rural Studies, 25 (2009), pp. 58–66

[4]C. Barbieri, P. Mshenga.The role of firm and owner characteristics on the performance of

agritourism farms[D].Sociologia Ruralis, 48 (2008), pp. 166–183

[5]C. Barbieri, C. Valdivia.Recreational multifunctionality and its implications for agroforestry

diffusion[D].Agroforestry Systems, 79 (1) (2010), pp. 5–18

[6]D. Bateman, C. Ray.Farm pluriactivity and rural policy: some evidence from Wales[D].Journal of

Rural Studies, 10 (1994), pp. 1–13

[7]H. Garrett .North American Agroforestry: An Integrated Science and Practice [D].American

Society of Agronomy, Madison (2009), pp. 75–104

[8]S.J. Breckler.Empirical validation of affect, behavior, and cognition as distinct components of

attitude[D].Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47 (6) (1984), pp. 1191–1205

[9]L. Buck.Agroforestry policy issues and research direction in the U.S and less developed countries:

insights and challenges from recent experience[J].Agroforestry Systems, 30 (1995), pp. 57–73 [10]T. Dobbs, J. Pretty.Agri-environmental stewardship schemes and multifunctionality[D].Review

of Agricultural Economics, 26 (2004), pp. 220–237

FAMILY FARM

ABSTRACT

A family farm is a farm owned and operated by a family Like other family businesses and real estate, ownership often passes to the next generation by inheritance. It is the basic unit of the mostly agricultural economy of much of human history and continues to be so in developing nations. Alternatives to family farms include those run by agribusiness, colloquially known as factory farms, or by collective farming.

KEY WORDS Family Farm, Modern Agriculture, Development, Tactics United States legal definition

As defined by USDA regulations to farm loan programs (e.g. those administered by the Farm Service Agency), a family farm is a farm that:

(1)produces agricultural commodities for sale in such quantities so as to be recognized in the community as a farm and not a rural residence;

(2)produces enough income (including off-farm employment) to pay family and farm operating expenses, pay debts, and maintain the property;

(3)is managed by the operator;

(4)has a substantial amount of labor provided by the operato r and the operator’s family;

(5)may use seasonal labor during peak periods and a reasonable amount of full-time hired labor.

Perceptions of the family farm

In developed countries the family farm is viewed sentimentally, as a lifestyle to be preserved for tradition's sake, or as a birthright. It is in these nations very often a political rallying cry against change in agricultural policy, most commonly in France, Japan, and the United States, where rural lifestyles are often regarded as desirable. In these countries, strange bedfellows can often be found arguing for similar measures despite otherwise vast differences in political ideology. For example, Patrick Buchanan and Ralph Nader, both candidates for the office of President of the United States, held rural rallies together and spoke for measures to preserve the so-called family farm. On other economic matters they were seen as generally opposed, but found common ground on this one.

The social roles of family farms are much changed today. Until recently, staying in line with traditional and conservative sociology, the heads of the household were usually the oldest man followed closely by his oldest sons. The wife generally took care of the housework, child rearing, and financial matters pertaining to the farm. However, agricultural activities have taken on many forms and change over time. Agronomy, horticulture, aquaculture, silviculture, and apiculture, along with traditional plants and animals, all make up aspects of today's family farm. Farm wives often need to find work away from the farm to supplement farm income and children sometimes have no interest in farming as their chosen field of work.

Bolder promoters argue that as agriculture has become more efficient with the application of modern management and new technologies in each generation, the idealized classic family farm is now simply obsolete, or more often, unable to compete without the economies of scale available to larger and more modern farms. Advocates

argue that family farms in all nations need to be protected, as the basis of rural society and social stability.

Viability of the family farm

According to the United States Department of Agriculture, ninety-eight percent of all farms in the U.S. are family farms. Two percent of farms are not family farms, and those two percent make up fourteen percent of total agricultural output in the United States, although half of them have total sales of less than $50,000 per year. Overall, ninety-one percent of farms in the United States are considered "small family farms" (with sales of less than $250,000 per year), and those farms produce twenty-seven percent of U.S. agricultural output.

Depending on the type and size of independently owned operation, some limiting factors are:

(1)Economies of scale: Larger farms are able to bargain more competitively, purchase more competitively, profit from economic highs, and weather lows more readily through monetary inertia than smaller farms.

(2)Cost of inputs: fertilizer and other agrichemicals can fluctuate dramatically from season to season, partially based on oil prices, a range of 25% to 200% is common over a few year period.

(3)oil prices: Directly (for farm machinery) and somewhat less directly (long distance transport; production cost of agrichemicals), the cost of oil significantly impacts the year-to-year viability of all mechanized conventional farms.

(4)commodity futures: the predicted price of commidity crops, hogs, grain, etc., can determine ahead of a season what seems economically viable to grow.

(5)technology user agreements: a less publicly known factor, patented GE seed that is widely used for many crops, like cotton and soy, comes with restrictions on use, which can even include who the crop can be sold to.

(6)wholesale infrastructure: A farmer growing larger quantities of a crop than can be sold directly to consumers has to meet a range of criteria for sale into the wholesale market, which include harvest timing and graded quality, and may also include variety, therefore, the market channel really determines most aspects of the farm decisionmaking.

(7)availability of financing: Larger farms today often rely on lines of credit, typically from banks, to purchase the agrichemicals, and other supplies needed for each growing year. These lines are heavily affected by almost all of the other constraining factors.

(8)government economic intervention: In some countries, notably the US and EU, government subsidies to farmers, intended to mitigate the impact on domestic farmers of economic and political activities in other areas of the economy, can be a significant source of farm income. Bailouts, when crises such as drought or the "mad cow disease" problems hit agricultural sectors, are also relied on. To some large degree, this situation is a result of the large-scale global markets farms have no alternative but to participate in.

(9)government and industry regulation: A wide range of quotas, marketing boards and legislation governing agriculture impose complicated limits, and often require significant resources to navigate. For example, on the small farming end, in many jurisdictions, there are severe limits or prohibitions on the sale of livestock, dairy and eggs. These have arisen from pressures from all sides: food safety, environmental, industry marketing.

(10)real estate prices: The growth of urban centers around the world, and the resulting urban sprawl have caused the price of centrally located farmland to skyrocket,

while reducing the local infrastructure necessary to support farming, putting effectively intense pressure on many farmers to sell out.

Over the 20th century, the people of developed nations have collectively taken most of the steps down the path to this situation. Individual farmers opted for successive waves of new technology, happily "trading in their horses for a tractor", increasing their debt and their production capacity. This in turn required larger, more distant markets, and heavier and more complex financing. The public willingly purchased increasingly commoditized, processed, shipped and relatively inexpensive food. The availability of an increasingly diverse supply of fresh, uncured, unpreserved produce and meat in all seasons of the year (oranges in January, freshly killed steers in July, fresh pork rather than salted, smoked, or potassium-impregnated ham) opened an entirely new cuisine and an unprecedented healthy diet to millions of consumers who had never enjoyed such produce before. These abilities also brought to market an unprecedented variety of processed foods, such as corn syrup and bleached flour. For the family farm this new technology and increasingly complex marketing strategy has presented new and unprecedented challenges, and not all family farmers have been able to effectively cope with the changing market conditions.

Family farms in the 21st century

It is arguable whether any sort of "idyllic" life existed for most of the millions of family farms that have disappeared in recent decades. At the beginning of 20th century, an average farm in North America produced much less food per acre than it does nowadays. A likely conclusion is that for a time in the middle decades of the last century, a large number of farms achieved a temporarily comfortable position by capitalizing on rapidly emerging new technologies, markets, and growth-oriented philosophies. As growth and "production efficiency" kept increasing, this position began to reverse noticeably, at least by the 1970s. The number of farms, and of farm families living on the land, has dropped every decade in the United States since 1920. In

part this was a function of economies of scale and competitive pressures. In part it may be perceived as an indication that "family farming", in its raw, realistic form, is just plain hard work, with limited social and cultural opportunities, and competes poorly as an occupation and a "lifestyle" with urban and suburban opportunities.

In the current situation, for the independent "family farmer" to regain any sort of practical economic independence, it would seem necessary that the entire food industry be restructured. Furthermore, given the extreme number of defunct family farms, it is not so much a matter of saving or preserving the family farm, but of using the remaining knowledge, expertise and farms as the framework for the "new family farm." A serious question, however, is whether the entire food system should be "restructured" in order to preserve a failed or perhaps mythological ideal, or whether the population of the world, now approaching 7 billion people, will be sustained by a return to labor-intensive farming and local mom and pop marketing practices. The answer, however, can hardly be considered immediately obvious, especially since many of these 7 billion people might find they prefer growing food to current urban lower-class options such as data entry, food service, and telemarketing.

As an example of the evolution of the "family farm", the history of North Dakota is illuminating. Although originally developed as enormous "bonanza farms" in the 1870s, these were broken up and sold off into smaller holdings and other parts of the state were homesteaded in quarter section (160-acre (0.65 km2)) farms. The state was predominantly farmed by individuals and families by the 1920s and 1930s. The state enjoyed a populist boom in the early 20th century, as farmer-controlled legislatures gained control of the marketing and sale of agricultural products and placed it in state-sponsored cooperatives to enable smaller producers to escape the grip of the railroads and the industrialized food merchants. These polices have long since been abandoned. In 2007, most farmland in North Dakota remains owned by individuals. Corporate ownership of farmland has been illegal since a statewide voter initiative in 1933. The scale of agriculture in North Dakota, however, is not a hands-on family

operation of mixed agriculture. The typical dry-land wheat farm in North Dakota consists of several thousand acres with equipment on a scale to match. The produce of these farms is assembled on 120-car trains and shipped to distant markets as part of the international stream of commerce.

Farms such as this typically are aggregations of fifteen, twenty or more homesteaded quarter sections of land which at one time contained "family farms", as witnessed by the numerous abandoned farmsteads, ghost towns, and abandoned country churches and cemeteries memorializing a much larger rural population that is long since disappeared.

The thousands of abandoned or obliterated farmsteads and other evidence of rural depopulation in North Dakota, including many now-vacant and deteriorated homesteads which were thriving family farms into the 1970s, are a counterpoint to romantic notions of "family farming" in the 21st century.

Local food and the organic movement

In the last few decades there has been a resurgence of interest in organic and free range foods. A percentage of consumers have begun to question the viability of industrial agriculture practices and have turned to organic groceries that sell products produced on family farms including not only meat and produce but also such things as wheat germ breads and natural lye soaps (as opposed to bleached white breads and petroleum based detergent bars). Others buy these products direct from family farms. The "new family farm" provides an alternative market in some localities with an array of traditionally and naturally produced products.

Such "organic" and "free-range" farming is attainable where a significant number of affluent urban and suburban consumers willingly pay a premium for the ideals of "locally produced produce" and "humane treatment of animals". Sometimes, these farms are hobby or part-time ventures, or supported by wealth from other sources. Viable

farms on a scale sufficient to support modern families at an income level commensurate with urban and suburban upper-middle-class families are often large scale operations, both in area and capital requirements. These farms, family owned and operated in a technologically and economically conventional manner, produce crops and animal products oriented to national and international markets, rather than to local markets. In assessing this complex economic situation, it is important to consider all sources of income available to these farms; for instance, the millions of dollars in farm subsidies which the United States government offers each year. As fuel prices rise, foods shipped to national and international markets are already rising in price.

Reference

[1]J. Arbuckle.Non-operator landowner interest in agroforestry practices in two Missouri

watersheds[D].Agroforestry Systems, 75 (2009), pp. 73–82

[2]C. Barbieri, E. Mahoney, L. Butler.Understanding the nature and extent of farm and ranch

diversification in North America[J].Rural Sociology, 73 (2008), pp. 205–229

[3]C. Barbieri, E. Mahoney.Why is diversification an attractive farm adjustment strategy? Insights

from Texas farmers and ranchers[J].Journal of Rural Studies, 25 (2009), pp. 58–66

[4]C. Barbieri, P. Mshenga.The role of firm and owner characteristics on the performance of

agritourism farms[D].Sociologia Ruralis, 48 (2008), pp. 166–183

[5]C. Barbieri, C. Valdivia.Recreational multifunctionality and its implications for agroforestry

diffusion[D].Agroforestry Systems, 79 (1) (2010), pp. 5–18

[6]D. Bateman, C. Ray.Farm pluriactivity and rural policy: some evidence from Wales[D].Journal of

Rural Studies, 10 (1994), pp. 1–13

[7]H. Garrett .North American Agroforestry: An Integrated Science and Practice [D].American

Society of Agronomy, Madison (2009), pp. 75–104

[8]S.J. Breckler.Empirical validation of affect, behavior, and cognition as distinct components of

attitude[D].Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47 (6) (1984), pp. 1191–1205

[9]L. Buck.Agroforestry policy issues and research direction in the U.S and less developed countries:

insights and challenges from recent experience[J].Agroforestry Systems, 30 (1995), pp. 57–73

[10]T. Dobbs, J. Pretty.Agri-environmental stewardship schemes and multifunctionality[D].Review

of Agricultural Economics, 26 (2004), pp. 220–237