Search

Farm succession is a central issue in agricultural policy. Yet although many studies explore succession planning, little is known about how farms are actually transferred. We provide the first population‐level evidence on intergenerational farm succession by linking US census records for millions of farmers' children in 1900 and 1910 to identify which children own and operate the family farm up to 40 years later. We first show that daughters are rarely successors. Using a within‐family identification strategy, we find that first‐born sons are slightly more likely than their younger brothers to be successors while their parents are working aged. However, birth order is not predictive of who receives the farm when parents are older or deceased. For later farm transfers, sons who were previously tenant farmers are much more likely than their brothers to be successors, possibly because they are better prepared. Fewer than one‐fifth of farmers transfer their farm to any son. Our study relies on rich historical data because current policy prevents the necessary data linkages for studying intergenerational farm succession. Providing a secure system for researchers to link modern agricultural data to population microdata, similar to what has been achieved with other data sources, would yield crucial insights into long‐term agricultural policy issues in the US. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: A previous sales data analysis demonstrated success in selling healthier items at a concession stand. Questions remained regarding student satisfaction and whether the intervention reached non-health-conscious students. Methods: Cross-sectional anonymous samples of students at a large midwestern high school were surveyed before and after an intervention improved the number of healthier items available at the concession stand. Results: The survey was completed by 301 students preintervention and 314 students postintervention. Satisfaction remained good (3.7 preintervention and 3.6 postintervention). Satisfaction with the variety and taste of foods increased. We compared students who felt having healthy items were important at the concessions to those who did not. Overall satisfaction with concessions did not differ between groups. The latter group (healthy items not important) reported improved satisfaction with food variety (2.8 to 3.1, p = 0.02) and the former reported improved satisfaction with healthy foods (2.5 to 2.9, p = 0.03) and overall taste (3.2 to 3.4, p = 0.02). Of the healthy items not important students 76% reported purchasing at least 1 new healthier food. Conclusions: Adding healthier foods to school concession stands has positive effects on student satisfaction, sales, and reaches all students whether or not they care about having healthy items available.