_,:3::22,22::3:22;:5:, 3:. (\ ”Sum a «2 If I ,1: . {.I¢Il 1.1!! 1 1‘ . # I .bIt-I .II .t .11, ,. I . I . ...l l .‘lrillf J. r .. .ul. . o . .. p .. . r , a . . J . . . . . r u . ... i‘ \. r... ‘9 7w... .h. . a .mPfi‘.‘ q. . . v . v .. . a . L; . . . . ... .m.i¢.«b.3§£ 3E.?¢ .iiL... n5 ; .L? . ,. .n.».w......?..p..... kt...“ ,....%H.-.mm§m.§§$h...i x hart. ' . .41.! . ‘cfllu‘ . .s . .o \ .. ..i. .... flan-Pu .35.. ' ‘ s .T f x. o. r. .w .I *. ..- .. o. ’1. , .... a... w . w. w x navy: n. .\ 0‘? a , s v .1... a .i W "-w“¢ ...i‘ .n» .- n... ., . ..w a. . l . w . r. .I , V v ..v. . . i. .. . i. a w . .. ‘ N up 1/» r J ‘.. 4 m , - , .. a. SA a ..A. a, .....C - 1‘; .. ,. C.l...a‘.oos\~. wag? 9, ‘ .‘ XV . MICH. STATE UNIV. AGR ECON. DEPT. REFERENCE ROOM SOME PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH IAND TENURE IN THE DELTA COUNTIES OF ARKANSAS 3? Learrie White A Problem Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of Michigan State College of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Masters of Science Department of Agricultural Economics 1952 Acknowledgments The author viehee to expreee hie gratitude to all who helped with the coupletion of thie etudy and the preparation of the nenmoript. Valueble eeeietence was especially given by Professor Rdeigh Ber-love of the Agriculture]. Economice Department in the planning and eupervieion of the etndy. Thenke ere also due for Dr. Lippert s. Ellie. Director of the Arheneee Agricultural Experiment Stetion,for hie part in applying related etndiee in Lend 'i'enency in Arknneee. The author viehee to “knowledge the eeeietnnce given by Miee Adeline Banal for her eeeietnnce in typing the final mnecript. Finally, the enthor ie indebted to hie wife, Mollie. for her pntience end the eincere encouragement extending to him during all the etegee in the preparation of thie etudy. Although the contributions have been neny. the author neme full responeihilit: for any errore which any mu he preeent in the nennecript . Loam. White Liet of febleea Inhle e! Oontente Liet of figure" 1. 2. Chapter I . II. III. In‘romto‘ ...OOOIOOOOIOO 0000000 ’OOOOOCOOOeOOI. ..... 0 Purpoee and Method Brier deecriptioe of one net-l: ‘ni etorieel development of the plentet ion eyeten * Lend tenure in reletion to cotton growing Lend'l'ennre Situetion end Irena! ............ ......... Per cent of fern tenancy Preeent lend ownership eituetion Size or {me finder tenure coupe fern vnluee end equitiee by color of operator-e Average value of lend per acre h" Rho, “d ".miz‘tion 000000 O 0 O O C O O O O O O 0000000 . rare lnhor force See-one]. labor requirement labor of leniliee by tenure Invertence of neoheniention Huber of vorketock on fer-e Cotton productione preoticee in Arhnneee 1. B. 3. 4. 5. 6, 7, 8, 9. 10. 11. end 12. (d Q§OOU 11 18 Chnpter III . Gonbineticne of tractor and horse-drawn equipment Extent of fern nechnnieetion IV. Boone-lo end Soeiel Ghereoterietiee of Perl “tenancy .. Delte type one Inooee ' Swervieien Credit Health Advancement opportunitiee nobility Soil ooneervetion Shore cropping Tenure of pnrente Level of living Fertility index Federel prone-e and lend tenure 1. Problem Aeeocinted with Land Tenure ................ hr- ovnerehip Neinteinin‘ furl ownerehip Lenin; errengenente A. Vane rentel ngreuente 13. motion of leeeee O. Dietributicn of fern income Shore cropping 8m and Conclusions Bibliography e eeeeeeeeee e eeeeeeee eeeeeee eeeee eeeoooe 23 M O 3883 888 88883856 (II N OI Cpl J‘. Li at of i'ablee i'able M 1. Percent offenant Far-e .... 5b 2. Truth inland Ownership ... d 3. Siee error-ea in Selected Delta Countiee ............... 7 e. Tenure endmnber ef‘Operatore ......................... 9 8. Huber. Color. and i'ennre of Operator ................. ll 6. Value of Land and Buildin‘e by Color and lame of OpIrttOl‘o ee-eeeeeeeeeeeeeee‘eeeeyeetttettteQtttteeoeeeee 11 7. Average Value etI-andPerLere ................ ........ .12 B. Chance in Coupeeition of Ian Labor Force ..............15 9. timber of hailiee. By Tenure and Countiee. 1%8-44 .... 19 10. Ember of Work-nook kept on rarae. 1930.50 ............. 23 ll. Tractore Per 10.000 Acres of Gropland. 3y Period e! Tractor Uee end Yeare. Delta Type Area. 1939—“ ........ 25 12. leohanioel Power Undonrarne. 1930-50 ................ 27 List of Illustrations irignre Page 1. Trends in fern tenancy ............................... 5a 2. Trends in Mechanical Power Used on liens. 1930-50 ....27a 3. Index of Land Prices in the Southwestern States. 1920- 1916 OOOOOOOOOOOOOeOOOe eoOeDeco...Ie-OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM SOHE PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH LAND TENURE I] THE DELTA COUNTIES OI ABIAISLS CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION rare tenancy in the State of Arkansas has received a great deal of attention in recent years. as is reflected in the work of the Regional Land Tenure Research.ProJect and several other tenure studies made in the State. The percentage of tenancy is not evenly distributed throughout the state. and studies show that high tenancy is associated with counties where the under staple cash crops are largely grown. Tenancy is highest in the botto- lands of the Mississippi. loner Arkansas. and Red River Valley. where most of the fare land is used primarily for the production of cotton. W. The purpose of this study will be that of presenting. critically analysing. and interpreting the fare tenancy mum... in the Delta Counties of Arkansas. Even though some progress has been made in solving some tenure problems. there still rennin nunsrous problems yet unsolved. After carefully examining and evlaunting different tenure practices. suggestions will be ends for certain lines of action for their improvement. The counties selected as being typical of this area were Chicot. Mississippi. and St. Francis. Host of the data used in this study was secured primarily from the United States Census of Agriculture and publications from Arkansas Agricultural Experiment Station. W. The Delta area includes the counties lying in the fertile botton lands of the Mississippi. lower Arkansas. and Red River Valleys. In this area the plantation type of firming prevails. Under it large-scale pro- duction aethods are employed on five or acre contiguous or nearly con- tiguous tracts of land. marked by renters and croppers. Artificial drain- age is necessary in parts of these areas because of the comparatively level topography and heavy seasonal rainfall. Sons of the farms in Chioot county have a relatively large percentage of land uncleared and undrained. or in the process of clearing and drainage. The land in most parts of flieeise- ippi County is well drained and iaproved. The invention of the cotton gin in 1793 greatly reduced the cost of producing cotton and thereby stimulated its production. The pioneer planters found the necessary physical and clinatical requirements for grow- ing. cotton along the Arkansas and Red Rivers in what is now the Delta counties‘of the Arkansas. Cotton. better than any other crop. conformed lost perfectly to the conditions necessary to the profitable use of slave labor. lurthermore. cotton-growing afforded enploynent for nine months whereas the crops raised on the uplands gave enployment for less than six nonths. When not employed on the cotton crops. the slaves were used to . clear more land. These facts partially explain the close correlation be- tween cotton production and the number of slaves. The fact that a relatively large aaount of slave labor could be profitably employed per acre in cotton-raising meant that large numbers of slaves must be housed and fed on the fare. It was found that this could be accoaplished nest economically by concentrating then around one center on the fare. This aethod of handling slave labor gave rise to the planta- tion system. The river bottom and lowlands of eastern. southern. and southwestern Arkansas were given over to the large cotton plantations. sole of thee consisting of several thousands of acree. The slave population in 1860 was 111.118. and had acre than doubled during the decade 1850 to 1860. This growth occurred nostly in the bottom lands along the rivers. owned by wealthy planters. In six counties there were more slaves than whites: Chicot. for instance. had 7.152 legroes to 1.723 whites. There were few Regroes in the hilly or lountainoue counties. The increase in the number and value of slaves ha! each to do with this growth of property values. but not all by any aeans.1 WW- llost of the fares in the cotton growing district are of less than 50 acres each. and. in general. the farmer is not the owner of the land. As a rule. the large land holdings are divided into tracts varying in sise free 10 to 100 acres each. These seall tracts are leased to cotton fara- ers. On scae plantations. such as the R. 1!. Lee wilson plantation. near .. Wilson, Arkansas. and the V. W. Driver plantation near Osceola. Arkansas. the resident owner fares a considerable part of the land. Other lands on these plantations are leased in seall tracts to tenants. Land ownership and leasing systens have a direct bearing upon the utilisation of the cropped land. Land owners require their tenants (1) to grow cotton. because the cash value of crop rent per acre of cotton is 1‘ Thoaas. n. 1.. «1.. mumm, Vain-e 1 and 2. pp 55-67; 113-117; 390.402. . acre than that of any other general field crop. or (2) to pay such high cash not per acre that they are forced to grow cotton in order to pay the rental charge. Further. the custom of accepting a prospective cotton crop as collateral for loans. and that of aaking accounts. notes. and mortgages fall due at cotton picking tine which is around first of Septsaber. These cuetoas which are adapted to cotton farming tend not only to favor the continuation of cotton growing by established farmers. but also to induce new colors to engage in cotton faraing.1 1' The Geography of the St. Francis Basin by Samuel T. Bratton. The University of Missouri Studies. A Quarterly of Rgsearoh. CELPTER II LAND THUR“ SITUATION AND TRENDS W- In 1900 over two-thirds of the fares in each of the counties: Chicot. Mississippi. and St. Prancis were operated by tenants. At this tine Chicot County had the largest percent; Mississippi County 70.0 percent. and St. Francis County 70.? percent for this sane period (see table I and figure 1). During the first decade after the 1900 agricultural census. the percent of farms operated by tenants increased 6.8 percent in Chicot County. 11.6 percent in Mississippi County. and 6.2 percent in St. Francis County. There was a rapid increase in the number of tenant Operated farms up until 1980. at which time tenancy in the State and in each of these Delta counties reached its peak. During this period when tenancy reached its peak. Viesiss- ippi county had the largest percent of tenant operated farms with 90.3 percent. while both Chicot and St. Francis county had 87.? percent each. After this period there was a steady decline in the percent of tmant operated ferns. During the decade 1930-40. the percent of tenant operated fares declined 12.4 percent in Chicot county: 12.9 percent in Miss- issippi county. and 7.2 percent in St. Francis county. During the war years 1940-45. the percent of tenant fares decreased 5.7 percent in Chicot county. §.8 percent in St. Francis county. while ‘ those in Hiesi‘ssippi county increased 1.5 percent. During the half century 1900-50. the percent of tenant operated farls decreased 7.0 percent for the State as a whole: 20.2 percent for Chicot county; while Mississippi county had an increase of 8.9 percent. and 5.1 percent increase in St. Francis County during this same period. \iu. ‘u'l 'll 37. 7" 1”‘ INCH 1 In U A h. Al. FIGURE 1. TRENES IN FA? 3‘. TENANCY -53.. ‘4. --hhnt‘ l l l by*.. — __—A____ w H,__ ._ if, a -51... Table 1: Percent Tenant Farms. Arkansas and Selected Delta Counties. a K W1 1.”. State and Selected Counties___ _ Arkansas fiChioot Mississippi ' St. Francis - Per cent Per cent Per cent Per cent 1900 05.1. 78.2 70.0 70.7 1910 50.0 ‘ Bins 81.6 76.9 1920 51.3 83.9 82.9 79.2 1925 56.7 86.6 88.1 82.9 193$ 63.0 87.7 90.3 87.7 1935 60.0 80.0 85.8 83.1 19140 53. 3 75. 3 77. h ' 80 . 5 1905 no.6 69.6 80.9 76.7 19” 3796 5800 7809 7508 1. Source: U. 5. Census of Agriculture Won- The land ownership situation in all three selected counties has changed considerably during the last 20-years (tableg". According to the Table 2:: Trends in Land Ownership in Delta Counties. 1930.001 County and Tours w: Chests...— of Operator 1930 m 1950 m3; zgzggt ' Acres Acres Acre s Acres Chicot: . Total land in far- 148.867 238.047 272.818 4123.249 83.0 Land owned 31,394 105.332 198.580 0187.188 832.5 had rented e . 100,797 s7,ssi - 13,438 '13.3 Morse- use ful- se.9 57.3 112.5 778.8 213.4 Hissiseippi: - ' Total land in fara 335,034 491.408 499.041 7114.007 34.0 mt! 0"? 48.895 155.913 227.337 472.544 300.9 d "n '4 . 307 208 388.881 4 07 052 10.7 Aver-lee the farm 31.7 51.2 59.9 38.2 120.3 St. Francis: Total land inferno 268.824 300.203 347.789 «0 88.985 34.4 Land owned 116.318 127.183 221.879 4108.884 90.8 Land rented - 150.212 188.282 2. 37.970 25.3 Average sise of farms 39.3 55.0 70.8 30.8 77.4 0 not available 1’ Source: 0. 8. Census of Agriculture 1980 mliainary census of saioulturs. all three counties showed large percentage increases in the aaount of land owned. The nest striking increas‘ (percentagewise) for the 90 year period (1930-80) took place in Chicot County. Counties respectively were 833; 3873 and 91. The percentage increases for Chicot. hississippi. and 3t. Praneis The largest increase in the caliber, of acres rented by operators took place in St. Francis county. The percentage increases for Mississippi and 8t. heads counties were 19 and 25. while Chicot county showed a de- -7- crease of 13 percent in this tenure group. Wi- All counties showed large increases in the average else of fares during this period. The largest increase (percentagewise) occurred in Chicot county (213.4 percent): 120.8 percent in Mississippi county. and 77.4 percent in St. Francis county. The increase in the average size of ferns has been favored by two factors: (1) increasing fara mechanization. and (2) the scarcity of fan labor during the war years. Para aechsnisa- tion has ends it possible for aany owner and tenant families to expand their faraing operations and has aade it desirable and economic to buy or rent additional land. Between 1940 and 1950 the amber of small fares containing less than ten acres showed a large decrease. while those ferns between 220 and 800 acres acre than doubled. (table ‘3) . Table 1:. Sise of fuss in Selected Delta Counties. 1920.001 lies of Taras Selected Periods Change 1940 1948 1980 luaber Percent 0-9 acres 2 .892 l .885 1 .848 - 747 -28 . 8 10-29 D 7.320 8.398 8.213 -1 .00? -13.7 30-49 '- 3.573 3 . 449 2 .387 -1 .185 .33 . 2 50-59 ' 899 908 828 -' 73 - 8.1 70-99 " 1.244 1.042 1.072 - 172 .13.1 . 100-139 " 533 552 579 e 1.5 27.4 140-179 " 453 380 381 - 82 .17.? 180-319 " 185 147 182 .. 3 .. 1.5 220-289 " 118 104 189 e 51 43.2 250-999 ' 481 495 573 e 192 39.9 1000 and over 108 98 152 4 45 43.4 1‘ Total nuaber for Chicot. Mississippi and St. Francis counties. Source: U. 8. Census of A‘riculture The largest decreases in the smaller size far-s occurred in the classes 80-29 acres. There was a 33.2 percent decrease in the close 30-49 acres and a 13.7 poi-«at decrease in the on“ 10.29 acres. Other enall far-e up to 1m acres showed slight decreases. The 140-179 acre claes showed a decree- of 17.7 percent. while the 180-219 acre class had a decrease of only 1.8 percent. the contiaed clasees 220-999 had a 83 percent increase while those fares of 1000 acres and over showed an increase of 43.4 percent for thie I period. The trend toward increased eiee of ferns is quite evident fron this data and free all indications this trend is expected to continue. Wham- i'he tenure classification used by the census apply only to fare. operators and they nay be broken down further to full owners. part owners. tenants. and croppere. The operator is a person who operates and directs a fare unit on his own responsibility. The full owners are those who on all the land they operate. Most of then hold their farm in fee sinple ownership and thus have exclusive rights or «hat in quite often called a |“bundle" of rights. Ii‘heir power to use or nisuse theirlland is restricted only by the State's exercise of its powers of police. taxation. and eninent donnin. ‘ Next in importance to the full owner group are the part owners. They are far-ere who on part and rent part of the land they operate. Bone- tiaee their cued holdings are call in comparison with their leased hold- ings. Manytines these operators have growing faailies and rent additional land so as to adapt the sire of their fern business to their expanding far- fsnily labor mpply. Othere rent land in addition to that they own home!» of the inflated land prices which snakes it nore economical to rent land and inveet their capital in equipment and other capital assets. rho fern nenager group is very eaall in nunher relative to the jprevious nontioned groups. Quite often they are need on the larger planta- tions because of the day to day supervision carried on. In aany cases they are specially trained and fitted for their act. In caee ef the tenant operators. title to 1and and ite inproveeents is vested in a pereen other than the operator. a person called the landlord. the tenant's poseession is only tenporary and he frequently shares annagerid rights in the far-tag bueinees with the landlord. i'enante any be further broken down into cad. share. and share-cash. Gash tenants are quite often regarded as the higheet and nest efficient group because they possess nore capital assets. tab all the riots cf’fnrning. aad.aake caeh payaents for the land they rent. The char. tenante operate more on a partnerehip baeie with the land- 1erd supplying varying anounts of power. equipent. feed. production cost etc. Under this arrange-cut the landlord receives his rent in kind and. . thus aseunes part of the risks froa poor crepe and/or low fern prices. The amber of full owners in Mississippi and St. Francis comtiee reached their peak in 1940. The number of full ownere showed an increase of 7.8 percent in Miseiseippi county and 20.8 percent increase in St. Irancis county for this seae period (table 4) . 1' b "' '- i‘ Numb e t 930-801 County and Selected Periode ...lemue ber Hun r Run or Run or Percent Iiississippi run more 873 1.437 941 e 88 7.8 Part owners 113 303 813 e 400 353.9 Hanagere 38 41 52 4 18 44.4 St. Francis . Tull owners 734 947 888 e 181 20.6 Part owners 82 89 278 e 224 430.8 Managers 17 27 30 e 13 78.8 393 3.738 .1 .gg 45.9 ML 1. Source: 0.8. Census of Agriculture -10.- !he part owner clase in both counties showed a steady increase dur- ing this period. hississippi county showed a 384 percent increase compared with a 431 percent increase in St. Francis county. i'here has been a alight increase in the amber of annegers in both counties. i'he percutagc increase for Mississippi and St. Francis counties respectively were 44.4 and 78.8. The nunber of tenants. unlike the three previous nentioned tenure groups have shown a steady decline since 1930. i'his. however. is not re- gretted since the amber of people in agriculture is far too may. and there is an inverse-relationship between the nunber of people in agriculture and their per capital incone. II'he percentage decrease in this tenure group for Iieeieeippi and 8t. Prnncie counties respectively are 41.1 and 35.0. Sinilnr decreaeee also occurred in Chicot county in this group. WW- During the 18 year period 1930-48. St. Francis county showed an increase of 8.8 percent in the nuaber of white operators yhile the percent of nm-white operators had a decrease of 29.8 percent (table '57). There was a 83 percent increase in the nunber of cuts full owners in this county (St. Francis) while the non-white an more towed an in- crease of 17.4 percent. here was no significant changes in the nunber of nanagers in this county. There has been a considerably large decrease in the tenant group aeong both races. The percentage decmeos in this tenure group for white and non-white respectively are 22 and 33. county. Color and -11... Selected Periods 9 . lumber lumber Ember Number Percent St. Prancis All White Operators 1.424 1.553 1.803 e 79 5.5 ' Pull owners 350 878 840 e 290 82.9 Part owners 29 88 87 e 28 98.8 Hence-re 17 27 23 e o 29.4 Tenants 1.028 1.282 784 - 224 -2l.8 All nu-white Operators 8.083 3.903 3.585 -l.498 -29.8 Pall owners 384 372 481 e 87 17.4 Part owners 23 23 18 - 7 -30.4 "mar. .0 c. u. o. sass i'enants 4.878 8.371 3.118 al.888 -33.3 1 8. 5. Ceneus of Agriculture E To . There has been a steady incrcaee in the Value of land and buildinge held by white operators while this relationship has been Just the reverse for non-mite operators (table 6}. 'i'able .5, Value of Land andégfifings by Color and Tenure of Operators. 1 Selected Periods county. Color m ' _ w Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars brunt chicott White operators 4.198.827 8.301.887 6.783.788 42.587.039 81.8 Ion-white operstu's4.449.838 2.382.918 2.783.981 ol.885.887 -37.9 Mississippi lhite operators 22.080.87839.705.738 81.889.207 424.488.822 110.9 lm-dlite operators 10.448.841 8.314.883 7.882.823 - 2.882.918 -24.8 88. ”8.11018 white operatorc 4.880.828 7.819.889 11,883,478 e 7.302.947 159.4 lei-into Operatore 7.822.G58 4.233.201 8.838.121 - ...983.914 -28.0 1. source: 8. 8. Census of Agriculture -13.. During the 18 years period (1“). the value of land and hildings held by white operators in Chicot county towed aa‘inorsass of 82 per seat. while tbt of non-white operators had a decrease of 38 per cent. 1 siailar pattern also took place in lississippi and 8t. frenois counties. Iva: though there was a not decrease in the value of non-white operators' land and buildings for the entire period. there we a alight increase in each of the three counties dflb ing the war years. i'his increase. however. no probably brought about by acre favorable prices for farn products during this period. It was also dis- covered that the lack of iaproveaent and aaintenance en the part of the non- unite operators was an inportant factor which caused their property to decrease in value. Wo the average value of land per acre has increased considerably in both Iliasissippi and St. Francis counties. while Chicot county showed only a slight increase (Table 7). a W 0m” and Ian M cheese 9 Dollars Dollare Dollars Dollars Per cent Moot: . ‘7.” "1" p82 881'. mom 838.80 mel‘ '9' 1e” Se‘ hississippi: Average value per acre 97.03 ' 238.84 4138.78 142.9 St. Francis: Average value per acre 47.18 39.18 89.01 4 41.88 88.8 1. Source: 0. 8. census of Agriculture. i'he nest striking increase in the average value of land occurred in Mississippi county. The percentage increase in the average value of land per acre for Ohicet. Mississippi. and 8t. Francis counties reepectivoly were 3.4: 143: and .13- 89. he great difference in the average value of land in hissisoippi county as coepared with Chicot county was due largely to the degree of land inprcvenent carried a between the two counties. Most of the land in Kieoisoippi county has been cleared and drained. whereas Chicot county is Just beginning to nab one head way in this work. CHAPTER III COMPOSITION AND CHANGES IE FARM LABOR FORCE In recent years significant changes have taken place in the composi- tion and also in the nunber of persons in the fare labor classes. Part of this change occurred as the results of increased use of fern nechanisation. but aootly became of the rapid rate of out-aigration of fern tenants to, the larger netropolitan areas. This trend. if continued. is expected to help elininato none of the problems of agriculture and especially Southern agriculture where the heaviest concentration of the lower status groups are found. Wm. According to the 1950 prelininary census of agriculture large changes took place in the different fern labor classes. The family and/er hired worker class lost heavily (percentagewise) in both Chicot and Mississippi counties. For this class. Mieoiesippi county had the largest loss with -38.1 per out free 1910 to 1950: ~35.8 per cent for Chicot county. while 5t. Irenois county showed a 46.7 per cent for the sane period (Table 8). 1n the faaily workers including operators class all three counties lost heavily. i'he' largest loss occurring in Chicot county with a -61.8 per cent. -5&.0 per cent in Mississippi county. and a -33.5 per cent in St. Francis county. Part of this loss was caused by the induction of non into the arned forces together with a rapid rate of migration of people to defense Jobs in the cities. The 19140 figures were not available for conparison in the operatoroand unpaid neebers of faaily classes. It is believed. however. that a similar pattern existed in each of these classes. a 15 ¢ Table 8: Changes in the Composition of Fara Labor Force. 1940-50 Counties - - Labor 01”." Chicot Per cent Mississippi Per cent at. mg“ p.1- ‘0 or - t or - change A ’ ‘ an integer Huber F r ent er un or or eat um e e Per d: 1’ and ’0’ e c c r r cc hired workers 3,031 3,670 «$6.6 19.446 12.032 -38.1 7.182 7.666 46.7 fully workers including ' operators 4.993 1 .907 -61 .8 ll .396 6.252 o64.0 6. 996 3 .969 .33 . 6 Operators " l .662 «- " 6 . 116 . - ' 8 .906 -- Unpaid members of fuily * 801 .. ' l .486 - ‘ 1.136 - -_- Hired workers ' 1.217 .- 0.051 6.t39 .32.6 1.167 3.61? 4120.5 . lot available It. francia county gained greatly 1. the hired wcrhers class with a name per cent 1mm Mississippi county 1m heavily (-324 per cent). The mo figures for Chicot county were not available for comparison. Part. of the persons lost in Iiueieeipvpi in this class was partly reflected in the large indifease in St. Francis county. since plantation to plantation migration is very comeain this area. I ‘i 23:11..er lore; .1 p r nccording to a recent study nadsin‘ Arbnsae the union. were aainly one-fanily farms. with nest of the work being done by the operator «lily. 0a the aediun sired farce. the operator feaily handled the senor portion ‘y oré""the crop. but there were nearly as many workers frca mm faailies aslfrohathe‘ operator feailteed‘ On the large ferns. the operator faailiee averaged «1.3 Wer aorta-rs. as coapared. with 34 cropper miners. Other t’enants and resident wage hands pron- video a”. additional workers. T: if. In addition to these resident wot-here. day hands were fiil‘?‘ to help ., t , , _ y . k (X I -16- vith the operators cotton on the large fame. and to some extent on the medium sised far-s. These day hands were used prinarily in the cotton chapping and harvesting operations. In 1947. the United States Department of Agriculture published Prelimin- 51 Survey of Dialer Areas aw “Out-Side Labor-1 ..4 on we 56 m .h. (on..- ing to say about Arkansas: I"1'he Arkansas. white. St. Francis. and Mississippi River Valleys in Arkansas. annually produce about 1.300.000 acres of cotton. and! at the peak of the harvest about 36.000 outside workers are needed. Picking gets under way about Septeaber l and is usually over by Deceaber 16. With bad weather it nay run into January or ram. In addition to the cotton crop there is alse grou in the section scae 627.000 acres of rice. the harvesting of which reauires an additional l.600 outside workers froa Septeaber l to November 16. Here the outside workers are also skits and Negro far-ere. operators and tenants ef small subsistence fares. coming froa the nearby hill counties of Arhnus and Missouri. A considerable nuber of Latin Americans also cans in tron Southern Texas for cotton picking.‘ In 1946. the following stateaent appeared in W- W. the past season report of the Arkansas State Employ-neat Service: 'An ever increasing nunber of fare tractors are nor beingifused. While this usage tends to reduce the labor requirenenta preceding and during the plant- iag eeasm. it has resulted in greater acreage and. therefore. has stilulated the demand for choppers and pickers. It is estimated that approximately 260 nechanicsl pickers were used during the harvest season last year (1947). any of then for the first tias.‘ #‘ ~— f 'Outside labor' refers to those living too far froa the field to commute daily. ‘ . ‘ 1. -17.. WW- Cotton remains the most important single source of farm income in Arkansas. Next in importance to cotton as a cash crop is rice. As with most types of agricultural production. rice farning requires considerable labor. much of which is seasonal in nature. In most cases a great deal of this labor is recruited within the local area. During the war’yeare. however. recruit- aent of labor needed for harvesting rice with the binder-thresher method was difficult. 1Rice farmers like cotton farmers are confronted with two periods of heavy labor demands. This demand varies in intensity. depending upon the other crops grown and the method of harvest used. With the binder method of harvesting. the first peak labor load occurs during June and the first part of July. in connection with the cat harvest. However. the period of heaviest labor demand is associated with the rice harvest. which begins early in September with binding andrshoohing. and ends with the threshing operation which is generally finished around Nov- eaber 15. During these peak periods operators who'ase the binder method hire considerable outside labor. A common practice is to exchange work with neighbors to make up the threshing crews. but generally it is possible to provide only a.part of the workers required for the threshing operations in this way. With the binder method of harvesting. about be per cent of the~ total labor required in the production of rice. and about 50 per cent of that required for oats. must be hired or obtained through exchange of sem- viees with neighbors. Approximately 3.000 hours of labor are required dur- 1. Comparison of Firming systems for shell rice farms in Arkansas. Bul. “98. pa 19s -13- ing the entire year for the rice-oats-lespedeea system when the harvesting is done with binders. and about 40 per cent of the total aust be hired from off the fare. i‘hese estinates assume two full-tine workers in the operator's labor force. One of the chief advantages of the combine method of harvesting is the reduction in the amount of labor required for harvesting rice and other crops. For the rice-cats-lespedeea system the total labor required for the entire production and harvesting operation is only two-thirds as much as is required with the binder method. northerner-e. the fact that combine harvest— ing eliminates much of the labor needed at peak seasons results in a more even labor distribution and makes it possible for two-full-time workers to perform approximately 80 per cent of all work required for the year.1 The number of resident families and single wags hands per 10,000 acres of cropland continued to decline through the 1939-44 period. There were roughly 100 fewer families and wage hands per 10.000 acres of cropland on surveyed farms in 1944 than in 1932 for all of the counties except Clark and Chicot. where decreases in numbers were greatest. Resident families per 10.000 acres of cropland land ranged from 462 in Chicot county in 1932 down to 90 in Independence county in 1944 (Table 9). In 1944 there were only about two-thirds as many renters per 10.000 acres of cultivated land in the Delta counties. The number of share—croppers families in 1944 had also declined to about one-third to slightly more than one-half of the nurbzrs in 1932. except in Mississippi and Pulaski counties 1' rarming system for small farms inhrhansas. Bul. 498. June. 1950. pp. l9-Zl. . -19- where the shift from wage families to share croppers.u begun in 1940 and 1941. was especially strong in 1943 and 1944. In the Delta type area. where 11me of wage families were relatively high in the late 1930's and early 1940's there were only about one-half of the 1932 nnabers of these families in Chicot and.fliseissippi counties and a little more than ane-third.ln Pulaski county where competition for labor in war industry was most acute. In 1909 slightly more than one-half of the labor force in the Delta county was composed of share-cropper fanilies. and about one-fourth wage families. In 1944 the proportion had shifted to slidltly more than two-birds for the share-croppers and about one-sixth for the wage families . 1W- In recent years a new factor has entered in farm mechanisation. Many cotton and rice farmers in the Delta counties and other counties of the State Table 9: Nunber of Families. by Tenure and by Counties. 1938 and 1944 t 1 e a 1 a A 3111 U lan WM?! Pnla Clad: POW Tenure 1m 1944 1933.19“ 1933 19441933 19“ me 1944 1938-1944 Ho. no. no. no. No. n37. no. lo. lo. Re. no. lo. Share rentersll44 1e? 23 22 39 as as so so 28 as 25 Share croppers 373 307 360 341 477 348 9'7 47 9 6 6 7 You faniliee 177 55 248 134 103 31 1 2 5 3 1 3 Single wage hands 28412211241712 0040 total 722 570858608 «3420131 31 70 37 as so rubs: ferns 24 33 :51 so 31 as 31 so so 33 34 32 1. Seven cash-renter families included with share renters for 1938. and 12 for 1944. Source: Arkansas Irperinent Station. Bull. 459 are looking to mechanization to cut labor costs of sons. or all. or their Operations. But there are still a lot of questions which need to be worked out. For example. that variety of cotton is best adapted to nechanisation? When is the best tine to plant them and how far apart should the rows be spaced? Aside from these. there are questions as to the desirability of flame cultivation. and ways of thinning to replace hand chcpping. In elimina- ting one problem with machines quite often we introduce others. such as the need for first defoliating the plant before a machine can strip the bolls. All of these factors have to be carefully studied and evaluated in the ligtt of their practability and their economic soundness if we are to have a better southern agriculture. The 1949 issue of the W describes the situation in the below manner: I"i'he use of mechanised equipment is steadily on the increase. particularly in the plowing. planting and cultivation of cotton crops. This year mechanical cotton choppers were used in several instances. and landowners found this method and cross row culti- vation to be superior to hand labor. lthere was a definite increase in all areas in the use of mechanical cotton pickers. although no figure is available as to the total number in operation. A Pine Bluff plant is new manufacturing the Rust Picker; several sales were nade locally. and planters observed first hand the advantages and disadvantages of their operation. The Blytheville area alone had 100 pickers in operation. It is the general opinion that the mechanical picker can be used successfully and economically when the cotton harvest reaches the pulling state but that the amount of debris gathered by the machine along with the cotton lowers the -21- quality. and therefore. makes it impracticable for use in the fir! picking and for preniun cotton.’ “Mechanisaticn is not expected to reduce the demands for labor materially in the near future. r...» out-of-state workers nay be needed during the chopping season. in the not-tocodistant future. .1 and it appears likely that. if mechanization is used acre for snapp- ing and pulling. the duration of high labor demands for the harved will be shortened. The high level of employment experiencednor- mally during most of the harvest probably will not be lowered by mechanization mu improvements are‘made to eliminate the amount of trash gathered by the machine; new methods are~devi sad to change froa the commonly used drill planting to check row planting; and cotton gins are equipped to extract the 11m;- gathered with the cotton.“ .-) In 1960. the post-season report series carried the following quo- taticn: ”Because of the late crop and heavy rains. very little cotto1 in 1960 was harvested by medzanical pickers. lurther inproment in such nachines and more gins «All require changes to better handle machine-picked cotton. before general use of mechanised pickers can be nads.‘ "Continued orpansicn in use. of mechanical cotton choppers occurred during the year. as well as in check-row planting. with both developments helping to loosen the need for hand labor for cotton chopping activity." WW. During the last twenty years the number of workstock kept on farms have decreased considerably. Changes that have taken place in Southern Agri- culture. as the results of increased use of mechanical power. was little drowned of twenty years ago. According to the 1950 preliminary census of agriculture. Chicot county showed a decrease of 1.679 horses (51.6 Per cent) since 1930: Mississippi had the heaviest losses in this class both in number and.per cent. In number Miss- issippi showed a decrease of 8.602 (83.9%) and St. Francis county had a de- crease of 4.332 (68 sit) for nu. same period (table 10). In the horses and colts including ponies class. Chicot loss for this period was 189 (9.55); Mississippi last was 402 (28.55:). and St. Francis showed a slight gain of 106 (7.1%) during this period. Table 10: Nunber of Workstcck kept on rams. 19:50-49:50.1 County and kind of Workstock Selected.Iears Changes in: 1930 1940 1950 Number Per cent Chicot: w Horses and/or mules 3.253 ‘ 1.574 - 1.679 «51.6 Horses and colts . including ponies 2.001 1.805 1.812 ~ 189 - 9.5 holes and nule colts 6.491 5.744 2.660 - 2.651 -51.6 Mississippi: _ Horses and [or mules, 10.260 ’ 1.658 - 8.602 —83.9 Horses and colts ‘ including ponies 1.412 2.312 1.010 - 402 -26.5 Hules and.mu1e colts 19.441 17.567 4.671 -14.770 .76.0 8‘s rm¢1I3 I new. and/or Inna. 5.319 a 1.937 - 4.332 45.5 horses and colts including ponios 1.487 1.678 1.593 e 106 e 7.1 Hulee and mule colts 9.566 7.134 6.119 - 5.466 .36.? l. 9 Not available Source: U. 3. Census of Agriculture For the mule and sale colt classes Chicot had a decrease of 2.831 (51.6%); Mississippi county had an enormous decrease of 14.770 (76.0%). and St. -23- Francis had a decrease of 3.466 (36.34)_ for this class during this period. Ire- thie data it is quite evident that the workstock is really loos- in; in inportance in these counties. and tron all indication this trend is ex- pected to continue. WWW-1 The principal variation found in producing cotton in the Delta area were those associated with the sise ot tern and which resulted prinarily tron the different kinds of power and equipnent used. Production operations and practices were limited mainly to hand and vorketock nethods on the snail terns. but tractor equipent was found in use on nest ot the large terns; Although aechenical equip-eat tor chopping and harvesting cotton hes been on the aarhet tor sons tine. its pertornance has not been entirely entit- tactory and at the tine of this study its use was rather liaited. Very tee shoppers and only one nechanical picker was found in use on the sample tar-s. It appears that. tor the inediate tuture. tern operators will contime doing these Jobs eith hand labor. this labor nay cone tron tanilies kept on the tars or tron ottatara nearby cities. there has been an increasing tendency on the part ct tare operators to use ott—tare labor tor these seasonal Jobs rather than keep cropnere on' the tern. WTWW' According to a recent study. the coabination of horse and tractor equipnent was found on the large and nediun sited terns. This situation re- sulted tron the tact that these terns were Just beginning to sake the shift to tractors and tron the practice at eons of the large operators ct using a 1' Cotton Production Practices in Arkansas. by HM. Slusher and F. Scoggins. 3111. 50?. April. 1951. p. 60. 2. Rul. 507, pp 79-79 -34.. tractor on the cotton they operated. and also using it,to do the heavy-draft land preparation operations on land tar-ed by croppers. When horse and tractor equipnent were used in conbination. the usual practice was to use the tractor equipnent for all of the seedbed preparation operations and the horse equip-ant tor planting and other opera- tions. when this procedure was followed. about 38 non. 3 tractor. and 22 horse hours were used per acre tor the pro-harvest operations. WW- Studies show that the increase in the number ct tractors per 10.000 acres of cropland was consistent during the entire 1939-44 period. this increase was greatest in Iississippi where the nunber ct workstock used flowed the largest decrease in umber. According to this study in 1941. per 10.000 acres ct cropland. there were on has surveyed in the Delta Type Area 14 S-rcw and three t-row culti- wators. i'here were also tire a-row and three t-row planters. By 1944 there tas a 50 per out increase in these types of cultivators and planters. At this tine only one aechanical chopper was in use on the tarns smeyed. In 1944 the nunber et shoppers in use increased to tire. the umber ot operators check-rowed cotton increased tron three in 1941 to 10 in 1944. the nuaber of work stock per 10.000 acres of cropland in various counties in 1044 were: Chicot 595. hissiseippi 800 and Pulaski 872. Sons of the operators with tractors indicated that the nuabsr ot workstook being kept by then at that tine was in excess ct their needs. Other findings renal that wage taailies and single wage hands node n a higher proportion ot the labor torce on terse on. which tractors had been used longest. Renters nade up a naJor part ot the labor torce only tor the group of tarae on which no tractors were used (table 11). the amber of tractors per 10.000 acres of cropland tron 1939 to 1944 was shut tour tines as grut on tarae on which no trnctors were used prior to 1930 as on which tractors were already in use at the beginning ot the period. In 1944 a little over one-halt ot the tractors on terns on which tractors were used prior to 1030 were aediu-eised. 2-plew tractors. while the proportion of tractors ct this eise on taras on which use ct tractors was be- gun during the 1939-44 period .8 acre than two—thirds. with a correspondingiy lower proportion of larger tractors. Three tourth ot the tractors added by table 11. Erectors Per 10.000 Acres of Cropland. By Period or Tractor m. _ MW Tar-s hating tractors. 1939-44 1939 1940 1941 1943 1943 1944 g lo. Ho. Ho. Ho. . lo. In All ot the tine 23.9 28.4 32.3 32.8 34.8 33.0 Part ot the time 7.7 22.8 34.0 32.5 35.3 46.2 operators ct terns in the tar-er group wereiot the larger type. while corres- ponding tigure tor the latter group Ins one-tourth.1 According to the 1950 preliminary census of agriculture the nuaber et grain ceabines in the various counties were: Chicot county 1403 Mississippi county 1.020. and 8t. Pranoie county ss.o. Figures tor periods 1930 s. 1940 were not available tor comparison. A study node by the Bureau of Agricultural Boone-ice in 1945 reported that Mississippi county produced one-third ot the acreage and 44 per cent ot the total tonnage ot altalta harvested in Arkansas in IMe 1‘ Lend Tours in Arbueae by O. t. Osgood and John V. Ihite, Bul. 459: August. 1946. pp 23-24. Bay harvesting aethods and equip-sat have changed considerably. there has boa a shift to nechaaised equipment to reduce the hand labor needed and to shorten the tine required to harvest the hay crepe. This‘change has been particularly rapid in Mississippi county and other Delta Areas (table 12 and figure 3) .1 i'hie accounts for such large number of grain combines in use in this county. for corn pickers Chicot county reported 5 in‘1950; Mississippi county 151. and St. Francis county'37. l'igures for previous period were not available for comparison. The number of notortrucke increased trenendously in all three comties. Again. Mississippi county had the largest increase with 2.144 between the period 1930 to 1950: Chicot county had the least increase with 498. and St. Francis ‘ county had an increase of 1.331 for this period. Each county showed a large increase in the number of tractors on ferns in 1950. The nest striking in- crease took place in Mississippi county with an increase of 4.711: the least increase occurred in Chicot county with an increase of 871. and St. Francis showed an increase of 2.101 for this period. . Tarn nechanieaticn has been. and is. a factor too inportent to ignore. In 1951. the following statements occurred in the article "Mechanisation is Being Forced 0n the Parser": "After the successful 1948 season. 16 Negro families on Alexander place discovered they had earned 836.000 clear of all debts. They had done pretty well in 1941 too. But eight of these families moved away in the winter of 1948-49. Those that renained don't want to work with noise any acre. They even cone to 1' Harvesting Methods and Costs for Alfalfa in Mississippi County. Arkaneas. 1945. Dul. 481. p. 3. _. . . t. or n.- .sa- _ Omty and Kind of Selected Periods . - n { Equipnent 1930 1940 1950 Change Embers Numbers Rushers Numbers Chicot: ‘ Grain Combines “ ' 140 .... Corn Pickers " ‘ ' 5 .... Notortrucks 104 203 602 e 498 "Tractors 96 171 966 t 871 Hi ssiosippi: “ Grain Combines ' " ‘ 1.026 _ - --- Corn Pickers ’ * ' ' - 151 . -..- lotortrucks zoo coo 2.374 +2.144 Tractors 151 710 4.862 . «.711 St. Francis: ' Grain Combines " ' " 265 «- Corn Pickers ’ t ' 37 . «- Notortrucks 188 253 1 .469 «$1 .831 Tractors 127 219 2.128 43.101 . not available so all kinds Source: U. 8. Census of Agriculture the Alexander house and ask for a tractor when they go after wood." Hark Valentine of Galloway offers a diffeer answer: “The Govern. sent takes care of idle people nowadays.“ he says. We haven't dispossessed our sharecroppers. Those who left Just wanted to go North. The men more to town to get on relief." Every dependent child is worth noney to her." “Over in St. Francis county, 1.. B. Jones and Son of Madison has bpt a greater percentage of families than sons other planters in Eastern Arhnsas. But even the Jones ferns have only 65 of the 125 sharoorOppere and tenants who lived there in 1945. Wiley T. Jones says the land is prepared with tractors but most of the cultivation is done nth nules.“ 1" C" N I - .- 1 'V'? 3?: TlIt' III! » . f . V 1 . ,IIIIIILITII.T I .IIIi- -IM ...... V v . . . . _ V .. . i vIo.I . e I i . v . VIIIJI‘OIIY v t! I ..L.. e o . M i _ A A TI I a 4 . _ _ . - ..-- 4,. V . V V violalfoItivte I III ,A I . . n _ _ . . . _ _ r. ..... e .m V . . . M . . ToIIl..I.. I a I? . I..I III . _ . ...... . . . . . . . . III .I I I . . i. V a . , . a V . . . e . viii-.. I I I I o . . . A . . , k V . V , _ _ . . . , . _ . . M c . Ililr. eel t. II .eII st a I s . h . . _ .u _ I . a _ . V. . ... . e . . u h . . . . _ V _ F _ _ , . . . VIII.IIIeII I IIIeIIIIIAI- Io...~t .. V _ p .. . . M , . ... .I. rillllwil I -LII rfrIIIIIIIleIIIL IIIIIII- H}: A... 1 g . .---M .....M.. ... _ Hg..- _ ..... . . DID. e ',i|l§lv..lb.lb e 1 ill- . fl . . .. . . . IIIIIIIO ilIIYIil .I90.. I. . _ _ . . . . . .-.-wag..- I I --.I. eon—.M. >-- .-__---_-. .. . M . . , , _ , . , . . M , . . . . . . h . . ,. 1, A, . ..IOI Il.eiIIIIII I. e .Ipe .. .. ..IIIIII.I....I\....I .IIII T.1r.I,t.lIrII ...s. II. . u . II1.IVa ......... JelI IIIVeIII.II Iilllo.vlroilol¢ 1 _ , . , . , 1a _ , . V . . . , . . . . . . _ , . n . . . . . . V .A _ M o . .. . . V .. . . . a . . . H M. ...... . . , . V . A _V V . _ _ M h _ w . h a . , . M M . . . u M . titllibfrllryllt|l FI {If ...... e I \Fl IIII L » I I I‘IIIIIJ. IMIIIII JI ‘11 I I I .II II I I I I I I4 I I I I I I III, I I 4. II IIIIIIII.II‘J‘IIIIIJ . ~ i e v . . . . m H M , M . ...... I M I“ H . H _ . . . H . n . . . H V , . H H H > M IIII II! Alil'aiclcl 'IVtIIIIlbliII AIYI tIIlod‘IDIeIIIeI sIA IIeII IILFII I I I II III: III I III . s I . . . A A . I . IIII.‘I s . .Y ICEIAI IrIII I | In: . Iii I3ri Ir . a . u M M n . ,. _ ._ . H I , .a . . _ _ V _ . V V . . F s . . . . _ . _ . M . . ...... .. . . . M . . _ . . H _ . -. In ......... .. M.. i . .... . . . A V i ... II--. ,M ......... 3:17:31 . , . . h . u .. . . . _ . . . . . . M ..... . _ . V V _ . . . . fl . _ . . . . 1 . M . IIIV‘T MI '1} LN“ III»; I. III II 4 III-Iilnl‘t4lIlIlolIlI'11 I I :r .I +. . . . a . t u 1 u . .M . V . _ M ...... I . o . _ . V . . . V a . . V _ _ _ _ _ V . . a . cl IMIV. I II. IFIA to. ..MvI . IeMA ............. e V. . e V . a IeI.wIIililI%Is|I$1 . . . . . . . . . . . a .. M . . . H a M V _ _ . .... . -II ..IIIITIIIIIIIIIFIiIIIII -HI III - «911.. I- . . -III-.. ; . -.-II 1:; We» . . , h . . V 1. M . . ._ . . V H . a M .3 _ . . _ _ A V‘. a I y I . n A .. at ti . a . . . , m V . . . ‘9‘ M u H , _ .. flu I III'III OTIIIJIYO .Ice IL «I II. 9iIbIl: OI II I I . I IIIII IP11 I s’iIIIIrt 47‘in . . . . _ . . .. _ . ,, V. . . Inn 1 i . , _ ., . . 1o . . . . . . . Ilt ...... e . V . . . v. , , M o , H I I .IIIe I . , , A . . . . . . .V . _ . . n . . . . _ . a M _ H V. . . . . 4m IIoIa IOIIITIileiilI $I11IIII I ,r III.IIII.,11..III1I1.oII .IIIItIile..III$ I ..III ..... 11.1 IIIe. II .IJIII 4 . V n r . V . . V . n . . 4 . . _ . p U _ . M . “a . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . _ , V H . _ M . V r . V . . e a . O ........ p . i I . . H . V _. . O _ . . A V w _ . t u o a l . v H . a . M , . . a VI IIIJ lrleiI II o ........ 41!! I I I e .1 V I e I I! III II... 41 4. el a ........ I I I . I I I 4 I I . IIIIYI eIIllIIJILIIIVIIiltlIaI..|i . . . . n u e , . , , . . . I . _ ~ « . . . s. . . a . H . . I...» .w e . e , o. e .e . o . I.e . . . V . _ m . _ . . , . .4. _ . . , _ M . an. M i . . . . . VOI 10 I II. .ITII i . Itoce o I-.- I I I IIAJIIII.‘ I I.» I» . AI I Y I II III. a I 7| I eli I. e .............. I 1 \I I v I) e . .III IIOIeIfoIIc I sil Ilvlilli .. 3 _ _ V . V . V G . _ an a _ r V . M 7 . L“ M i V . v _ , , _ _ _ a _ . _ . _ 9 _ 1 . n. . I. . . . i . . .. I . a . A! . V J M w H . 1 . 1. . k a ma . . , V A . .3 . H . . -‘ls ‘ . -..—... -..-MM. ...-....__ e IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IItI.» T. t IIAIeI s ....... Ibswy.sl IIIIII IVII rolbiI I I.a I ...—-.....QMV' —.- .....- a» ... DlTbleI eII I iIeA . .__ .. -.. J {nu . . f : - or new e l ---..V-J_ F v i I him to ‘ ' mngtfi ran; is heme; m i. . . . . M V ....M.. .M V“ “f _V H e..4.II>e e H. M H . .1 . . M.V I I I MMM MMMM ____M__-_.M___M MM __MM M M,MMM VMM _MM_.MM M M , . _ MMMMMM A. M M __ M M M ._ MMMM ,_ MMM MMM , MMMM M M 7 7 M I 4 -_ MM M M M M M M M M- Ma - M — — In — M M , , M i M M M s . . _ ... . VM ____.M p M .M _ M MM M M M V M s I - 33 - L- 'The state Agricultural Extension Service says machines have not dis0; placed labor. Inetead. farmers have had to nechanise to offset the loss of workers and to compete with each other." 1 1' Lrlnneae Gasatte Newspaper. September. 1951 -29- CELPE'ER IV ECGIOMIC AND SOCIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF FARM TENANCY The purpose of this chapter is to describe sons of the more obvi- ous characteristics and consequences of tenant farming. since statistical informatim in itself can be of little value unless it is given specific meaning in tern of characteristics and consequences. It is very important that one realises that far: tenancy does not have the ease characteristics and does not lead to the same consequences in all sections. The major difference from section to section or from county to county are Ianifold and complex. Haw differences exist between individ- ual counties and occasionally between individual fares in the seas county. It is hoped. however. that those characteristics which are considered here will afford a better mderstanding of tenant far-ing in the Delta counties and develop a basis of backpcund material for further study and inter- pretation of the problem. 12W. 1The Delta Type Area includes the 18 counties lying adjacent to the flieeisclppi. lower Arkansas. and Red Rivers. These counties do not. of course. include all of the bottos land areas of Arkansas: they are those within whose boundaries all or almost all of the area is river bottom land. It is characterised 1' the plantation type of farning: under large-scale production nethods; worked by routers and share croppers. and a high pro. portion of the agricultural population of the area is colored. Cotton production is the major agricultural enterprise. 1' hrs Tenancy an. in Arkansas. m1. see. v.1. so mo. 1). 31. W. ' A cotton plantation in Arkansas nay be defined in general terns as a large-scale agricultural enterprise devoted principally to cotton production. The typical plantation is composed of a large tract or contiguous tract of land. a part of which is worked on a renter or a share-cropper basis. Various factors. physical. economic. and racial. have tended to make ' the Delta the 'super-plantation" area of the state. m? ihe naJor part of the cash income of croppers and share tenants on plantations is derived from the cotton crop. conservation peynents. wage work. and to lesser extent from the sale of livestock and livestock products. Aside of the cotton crop. wage work is the largest source of in. come for both croppers and other tenants. The average wage of oroppers according to a recent study was $25. ooepared with an average of $21. for the other tenants fron sinilar work. The average wage hand sust generally depend entirely on_ wage work for his cash income. The amount of this work varies with such factors as growing seasons. the sise of the cotton crop. the wage rates. and the amount of non-crop work. such as clearing new ground and ditching. This elenent of insecurity or uncertainty is largely responsi- ble for a general preference by both croppers and wage hands for the cropper status. Strangely enough very few tenants capitalise on the advantage of growing sore food for hose use. This. however. is partly due to the reluct- ance of the landlord to encourage the growth of products which brings to his ne rent. Hever-the-less. some of this is due to the lack of shiftness and rare Tenancy Situation‘in Arkansas. p. 37. -31- rhresight on the part of the tenant. According to the operators and from personal observations by the author. there is a decided unwillingness on the part of the tenants to properly prepare and care for a garden. Tenants insist that their gardening is hindered by the lack of available garden space. and by a conflict between other work and garden work at critical periods of the year. The lack of fullatine utilisation of labor accounts in part for low incense to plantation workers. It is difficult to arrive at an exact inccne figure that reflects the standards of living for the different tenure g 1'0an a mm. In this area the land lord or his agent assumes a great deal of day to day control over fare operations. The tenants. both renters and croppers. hate little acre choice in the selection of crops and in eethods of culti- rating. harvesting. and marketing the erope than the'hired wage laborers. In sons instances. renters or croppers who have earned the confidence of the landlord are permitted to perforn their fare operation with little or no direct supervision. .The duration of these special rites continues as long as the tenant uses lethode acceptable to the landlord. I the ill effect on the tenant under this type of close supervision is a lack of initiative and self-reliance. He is not free and quite often unwilling to accept responsibility and to make good. sensible decisions for hhnself. Consequently. he relies on the landlord for all important nanagenent decisions. and he a result he fails to develop good managerial ability needed hy a successful fern operator. The tenant is thus poorly prepared for land ownership and its accompanying responsibilities of nanage- ment. In this nanner the ayeten of complete supervision has tended to per» petuate the existing tenure pattern in the plantation area. - 33 - Credit The renters and croppere are not only dependent upon their landlords for supervision. but quite often they turn to the landlord as a source of credit for food and other supplies necessary for making their crops. Quite often on the plantation this credit is furniehed.in the form of co.- eodities from the plantation commisegry'or store. This type of credit is known as the "furni shing' systee. and is generally a part of the agreement between landlord and tenant. Generally. under this system of credit the land- lord agrees to furnish or to extend to each tenant a certain amount of credit per month during the crop season in the fore of food. clothing. and other lupplies. This type of credit is very risky. and because of this. the tenant has to pay a very high price for credit to offset the risk taken by the landp lord. The usual procedure is that at the beginning of the year. the tenant opens an account at the commissary or store and the account is not closed until after the harvesting season. A survey of short-tern credit in the State found that 83 per cent of the credit obtained by share-croppers and 60 per cent of that obtained by renters in a plantation district of Jefferson county was obtained from landlord.1 the average tern of credit according to this study was 6.7 eonths for share tenants and 6.2 nonthe for share-croppers. This survey found that share croppers on plantations were paying a 44 per cent interest rate. while the small renters were paying 39 per cent on credit from eerchants and landlords were the only kind obtained‘hy crappere. Snail cash and share renters obtained approximately 26 per cent of their credit free sources other than banks. Bank credit costs small share renters an interest rate of 10 per cent. 1‘ “rare Credit in a Plantation and on Upland Cotton District in Arkansas.“ 3. ll. Oils and A. 1!. Moore. Arkansas Agriculture Erperinent Station. Ml. Ibo .338. -33- Contrary to the pepular beliefs of nany. high interest rates or the. 'furnishing' business is not always a profitable one. It is quite unprofit- able nct only to the renters and crappere but to the landlords as well. since occasionally many landlords and merchants have gone bankrupt because of the inability of the tenant to pay their debt at the end of the year. We. Medical service is usually provided for the tenants and croppers by 1 According to a study arrangements on the part of the plantation operators. nade in the state of Mississippi it was found that some of the larger planta- tions in the Delta retained the services of a plantation doctor on a nonthhy or annual basis to look after the tenants and crcppers. The practice used ncst connonly in the Delta'counties of Arkansas as well as in Mississippi; is for the Operatort) arrange for a doctor's visitation in cases of severe illness. In other cases the patients are sent to the doctors office. when medical service is needed. 1she latter is the practice used mostly in St. Francis county because of the reluctance of physicians to go into the rural areas. The medical cost is paid by the operator and he charges the cost to the tenants account. Medical costs were usually high. considering the relatively los incomes of the tenants. and quite often many of then resorted to patent medi- cines. Many times the medicines bought tere more harmful than beneficial. This rural health problem reflected itself during World war II in a vpry high per cent of rejections anong rural young Ion. Housing standards and facilities in the Delta for the fern tenants and crappers are. for the most part. poor. Veny few. if any. of the homes of this group have running water. and only a.very few have sanitary toilets. The water is usually very distasteful and is secured from shallow pump which lay be near although in some cases were relatively long distances from the house. .. 3h - W- The “agricultural ladder" or the steps through which a farm operator passes a laborer on the home (are or a neighbor's fern. to tenant. part owners. and finally to full owner is largely nonexistent in the Delta. Counter- acting forces such as'large operating unite. high land values. (Figure 3). the persistence of the cost systee. the.need or large capital investments in land and equipment. and the lack of managerial skills. reduce the probabil- ity of tenants and others of lower economic status ever rising to the statue of ownership. This 1. not meant to imply that farm ownership by this group is impossible. but is rather to show that their chance of becoming owners is highly improbable. The principle problem faced by most prospective farm owners in this area.or lost areas of the State centers around their accunmlation of investment capital needed to purchase the farm they desire. In some respects. capital requirements for livestock. equipment. and other production expenses. mum-1 A very important characteristic of tenancy in the Delta area is the extreme mobility of the tenants. According to a study made in Arkansas. more than one half. 57.1 per cent of tenants of this area in 1935 had been on the fare they occupied for less than two years. A case study published in the ”Arkansas Gasette' describes the recent nobility of tenants in the below manner: I h "The Arkansas tenant farmer. the legendary martyr whose lack of ambition often was exaggerated even while his landlord's virtue was being maligned. is disappearing. 1' Arkansas Gazette. ”Sharecroppers. Tenant Farmers Lest Vanishing.‘l Beptu'bel' 12. 1951. Pe 16 by 3011! Le nC‘Chore I.) I1 .- \ .s ,'I J .. ..l. ‘. T J IIIII‘II 1. I .ITIIIIIII IiVIIIIIPlltIII I] IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIJII III. III I IIII IIIIIIII IIIIIII1FIII|I|IIIJJIIY (III- I I III I I I IIIIIIIII I III IIII III I I I . . _ H... .. H .. a . . _ .v . . a IJIIIoI ~ I I . , . ..... . . . ... ....I I . . . . . w ,. . n a . ..... . . , I . . a . .. . t. . . . . a . _ . . . _ . . , . . . , 0 .. I VI II Illilf I I. Y w V o I‘IOIIIIiIIIIIII I. lliIII.+.IlIIIII. .OI I II IIIIIIIJIO‘IIIIO‘I II . II v I I . I I Is. I I I .III II I IIAII I 3!. .I It" AI . . ~ .. ... 7 . . . . . V. . . . w . _ . .. ,H m . h . _ . . v . . . 00a . . . . A . . . . w. .. n M. . k . . . a . l . n e . . . . . . . . I. . .. ... . . . . _ . . _ .1 . . . . 71.10.. I I I s d ....... “It I . 1 :9}le . + I . . q . a. ..... o. IIIIILI. I o . w i . 4 I I I I e I v IIIIIO.s u I eI I I . _ _ . . . , . . . ,. . . _ n .u _ . _ , . _ . . _ A . . . . . . . . ... ... . . v . _ . . _ , _ . . n , . _. . . . .. a . . . . . M e . . i _ . _ . . _ . . .. . I . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . .. I I I I v.11 ...‘III III? II.IIlI|§IIIIIDiII+IIOIIOI!--Q£IOI%IIIIIIIIQI‘IJiIIII.o . . r Ii Vol. I II I II I Y I I I III IIIIII I+I vsIIleIIII...I I l1.eII el‘tlfi Il‘IIIillliliIIlbllilt'tltl. . . _ . . . .. . . . . . _ . . fl . . I . I ». _ . i . . fi . . . . . . . . . . . . e a . a , . . . . H I . . .H . U . . .w . . h . H _ . . . . . .4 .. .:..: . _ , _ _ . , --...I...--I.. ..... IIIIJ..--I,;.ITI f . ...--- .I- -4 -....-1 . ,. .... 1 . . . . . a , _ . . . . . . _ e . I . . ~ . . . ., ...... . .n . . . . . i , , . h I I . . ., v w . _ . , , .g ..... l . a. h _ . _ . a H W a ,, , I! (I _ .IIIIIIIIIIII. III... ...! III I. . . ...IIIII. I III. IIIII.IIIIIIIIIITIIIIIIIII.III IIIIIII-.. IIIIIIJLIII I IIIIII. IIII. I . II II I I I. -.IIII I .. 1- :11. II . I . .. . . . . o . . . A . . . . .. _ h w h .W. . . ._ . ~ . . . 9 . . . H. w . n . .. . w . ., . . . l . , a. .. vle .I I . e o ... s ...... . . . 4.. . I . u I I . A . . . I . I .u. ...... 4 . s I h d. n . . . _ , .. . . . . Tl) . _ , . . , . _ q . . n l n , . N “.1 , . .fl . . . . m _ W , _ .I . , UT . fl . .N. . H . . . . . M VI.‘ . . ..... 4.! III! IIVIII IIII.‘O I I I I wliI II IlOI}|Q‘..t.. r 4 . VIIILIJA I I.I IL IIIIII..I¥IIO|III.?.IOII‘IIJI4|IIIID Ile.II.IIY. IIIIllsl I III I1 V. II III I I l I I I llIIII It 4|IIIIIIIII o A I I I I Otllls. “.v‘s. I...|II lollillltlllsl. . . . w A _ I_.I a. . m . . . a I .. .« . .. . . . w _ . . . a .. . . . . . . r . a l . . _ _ . A}... . , _ . .. a u a .. . _ w .. . ..: ... ., Tel?- 4 .o I I . I e. I . a .II... ..... n . . ..s ...... . I ...... . a . 4 . . n . III .II -3. a . _. W . H. . . . * A . I... 8. . . . . . _ . h , . I . s “‘1 . a .. _ f . e m e __ u . w . , . . . . m . . A N . . I . gs _ . It". IIIII I4III. I I I IV I. III.II.. ..IIIIIIOIII.'III+IIVIIIIII.II|.elIlI ..IIIJII. IIYII. .IIII eIIIIII..vIOI IIIAIIIII IIIII ...qu I I II I II.| I II III.I.I..|4 VIII...I.II' YI IIIIIII .v.. . II eIIIII 0.1141 I111 M . . . . . . I . . . . , g - S _ I . F _ . . _ _ _ . I . .. e . . . . .. v .. . n A . . , _ n.‘ . .rD .l-I.) " . I . . . _ . . . . "I . v. . . . w. . . . . . . . . I. I . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . I . . . I . . . a. + . _. _ .W . . I . .... .. «..I . . . v _ . ,. r . . . . . . . . . . :0 . _ , . _ m _ . . n . u . . . A . Wei . r . . . . . . .. . a . a. . 4 g , . . IIIl .ITIIIII‘IIIOIII IJIQII.O I I I. [F.III I I I s I I 1I4II . ...lll IIO‘IIIIIIIJIIItIeIel.‘ ‘16.!!! e....QIIII..I.I I. fIII II I I e I.‘II .I I I I '[IIII . II I II. I I.) III I I e, I I i I II Isl It I .lv :1 IIIIIIIIIII II'. E III I; h. . _ u . _ . . . , . . v _ . . . . - l . . . I n . l . _ . . ~ . . _ n .. . . . a . . . a ”l . . . . . . a. . , . .. . . . c. _. 4 4 I o I I . . .. . ....... + . I 4. . ...... s . . . e . ..... So I III . . ” ,_. . , . . . . _. emu W .4 l . l . l. u _ . a . ... . . _ . , _ .. .i , _ .. IIIIIIOIIItIIIIF .I. I I I s I I II . III'II Itnfirv I ‘. .JIIII'III I fol! I III eIIIfIII I IIIIWI’IIII I I. I... I r III. I|ItIIIIII ‘ILI IIIIe IIIII!..I1 llfllo J . |.IOIIIII|I4IIIIIVIIIII..OIII . . . . . a _ . _ m . .. _ . . . _ . . ... . _ . h 0; Mn. n“. W U _ * . n _ _ . 1 a. ... . . I I . a ..... .. I. . .~.I _ . I . In. .. ...v .. ..III+II.IIIIQI.II.I _ a . H . n . . 9L” . . a . . . a . . H . . l . _ .. . v . e — fl . . w. . . . .PO ,. . n . *. . . . 1, e . a 1IIIIIIIIQIOII YOIe , I . I I L .III I II.IIII!0I&I] I.-.‘ IIIIVI p III I '. IIIIII TIfIII I '.III|I « I I. I II I‘IeIIII. I a II II 1 IT I l IOII ILL II I I I I Ivl I. I _ . , _ . _ . . n .m . _ . v . v _ . _ . . I . . . y _ . . _ l _ h l _ . . e . . . W. . . . . . , a "we . . VI I I v. I l . a o . o o . . I . . . I. . ..... o uvv . . I . . . _ . . _ . t Mn " , . . I l _ . . . . . A . _ H . _ . 0 _ 1.0 . . .. . . . . , no; II.- .ItoIIIIII.II II ..:. . I ...... II II I I t.-. II .IIIIIIIIIe III‘ IIII I. IIIIIIIII .l. IIIJI I . III III III. I II I. I II .II t IIIIIII- III.I. . _ a . . I . _ _ _ . 9 m. I . . .. . _ v . . . . . . , H a . , . l _ .1. a v k . _ v p > r I e e e I . . i u . v . e . r I i . . a. . . . m 9.. _ r _ w . . . . . F _ _ . . eh . . . . . . . I TIItItIIIOIIII.I HI 1 I T I I III e I III: III fIsl II... I I II II. II I It, I s I . .. . ..IIItQCIIIIIt . I I I II v I. I I63 I e I IIII llt.iI|III . ..I IILTIII-I I II I . . H . . . . . . .... . . , . ,, . _ . . . , . u . A v . . 0 . _ . . . .. , .. . . . . ......... . . s .. . I. V. . . I. . I «I I . . I I ... ... . . . .. . H a . . I . m H“ . . b . _ w I I _ a a. _ . . a _ r3 . a _ . , . _ . . . . . Olslsle ..... e III I I I IIs I II! III I I! v IIIIIIIIIOIIIIIe.I e) IIIIIIIV I III.|I o I I VIOI I I It IL! I I I II .It. III . . . I I III I I II 111 I III I I I .Ilh‘ I I II“ -tIIIIIIIItIhK‘IlmI j . ., ,. , . . . a 9. I i e o . a a - a v _ _ 1 q .. a .. . . . . . . n . 1 IL .. . . . . . , _ . ... . .. . ...... . I. .7 . _ _ .. . IBM ...-1 . . , . . . . _. . . , . . , a . I. . . . . . _ .. a . _ . .. h . a . fl . ~ _ _ _ _. a . a _, . H . m ..... . .. .. . .. . . . . 4 : IIeIQIIIIIIIIIIIIIIHI II I . II... .MIII III I IIIIIII IIIOIOIO lIs II’IJIIIIII Vt: I s'I IIIIIe llIIIIeIIIIIJ I OI. III .lIIII I III. I IIII.I . . .III I II I it IIIIQI. I.I1IlleIII|II 0. I1 Illllo IIIIII & I , . ..... . . . . . . I . . .. . _ . . . . . . . . . . v . . . .. H a _ _ . m . . .. . . . . h . . .. . . . . a . . . . h. .. , . . _ . . . . . . _ . .. . . TIIIQ . o . ..... . e I v I . . Xv . . . I I I IF I . 4 ......... . .q I. * ....... . . I I. IIIIIIIII IIIIIT . V l , . . . . . . . . . H . _ o . . .M . a A _ _ _ a . H . . n . . _ . . . . . . _. . . a . . . _ . . 2 O . . _ a - TIL--- . ... .-.---i-III..WI.-:I r. . . . . . . 9 B _ .I k a . . . 4. fl . _ . . l . . . ,_ . I. . . v _ . . e . 2. a h u . . . . . . v . . I (L a a. . . . a M H . , L . . , . , v I l“. . \a ... . . I . ..... ..... . I. ....... . .. ......... .v I.2I . .. .. .. .q.. . ...l. .. . I. .I II III .I III... I _ . , . a n n w . l 11— “ a . . ..h _ , . . F . M . . . . . . . . . . ..... H , , . . _ , _ , ..... . w . . _ . « . M . . _ by . , . . . . _ . . . i . , .II I.I H . . IIIL p L I a . a I I J . v KI I ,# fl ,. PK 4 I1 IIIIIIIIII Iiilll lllp|.I. r——_____.fiii 7 Ai,_ i—iiw _ -35.. H. T. Ohlondorf of Ooceolo. who operatoo 6.500 ncroo in thio magni- ficent for-ing countny had 250 to 300 fenilieo on hie piece 20 yeare ago when one Inn woe nooignod to e Inle and plou.‘ today. he hno 50 eherocroppore. About no other families live on hie fern'but they hire out no day leborero. “Before coming to Hiooiooippi county I chocked ploutetiono all of tho vqy fro: Little Book and found einilur conditiono prevailing. The oitua- tion io not no lurked in some iooleted epote - ouch.eo Nedieon. St. Franoie ' county. and in Pecan Point. in thio country. Bov'ro you gonna Keep 'on down on the farm after thoy'vo tootod lifo in Holphio. Iorroot City. Little Rock? The anovort You aren't. ”A: noted in Nioeiooippi county ye'otordny. tho Arkanono tenant fun-or and ohnrooroppor are going to town. At loaot 60 per cent othhoI have vaniohod froo the land einco the Army and the var plants gave thou e View of the city 10 yeero ego.‘ Even though tho tenanto are very mobile. studies chow that they usually more from one plantation to another; However. during tho pact deoado thio tendency hue been changed oonevhet and more tenento are moving to Little Book and other citiee ouch no St. Louie. Chicago. Detroit and othero. Win- In thio eren. gully erooion ie usually not e problem. but droinego. oheot erooion. and soil depletion are neooointed with tenant forcing. According to the study node by the Southueotorn Lend tenure Reoearch Connitteo tho foctoro which tend to affect coneervetion ere tho folloving: (1) Land porcel. in the region are subject to frequent tranofer thuo making it difficult to eotahlioh long time oonoorvntion prograno. Related to thio in a lock of conoorvetion philooophy incident to the recent free land era. (2) Conservation practices on the smaller tracts is relative- ly limited since under these circumstances it is difficult to adJuetfara enterpri so ormisation to the requirements of conservation program. (8) more nobility is high incentives for conservation are lacking for both the tenant and the owner. ' the farmer cannot reap futm-e benefits of con- eervation. the latter because he feels that any investment node nay be Jeopardieed by a rapid turnover of operators. Under conditions of high nobility tenants usually forego practices that promise to pay off at a distant future date. Similarly. in any given year. exploitative practices apparently pay the individual renter-operator. These factors create pensive- noes tovard conservation pron-ens. (4) Leasing arrange-ante and statutory agreeaents have established the omer's prior position with respect to possession and use. Consequently. the set-up of active conservation progress is relatively greater anon: owner-operators. (5) rev written leases in- clude statements of comprehensive conservation practices. Furthermore these practices which are impediments to conservation are difficult to change since nany of then are based on traditional procedures and attitudes. (6) The type of landowner influenooa the propose of conservation programs. Female landowners. estates. and those who own land primarily for anticipated aineral values shes a relative lack of interest in conservation. (7) Of great importance to conservation and to all other economic activities are the ¢eneral price relationships existing at a given. For example. high prices for beef and dairy products tend to promote conservation while the sane situation for hoge. cotton. and cash grain tend to promote more or. p101 tation. W- i'he sharecroppor is commonly thought of as a tenant. and share- oropping as a part of the systes of tenancy. This ooneept, however. is not -37- entirely accurate. Ii'he status of the crapper is not always distinct and clear since. under the law. he aay be either a tenant or a laborer. Generally. there is some confusion on this point. but under the present state statute. ho is legally a laborer paid in kind. This means that the cropper contract is one establishing an employer-employee relationship, giving hin the legal rights and privileges of a wage laborer. The problems of sharecropping revolve about two primary qualities of the plantation system The crapper contract fails to provide incentives and opportunities for economic and social advancement of the operator and his fanily; and. being an employer -_eaployeo agreenent. it fails to pro- aote stability and security of relationship betveen the two parties. hetero such as sub-standard living quarters. insanitary water supplies. and high disease rates. combined with the above inadequacies of the syston. have tended to retard both social and economic advancement for this "tenure' group. 2W- it has been well established by land oeonosists that the tenure and ecoaoaio status of parents had an iaporteat bearing upon the tenure at which children began earning life but sue not related to the age at which earning life began. Even though children of owner parents generally bepn earning life mu little acre capital than those of naming parents. they were also in a sore advantageous position to some credit either directly or through the sponsorship of the parents. it any rate. the son has an heir interest in the hone fare upon which he can count solstiaos in the future. Parents of husband and wife appeared to have equal influence upon -88- the tenure status of the fanily. Educational attainment for the children was pesitivoly associated with higher tenure status of parents and also a relatively heavier out-aigration of children to nonfarn occupation. together with a higher beginning fare tenure status. It was found that the difference in the rate of out-migration was probably more closely related to the edu- cational attainment than to the tenure status of the parents. Young people tend to marry within their tenure groups and a result concentrate the far: wealth within a relatively few families. However. usual- ly children inherited only a part of the fare and must but the rest from other nonbers of the family who migit have migrated to other farms or to nonfat-I occupations. It was found that on the whole those owners who boudnt their farne were more efficient operators than those who inherited them. This. however. was probably due to a greater appreciation for farm life together with more of those managerial skills and knowbhow needed by a succeeeful fare operator. W. i . According to the findings of the Southwestern Land Tenure Rec eearoh Go-itteo. the socio-econooicstatus of the fern fanilies generally rose with increases in net feaily inooae. families at the lower end of the incono scale below $300 remained approxinately constant. it was found that for a given scale of fare operation. part meters rank hidaer in sooio-eoeaonio status than renters and renters. higher than croppore. Part owners. however. were not unifornly lower than full owners but are uniforoly higher m renters. in. arrny of all fanilies into given groups based on status score shows no croppers in the highest status group. All tenures. however. were represented in the lowest group. The wide spread in each of on. ...... duonetratee conclusively tint tenure alone neither -39... deter-ices nor liaits the status of the fare family. the index of novable possessions. a seam of the part of the fanily possessions for which the operator is hieself primarily responsible was also used as a part of the status scale. The broad tum-e ooaparisons show that the eonbined renter grown) has an index considerably above that of the router. For the index of novable possessions. renters as a whole are farther along the scale free croppers to omers. This indicates that tenants have used their cosmer purchasing ability to iaprove their socio-econoaic status even though they don't for non-movable possessions such as for housing facilities. With respect to the index of social participation. the combined owner group shows a higher index than the renter group. Reuters in turn are followed by the croppers but the entire spread along these averages was nuch less than that for the lovable possessions index. It was fond that negro creme rs consistently have a higher index of social participation than white croppers. it the same tine. however. they have a lower housing index and a lower index of notable possessions. W. i'he fertility index was computed for each faaily. based on the uunber of daildren born to the sale head and divided by the nuaber expected for his given age. The entire population of the United States was used as a yardstick. According to the findings of the Southwestern Land Tenure Re- ' search Oo-sittee the white part owners showed e higher fertility than the white full owners in Arkansas and the Texas samples. In Arkansas and His-- sisippi sample areas renters of both races had significantly higher fertility rates than croppers of the respective areas. Income and other factors associated with tenure er asthod of wage payaent is acre important than tenure itself with respect to fertility rates. In other words it was found that fertilities rates for the different groups in different areas followed no'set pattern. In general the high birth rates occur on low priced and low productive land. even though the land is often found in the areas of high percentage ownership. W- In the past nest of the government programs that operated for the benefit of agriculture ins evolved to nest sons new and own-rent problens. As a result. the coaposite of these programs has not been based on a clearly visualised set of goals or objectives. This lack of intergration. however. is due in part to the fact that it has not as yet been possible to deternine a set of long-run ends with which the asJority of the persons concerned are in substantial agreenent. Anong the any different types of services offered by the Agricultural Extension program. it was found that a substantial nunber of all farnsre were in contact with county agents. The percentage of colored farmers was sons- what lower than that of white. running sonewhat under 50 per cent for Arkansas and Hississippi coastal Plains area. In general. the higher the tenure status. the greater the number of contacts. a campsite neasure of participation in the several programs studied disclosed that practically all farmers in the State in each of the tenure groups participated in one or acre of these propane in 1942. I The programs of the Agricultural AdJustnant ministration and the Agricultural Extension Service are essentially universal in their appeal: the prograe of the Soil Conservation Service appeals acre specifically to land- owners. The credit facilities of the res and 1785 are arranged to seat the needs of different types of borrowers; hence. there is little duplication of -41- participation in these two programs.1 In general. this data points to the need for more adequate adaptap tion of the federal programs to meet the needs of the less favored tenure groups who constitutes.in aost cases. a such larger per cent of the total farn population. EA 1' Land 'i'enure in the Southwestern States. mums see. October. 1943. OWV PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH FARM TENURE Before one can critically analyse the-problens associated with fare tenure. it is very necessary that he featlarired hiaself with our present tenure goals. This requisite is very inportant since programs designed to achieve these goals often conflict with other current objectives of Aaericen Agricultural policy. For example. the improvement of the position of fare tenants night involve programs and activities that conflict with another current objective. that of securing a better balance between industry and agriculture. It is very necessary that we look at our ears iaportant tenure obJectives before atteapting to analise our present tenure problems. These objectives are as follows: 1. W. i.e. encourages osnership of faaily fern by those who till the soil. 2. Wm. provide a reasonable degree of security for all parties having rights in land. 3. W. promote the best use of all factors in fare production. 4. W- In approaching these objectives. essential as they any be. certain tenure problems are encountered. Anong the cost oo-oa probleas facing fern people in the Southwest and in new other areas are: (l) fare ownership. (3) leasing arrange-eats. (3) federal and state land progress. lid (4) share cropping. W- i'hs principal problen faced by cost prospective fare owners in the Southwest centers around their accumulation of the funds of investnent capi- tal they need to purchase the fare: they desire. In some respects. this pro- blen has been made more serious by increasing land values and by higher capital requirements for livestock. equipment. and other production expenses. The problem has been made acre acute as the average sise of fare units in- crease. As a result. there is often greater competition for land. particu- larly as non-agricultural opportunities decrease. The virgin soils. avail- able to our grandfathers for a little cash. are no longer present. Opportuni- ties on new lands are limited to high cost ventures in drainage. irrigation. and clearing. The develop-eat of this land has depended to a large extent upon public efforts. since the risks involved are often too great and the over-all costs too burdensome for the individual operator. Purchasing a fern is usually the nest important single financial transaction in the life of a farner. It is rated as such. since the farner is buying not only the income-producing capacity of the land but. acre in- portant. a hone for his family. A primry barrier to overcome is the price of the fare which will decide.‘ to a large degree. his success or failure. is eons economists have pointed out. “the tine one is born is acre important than one's efficiency in predicting his success or failure in forcing." In other words. if the transaction is not sound. due to excessively high land prices or to poor aortgage arrange-eats. the faraer's control of the unit as the principal source of income and as a permanent hose is endangered. The proper allocation of one's linited capital resources is very iaportant and should not be considered too lightly. According to the Southwest Land Tenure Research Committee. the traditional pattern has been for the farmer and his fanily to live on a nininun during the early years of ownership. in order to pay off an over-capitalised land debt. With this pattern prevailing. larger far- incomee resulting from improved cultural nethods will be reflected primarily in higher land prices. Consequently. one of our tenure goals conflict in the sense that greeted productivity (larger not farm income) shows up immediately in still higher land prices. This tendency nultiplies fanily sacrifices in achieving ownership and eventu- ally elininates aany capable prospective ownerbcperators. Another ownership problen lies in the conflicting rights which ari so when land is used for nineral production. Subsurface rights are separate from the surface title and are transferred through nineral deeds. In several areas. transfers and seg- nentaticn of these rights have resulted in extremely heavy cost for clearing and abstracting titlestc the surface. Each person who owns a portion of the subeurfacyeoccupiss about the same position in regard to complete title as the owner who holds the surface. In some cases. the cost of tracing sub- surface owners and abstracting land titles has been more than the agri- cultural value of the land. In addition. separation of subsurface rights usually ilpeiro the security value of the land for a loan. and the addition of credit practically ceases. especially if more than half of the surface rights have been sold off.' Studies show that in areas of active leasing. the price of fare land is affected naterially. The price of land with all niner- a1 rights intact sell for about twice as much as land on which such rights have'been sold separately. The problsn of proportionality is very important in regard to fare ownership. even with the increased emphasis being placed upon it. is not desirable in all cases. To clarify this point we any set ourselves the following question: Does a tenant better his position by sacrificing an efficient unit for an inefficient one. even to becone an owner? Before one could really answer such a question. the advantages of ownership aust be n“- weighed carefully apinst the reduction in farm income and loss of efficiency. In aeny cases the man with limited resources may utilize these to the best advantage by operating an adequate unit owned by soaeone else. This is partio cularly true if he is assured a reasonable degree of tenure security and an opportunity to reap the retard gained through extra effort. Wo ‘ hany faraers have acquired ownership in the past only to lose it because the income they have received from their ferns has not proved suf- ficient to support their families and still carry their credit and tax leads. his situation often results from such factors as low farm price levels. inadeqmte:'fnrns. oven-valuation of fares for porches or credit purposes. crop failures. fanily crisis. and sinilar problens. Stimulants. «ch as short periods of excessively high incomes tend to cause aany farmers to forget that land values should be based on incomes expected over long periods of ties. WI I To provide a relatively large degree of stable owner-operatcrehip. these suggestions are made: 1. Discourags land prices that are too hifli in terns of long-tine productivity through these Issue: a. Credit agencies. public and private. continue to extend .land aortgage credit. only shen it is based on the long- time earning capacity of the land. ’ b. Hodify certain provisions of internal revenue statutes that tend to encourage non-farmer buying of far- land (avoid speculation). The allowed deduction free non- 4. fern income of losses resulting from farming is a specific ample of procedures which may be changed. c. Establish public rural appraisal services to furnish re- liable land value information to prospective'buyers. d. Land value clinics conducted by educational and credit agencies would acquaint large groups of farmers with the land market situation. Encourage operators who plan to become owners to purchase adequate family units. and to add to in accurate units. if and when suitable tracts‘are available. In moet'cases. tenants should not be encouraged to become owner-operators. iferelative- ly greater sacrifices in income potential are involved. Public programs of extending credit to competent tenants could be strengthened by delaying this aid util land prices are more in line with long-time earning capacity. Encourage agencies extending land aortgage credit to include long-tern amortisation plans. pro-payments. flexible payments based on income. low interest rates. and loan servicing. All federal agencies should adopt these improvements. Automatically apply stand still agreements in times of depress- ions etc.. to prevent foreclosure proceedings. so longas the borrower continues reasonably good farming practices and pays the lender the custonary share-rent tht a landlord would receive from such a unit. Basic legislation nay be required to nest this suggestion. Suggestions for resolving some of the difficulties in conflict- ing mineral and agricultural rights include: -47- a. Legislation to limit the duration of subsurface rights if no minerals are found. b. Provide for separate taxation of subsurface rights as a means of deflating land.valuss in affected areas. and of clearing titles that have been clouded through perpetual mineral deeds. c. Consider that the farmer'buys only the surface rights. if this will materially lower the purchase price of a farm. 7. Educational agencies. cooperating with research efforts should stress timely information on land price trends and their sig- nificance s W- The problem of farm tenancy is essentially one of allocating the rights and responsiblities of farm operatorship between landlords and tenants. Since this allocation process involves the supplying and contribution of capital and labor as well as sharing of income. it of necessity involves in- come and cost factors. It also involves other details in leasing arrange- ments and landlord-tenant relations. Among the more promising tenancy pro- blue are the relationships that exist betwem the use of varying types of leasing arrangements. Evidence indicates that tenant operation in the past have not been as favorable as owner operation. with regard to such factors as security of occupancy. upkeep and improvement of farm resources and farm family living. Studies have shown conclusively that many problems arising out of .leasing arrangements are associated with the historical tenure goal that all farmers should become owners. Since leasing is primarily a contractual arrangement. sanctioned and modified by law. most of the less desirable qualities of tenancy are associated \dth the provision of the contract. customs impinges so heavily with regard to the 'third and fourth' lease arrangement that provision for adapting new crops and livestock enter- prises on tenant farms have been slow in developing. In many instances the 'third and fourth' provisions are not adapted or suited to new crops and livestock ventures. Rental rates and division of income and omenss between owner and tenant. determined by custom. often do not reflect the contribu- tions of the two parties. Written leases. generally speaking. serve only the primary purpose of insuring collection of the rent and of regaining possess- ion of the land at the end of each currect production period. Most written lease agreuente. with few exceptions. actually discourage conservation practices and other improvements. Marcus problems in landlord-tenant relations exists. Among the more important of these are problems of: 1 WW. That is. most lease agreement involve nothing more than a short oral discussion covering such items as when the tenant wdll move on the farm. the sise of his labor force ets. Agreements such as this only provide a basis for future misunderstandings and poor quality farming. 2. W. Uncertainty of occupancy makes for tenant unrest. instability in farming operations. and high mobility. This type of arrangement discourages the tenant from making des- ireable improvements. .. 3. Wm. Custom. especially in the South. plays a dominant role in the determination of rental rates. “lbs customary share cropping and 'third and fourth' share tenancy of the South can be cited as a vivid exemple. Considerable work remains: to be done in determiningiwhatfis -49- and what is not "fair rent" and what effect varying rental arrangements have upon resource‘use. .gggggpgngggigllL' To overcome some of the difficulties involved.in leasing farm land. 1. Revise present farm lease contracts on the basis of equity. 2. 3. 4. 5. flexibility. and their long run effect upon land use. In order to establish greater security for all parties con- cerned. enact legislation to insure adequate notice of lease termination. Provide for voluntary arbitration of landsowner-tenant pro- blems. when questions arise between the two parties. Legislation on minimum housing and other facilities on rented farms may aid in solving this problem of living conditions. Encourage group meetings by educational agencies in counties to discuss lease matters of mutual interests to both parties. Encourage research on leasing so that more definite recommend, Qtlon. m b. ”be Wrongs. Most of the federal programs for agriculture‘have been set-up with little regard to differences in the sociooeconomic status of subgroups. At- tempts at coordinating the Add. FSA. and FCA relating to land have not been very effective. and.quite often programs designed to meet a particular pro- blem have aggravated other problems or. in a few instances. have even creat- ed new ones. For Examples the lid program benefits represented by cash payments were distribuded essentially as farm income; hence. owners received somewhat higher benefits than renters and substantially more than croppcrs. Io make sure a program will aid the farmer in his ascent of the tenure lodder -50- it is necessary that emphasis be placed on programs especially designed for those in the economically less favored groups. W: To direct our federal programs of benefits to the less favorable econolne grows are: l. The pyaents should be shifted. in the nain. from a production to a consmption basis. the latter to include capital invest.- nents in the human agent. I). This change will necessitate less emphasis upon fern land and other material resources... and sore upon names of social welfare. It is necessary that government payaents be distributed increasingly in such a way that they will reach the parti- cular fare families with inadequate incomes and that they will help rather than hinder socially desirable migration.1 2. Congress should pass legislation to strengthen the Tamers Home Administration financially. in an effort to aid more tenants in their ascent up the tenure ladder. b. 0. Such a program should be administered equitably among all citisens. Priority should be given tenants who have exhibited good managerial abilities or capabilities. the schools and extension service should be responsible for aiding prospective land owners in acquiring the necessary eanagerial skills. 1. Shults. 'l‘. 'd. Production and Welfare of Agriculture. p. 161. .51- d. Persons unable to qualify for this aid should receive training in other vocations. s. only people who have the integrity and training should administer this aid. f. The desired and or goal ehould.ba kept in mind at all times. We ' Il'hs problons'of share cropping revolves about two primary qualities of the plantation system 1. The crapper‘s contract fails to provide incentives and upper.» - tunities for economic and social advance-eat of the operator and his fully and. 2. Being an aap'loyer-eaployee agreement it fails to promote stability and security of relationships between the two parties. The sconesic advancement of the crapper is regulated by the snail amount. of resources assigned each family. This snounts to 20 to 40 acres. nest of which is for cotton. and frequently with very little devoted to food or feed crops. in some cases the possibility of supple-eating his low fare incose with outside work is linited because oflocation end the scarcity of Jobs. As the results of these barriers. the crooner's total incoae does not allow his to accuulate enough capital to begin farming as an independent tenant. In addition. creepers are so closely supervised that they never gain the nanagerial skills needed by an independent faraer. W8 1. Establish legislation in which the two parties are to receive HA... -53- stipulated shares of the crop. 2. In educations]. and credit program designed to increase the resources used by each cropper would improve his status. l'eaturee should include: a. Credit based on fare planning. b. Diversified enterprises including food production and pasture. o. Provisions for ample-outing fare inooee by the production of nore food crops etc. 3. In a mix... sunning the operating resources of the cropoers- s seny will leave agriculture in the process. a. Promote better rural education which will inevitably on- large the capacity of and opportunity for fare youth to enter other occupations. b. Efforts should be ends to develop nore industrial oppor- tunities in the Southwest. S-ary and conclusions Positive action is needed through educational prograns. legisla. tive‘ enactmts. and policies of ministrative agencies of federal and state governments. Research in tenure relationships and the impacts of these relationships upon the use of land resources is of increasing importance. Educational agencies. including state extension services. vocation- a1 agricultural education. and the action programs nust be conscious of their responsibility to aid in solution of the human problems in agriculture. It is realised that research recommendations «not always be put into effect instantly. therefore. answers to nany of these problens will be slow in caning. Research and education nust have their place and can. in -53- fact. substitute for legislation in nany cases. Sons of the suggestions for improving tenure arrangenent that can be put into practice at once are: l. 2. 3. 5. Encourage the enlargement of fares for adequate income and nanngement opportunity. Encourage nore investments in fare improvement and living facilities during inflationary periods instead.of heavy in- debtedness for land priced too high. Insist on mortgage credit adapted to agricultural needs. Seek information relative to land values based on earning capacity. Ute improved lease contract ferns. Such a lease should promote conservation. give adequate notice of ternination. and arbitrate any difficulties. Hats use of resource persons fros extension service and state agricultural colleges for answers to tenure questions. finally. recommendations for tenure improvements lust have an in» forsed support and interest ancng the fare population. since it is here that the immediate responsibility lies in how to hold and use the land. Because of this responsibility. fora people lust realise their obligation to society. On the other hand. the development of a tenure consciousness enong rural groups is an ever-growing'chnllenge to both public and private organisations dealing with rural life and its problene. -51.- BIBLIOGRAPHY Arkansas Land Prices in War and Peace. Arkansas Agricultural Experinent Station. Bull. 517. 1951. Baker; J. A.. and J. G. McBeely. Land Tenure in Arkansas: 1. The Far: _!ennncy Situation. Arkansas Agricultural Experiment Station. Bull. 38“. 191.0. ' Comparison of Farming Systems for Snell Rice Farms in Arkansas. Arkansas Agricultural Experiment,5tation. Bull. ”98. 1950. Fullilone. i. i.. J. C. Elrod. and t. E. Hendrix. A Study of Farming by Tenure of Ferns'in Terrell county. Georgia. Georgia Experiment Station. Bull . 23h. 19m. Hendrix. W. 3.. J. O. Elrod. and V. !. Fullilone. Some Aspects of the rare Tenure Situation in Heston County. Georgia. Georgia Experiment Station. Bull. 237. l9h5. Hoffaomer. Harold. Editor. W W Horth Carolina: University 0! Berth Carolina Press. 1950. p. 666. Land Tenure in the Southwestern States. Arkansas Agricultural Experiment Shflthfl. Bull. “82. 1948. Mcfleely. J. 0.. Glen 2. Barton. and T. R. Hedges. Land Tenure in Arkansas: 11!. Inoose and Changes in Tenure Status of Share Renters. Share Croppers. and.¥age Laborers on Cotton Ferns. Arkansas Agricultural Experiment Station. Bull. “38. 19h3. -55- McBeely. J. G.. and Glen T. Barton. Land Tenure in Arkansas: 11 Change in Labor Orgainsation on Cotton Yarns. Arkansas Agricultural Experiment Station. Bull. 397. 19140. listslsr. in. H. Papulation Trends and Adjustments in Arkansas. Arkansas Agrlw‘nrd EXPOI'mn‘ Station. 31111. $89 1940. Methods and Costs of Clearing Land in Northeast Arkansas. Arkansas Agri- cultural Experiment Station. Bull. “95. 1950. Osgood. Otis T.. and John H. White. Land Tenure in Arkansas: 1?. Further A Changes in Labor Used on Cotton Yarns. Arkansas Agricultural Experiment S‘Q‘ion. 3:111. “59. 19h5e Slusher. "L U.. and Harold Scoggins. Cotton Production Practices in Arkansas. Ark”.flI Agricultural Experiment station. Bull. ”7. 1951s Slusher. N. V.. and V. B. Fielder. Harvesting Methods and Costs for Alfalfa and Other Hay Craps in Mississippi county. Arkansas. Arkansas Agricultural Earperiment Station. Bull. 1‘81. 191:8. Southern. John B. Farm ionancy in Oklahoma. Oklahoma agricultural LXporimcnt Station. Bull. 239. 1939. Farrer. James D. Changes in Arkansas Pepulation. Arkansas Agricultural Experiment Station. Report Series 21. 1950. Tenure Improvement for a Better Southwest Agriculture. Arkansas Agricultural Experinent Station. Bull #91. 1939.