—._
.— a- -.. w or.

— ." '_v—~—~
“-v—v

 

 

 
 

         
   
 

_ .-,.__ __._._ . - .‘ . u, . r ' n. -F._. _ . _
“W”? ‘W‘.’ ‘ ' ' ' ‘— ' 1:77. 0'." o (I. .‘3'5‘3flflm'73. ‘r.?3:9~0 i a o 1.1 a f "C I o
’7 "'- " c'“‘"°“"“""”"°"'06!!!vro"\.o‘ly-vvoomulc4‘
:1-‘_ ._-ow“Oo'90.00'000 toi.rt ' 00000150'4‘gg‘o
._ .'O|Ocvolicfiltai .D'j'yj.('...'..“ "..'(.
..... oO'IOOII-Olo‘oovi':0|'l :vo.'vqr"...'_. ‘
‘ I "‘ " ' ‘ ‘ ' ‘ ' 0 0" ‘ 0" 0 I t 0 v II'6'»'O'IOo'Q".t‘l’o“.o')‘;‘l.l’o 0.0‘4.I'v'3.0‘l‘0.0. 'v‘a‘n'l'flo
70-.-¢"~V! J ,..00 o 00 o v 0100: . . . . ; .0. 4 _,. 4 _.
~ an : t .;. .1 v. - : . . m ~‘~~ veracm'w‘
d ~ . . “ ‘ ‘ ‘ . . ’ ' ' ' . ‘ . . '0. ' '1’ . ". 'v'o'v’ '.'.‘.'.‘;‘ 'Q'.'.“’ 3" 1. ‘0." ' 5 ’.I.0‘l'0 I’lz'fi‘ou 11'3'0"!’»'¢'¢'£‘c.t 0'4 1‘34'3
. ' S'Ottq.vooll'wacogn‘ ' 9‘ .

v 0
' t
o

 

' C t O I l
_ 013,40c4saquIIZJQOOO ‘OCOC'30I ‘-
.4000 QOOOIdocdlIO'Otlo o 0 0034 o t .l 0v . . .
. f I, . . . o" ‘ ‘ ' ‘ . . . ’ ' . ' ‘ . ‘ ’ ' .o‘!'0. .G‘ ‘6.". . ‘ ‘ 'C‘I‘C' ‘0. “.‘.l"l‘_ .C'C.U‘D. . ““.:‘P:Jq\. I Q i§ '. D t o I U IV ‘4 ~ -
' ‘ ' . 5.... 6.Q'v'0.o'v'o'o‘t'1'v.o'o‘n't'a'o5.1.330.“ .o'1'v‘o'c‘o.o.v'5.-i‘v'r'a'v’n' 'v‘ngc' . . ‘1‘0‘ ‘ ‘ ‘3" ' . ‘C
Q . .4 C l
---... .n:-.".°|l¢v-otosooo-.uotooo13v; at:coccvoo-o:'coi'puao'v.t'aco’.'. .. .

._ 10.00.. s ||I\IIOU-QOII 000. I. 0-
‘ _ 3.. —. .~ - ‘M t u n \ ‘. a I.h'o I’I c c o 4 o d n [1 5.3 0 ”J”. 0'1 I’I 9 “9'0 v‘q t'd‘. t-I‘I'.‘I’0‘4.Itl‘|’l'
. A. _'- ;'.... w . .‘no'c',ln.¢oo'ocoo§«coast!Io!¢:1I.I8"30l1IOvi¢-O:‘:OO;4:O".
'- ‘0000*afipfinfioo-‘O11001031011000001000.000!I!!Q‘|Q“\Q§6‘J

‘ . - can-d.
0 ‘1 0 ""‘j, ‘. .,
o .0 -v..-.q. «4. .
.0...‘ .a . ‘_. ‘. o
" . ‘VO.
-. a. " °
0

I o
ni;lt'xllQOOIUQII‘IJOQIIO'ld‘OIOOQOI§IIIQAO'O'UJOODQ
. O

 

II .
I8QQOOa'OIOIDOOIOIIOO(IO'JO|IIIC?O‘IJ' ov.oa|<; o s t
0.20 1 ° .:. ‘COOIIII!o'linOotoutlltifil‘ltt‘QCO0|¢13’4O‘(1Q0¢.30‘f:01tC‘JC‘(U“-"fl 0's;

.“

000-0c4ooO1oa’In‘It30IIOISIO)£-IQOI covox¢1toa.|c‘.'ao’
a... '0 I D '”I.I.Q’0.0‘I.O.‘.b..‘,.l.l‘ '0'1.‘v.§.|‘1‘o‘|.0" 0.3'0‘9‘0' ‘1. ”P" 't'.’3.o.o; ’ a Q n ” I . 0'
I . . -
..”....'....’.. . . ‘0 ‘0'!“ av cg two. Etc—bi twan- thd .I.¢-t

'0'""'.'IO'I'C:Q',‘O,.JO . .._
u'lotoax.Qt..‘..5vocnca\ofl1 vcl‘0:00l08‘01.¢v41:0::0‘30'30!i‘01{4.10:i't*¢3i!"‘c'2dozoil
- l ' - ‘. ’ o

. ...0~.-". .

...J ‘

.t-o4.‘ooco.o4

...O‘00O
O
o
O

 

oraav:a~ox’otg‘o_l.naat.
. u :a o ;- - 7.31‘ a. 9:4!
bilvxc‘tofigoz'fi? D'4>1}59'.Iitd!35?369.0~’_
' O...‘ f . t ‘51 v. - . 3.31:9.120 5‘4‘2'1 1.9,; a t‘. 9 1.53!
' ,- ‘o I I : 3 :5 0--
'!ll£%!f’- '¢uos“s.io¢: 9-‘gt;c1‘ga:
x‘.‘ o‘ :o .‘ -. d '..' :4
__o .3944 3‘2!:g‘¢.4aazo'§scc4¢3scig‘:x’i ‘:.va.c.
F}, -.» .;
‘.‘%"‘Mw

' '0 ~.
0 n'von

   

.O".
|

u

-

c

a

O

a

.

o

’

d

.

C
I. C . O
o

O

.

b

.

o

c

o

‘

I

-

C

.o

.

    

v
~~lolvov'or -‘~~‘£:nil -“'!"Q"'..
,.:|"p‘QOI\|I"DUO!'.|O ' ' ‘e..
.-Il I'll.on;‘uzngb.qyc ‘ 3'; .- . ;‘

vnaaothr u.'qo~.¢oi «. ‘s "
o ‘0' .
I 4"

-:

..".,H‘1"ot~ot‘6ou'u 11!' Jim. "1",5'.‘
' HaIN‘Gm-a
i . u. ‘ . -
Q'3_. n

44 Icon-“°“o.""‘.‘
lo

‘ o

06*
’ \
pCldfwt O, l39&OQJ-‘O‘I! I ‘a V 0‘2:
. .. .o qa1.s¢:v;len.‘ - | I '4!5¢¢;u:l1°230 ‘;‘.;z‘ :-
--o‘aoo.00o.--'ao|.¢1a-QI l. x ‘3 » .td‘?30.8l‘}l'!l 434252.49
40403940'Oft‘alwtoitrizo‘ -. .,,, Ugo. 0.3493"? a‘ aavssl-1
. h'di‘ovat'40‘§I.Itoo!|‘iO4 ¢Co{15 {-3 98!.1‘1'2-4341 -"\"$.'£I‘§‘CC£'5§4-'ui"
' I.0\Osao.|0¢..oflzoo'.t:a»1|ous-g, 10119 ¢.’~.41"‘.p' ‘. no.9 yc-V ..d9:A9.¢OW‘5!;CQJQ?zo-I
. c....- -°° 0.0:;0‘4'.,|ca!:!t0."~.’ ' . 1*. ‘ "y;.fi ; .. '35. {‘z Q’Ztvs‘. S'o’
, ~.... u 0 -\o,‘:.o.t'¢ “anon...|.-O.:.o‘1.o'.v o ‘ 1‘ " - ,fi. ‘ *9 4.: 5. ‘- x ’4“
.. ~o .-.I..... .' 2 g ' _ i ,L ’ 2.4. ,5, ~ . -' 4 J
.... " .._«!00!¢I.0 p 0:00 .4 7.4,. o ' '. .Y' r {J ¢) v ' O #1 .9

‘ ' " " "0930 navy0o'10:¢“‘ofl‘z‘4¢.‘lt II; .OIO'!“LJ “ ‘. 0’. . 1’1: . .

. d . .

- '~ 4 ..3J!. -1«sr— ‘c-ra-~ 9. v» ‘. (ta.
. .:°V-. "‘" ‘OI331301500ll9l0b Clitla’ldt'3v- w u. a a. 3!. .- »‘11.3.4fi‘fl‘dj‘iazflié09‘d.§!?‘3t629{(‘S‘i‘fi‘sl
.I-uv‘ '4v;.uxa~411:c o_1a¢-nu1;¢,.oxgo @ :- ,vy 2, g. u {gong-c.1-‘714eav: az;-o_‘!;q-.;4-t
" o " ~-:..._Ivtav7tc3o'oo'.Otai-c J‘J"O'l¢ >_ . «:os '41»: 9.! vasI’aO‘nO'Ui'S 1“? ' 39:..9
1 .. -73.»,, .. o-co'«h~oijc0';O-c¢9)a 4."3"“’ 9 lo 1“J9'£I'¢£9;51JbI’,'37 ’1‘O‘VJI‘3033in‘d .‘a";.‘?;-

_ .. d \ '!4 LAI‘I‘I‘YIINJQSloié-W-. ‘11.,4073jt‘lQ3-8‘0l3475‘40!2“.‘J . - ‘0

oo.¢qggu~£can~5I-sv‘sjosac!Jena-11014’oxa; '3914l‘109id ta! 0.541ii-91002611".l'l an‘

I . I a J. ‘ ‘ 01 ‘ ’0‘°‘42¢‘1‘C'1‘3‘¢’133.i‘I't ‘ 4-4-”.gi 'naa‘azs“: ‘0‘ a 5 .39

n -» . V . ‘ .c - 3 I.

, :c‘ifi‘il VO-tbitonsln zolfltidlt‘ivjoail-Rfigozdfz-l action:-0131*:4‘5o9’2'iv-d!:-9,;o¢;§‘$’:“
*3.0‘d\30!66‘0’1QISIVIG'Cil'1‘!l4‘)d9lo‘IOVAQ'JCI3918'03 Osacztv13~0~9892509on\10340?.
- u_ - 0°20"0210*11030-119.10013’91’43I?'6316‘JIQVIJCJIIQB 39": '
. . J41.¢~3)1rtI'-Jac°¢ovd1111¢OQIoanyto'hio-JGVI 11.8;0-35011h62341w0930.
.---..‘-“a.")'.005a'll'AOCIO‘80'20'1011030‘l‘03’Q26"!ICIK1!AQflOY ..
., . I.ot',4¢39\n01ca!.QQJOSoGIAQJuCde’l‘I)‘ xOQAJQAO-Y 011.0'1'00'3 Vlasnacnaoz-ah:a!:ahz--
°°\flIo 1'48‘0’OIIIOIUI'JC‘élfll'O’ti'tlfiIQ‘Jfii.I‘i¢Ii‘I(3§U‘Y¢V451 30:111.!!an0;§!14'.o'

~ so'300‘0330~ocfi.c(oa.o?3011~t§ ‘ ’ ~ -‘ ‘t1z'~f:4!!iwu&iSJI.!3Q'.'¢O'.EO

. o ’ .4 a‘f4'1310-93083'lfl3‘9169‘Iiftc
'0“ '30‘d933.0_fl;03309.C150‘3.

9

     

‘QIIQJ‘C-I1
.v‘w '

      

      
 

   

 

.2"; - . ' -- -
{3.1913213}! .¢ f -a_925-i.n_. ‘qz;a

.‘4fih‘.
" a
s L"

7 3 3 - . 4
l o 1 a. ‘A ._2- 2.
‘rggfl,’fl}ffir
3.. -1:- {32:64.0}?

. v
‘
V
O,‘
O
‘
I
U
Q
0'
t
O
‘ .
$
‘
.
a.
D
O
t
b

  

ooou"'
b

.o°.‘>.

13.93,... - nan:qszagigvase‘sr-i‘s;asso2.

.10“
o
‘
.
'

‘ 9‘
‘
'
.
0
fi

0...
a..-
I .o.._.
to.“
'.‘_.-o‘
9
5...... D.l-ou.
O'oo.pn~' o
' I
I
‘0‘.‘
.0
A
a...
I
O
u
O
.l
N
O
‘
O
.-
O
.1

o 9 _ , .
--5-ou.4:.'£«4v‘lb<1 Q!3Q!&01 '1)?! I‘V‘41‘OH‘
- 4 o fia!!oqx.1§gswuat'1.u"r ‘1

4"; ._. .. ‘ . _

A gazsoesiin-wzltiofiaa!38033v‘:i¢‘2¢ivsox £943~§-.g

o.)(l‘ai’loi‘tl“4.:‘0‘d.*40 5 flaifid013diqzt .4"g,..‘-’- .' 31". ‘91 " .1"), “x
- .- $3.“! ‘91191.1~¢3'2_1325+67803a“.34“3litsfi?".if£l 5 ‘ .. i .

. ..
:;o'00s(‘o-._o‘uo‘ '.o!..91u!: 9-1 t~°Ivzacz 1 1.3.. o9=avaz 32695 '0‘.” 50-..: sot.a'
‘ .‘5 c

. O

Q .

0...-.-
.goooboo
.
-~

...A
00'“ -. o.
."""‘-"o
A..“.I.‘.'
.,a§...oI-obl-1-

’>--‘—.->o-
.
-FJ.-.

..o>-‘
nu.).
L
.I
O
0
n. -
.. .‘.’A
11".

.00....
b.
a
D

.-
..D‘|b,

.' .
‘I. ' = - 9“ ‘ '
’01‘o§10?1tr.~-13.¢?Io a". 9'3018d91.0‘!££‘=30!‘CQBIQ’SUOX Q! C O - .

* ‘ 6 fly,‘ , 7 - ‘(13.9?43‘!:11‘35-4‘3351‘591 (3,!s-osté0¢‘0‘;
. . . .. .- 1. fiad'l'tvaéflaiIl-C'fntfigl'édéai‘iéi'il.‘ I" - ‘7
. .9 c‘c‘nas. 1-. '9‘)”; 0.349 9‘ of". g‘".“a‘3‘¢ 0.2.311 !'. .3953231‘593233 e 14!.3 o r... I ..xg.3.5sg'v.xn '1 . I ‘ . a '9 e .

, .A' _ 4 I' - >- - ‘I ‘ . - ‘ ' .
""1I" u7;v.'z9‘9...sc‘~:.9':ac':¢v's.o1‘ 1. 0 ~‘ ’1 “ "- *.' ' a "
."",|:Q .wq vita-«soar -! u - 4 2» ,-

.‘ 9.345%:0 .3!69*do!aw-os'ngj‘aaxixaqo attzalazifzawe: 4-1442.ngsanxcdig’sltdiz'z!‘1&c 50933-1

. -‘ 0‘ - -‘O ‘ . ‘ A -

“ .o11¢-14.v3.9:.‘o0;e'.Lo-“xg‘sasagdw;¢.?.;dv361:££lq.v924'i'lfzzoq‘zaw‘J-azo 5.5::
-_Lnow¢~1,ov..o~.aatlo.9..¢.oatos‘milaila932803:301.300-191.25! 301.11.?3.1-13934142¢!aq_0.toC'
- . , , . .'o '9.« fl!as250:11433223,!:u0‘:¢0'!;a?-:‘91i¢1~3532¢¢aao¢ta¢:aav I '
4. .10Q1.9$.O‘.Lv}.6\l‘9‘:’i‘!'3‘dJ1‘."o.9.!,lJ0.3?Da1.3~§_¢3§~8,"8.a‘9‘,.fisdf'10‘530‘9‘40'30!9JD?1“ l!fl;123;i.. 50':

.. - _ _; ,. - '
'o-«.4ps-o9‘.s.ofi.ao2.43:;‘5V1. ‘50:.‘t'3a‘j‘35oe a ‘ ‘
2 a . ..¢ ‘ o “

r.‘-

o .‘ ' J ' .
111(- v:. nazuuiaQSJesr fl‘o .‘QC-¢v.'§‘4'la.91 be“ avgalz .-
'- - ~ . ‘ ”‘3'? ‘ifillfii‘ifizO-‘hat'lhc~t‘;.csae‘3': - o!aq3:‘sa'1"cva*é 21
a...) :29"’o'1‘s‘a312"§?:"";“6'28‘39q:«"'ano’t":'¢1"~. ‘gt'f‘lg‘ffo‘f 1' ; 0 -~. 0 9 z ‘ a *7 a 9 1 a c ~ 3 3“! - . a.
C . o -: 'j ‘ '- . ~ . .
' ““ 'o‘.‘-‘T#'-"".t"'4¢.975¢3711*6.‘=I Ad!+u"s-=~l"so’2a'raoaa¢ra t!;on'sn-zz “91'3“234i,'i
.. wig»? H39.33093}v.53!”35:512.:5.:241930.1351‘:’x‘a,o:.z,3va‘ssw. a ‘1. a ." 1. q‘ 59-. ’vtt' {.3
- . - - ‘ g - . ‘ :J 3 c - ‘V
:3 1.0-1.3‘kt {by} 3.. 2.3193131 -- "._.- “.‘,‘ ‘1‘- 3:, ‘ 0 _ ¢ cf , O a
‘ ': ; ’1 ot‘l'tfi‘ $2.33" ‘1"‘l.n‘ ":1 «.1
' O . ~.. .
' ' f3" ‘1 r . 5' ‘10

I
b.\..
“4~DA.~.-°"oo—-al

A,--C.A.Lfi"‘ “' “I y .

I

. 4 '4

¢ 11°..o‘..¢‘1--a§2 a.

‘ ‘ ° 4‘: 01.:9v85’"; g _

0‘13i=tiv.l~“.‘ c-xyo‘". . g-133947tvs‘Jfi
U' $5 ‘- ‘ .‘

$050.040-~fls4-l Lt ‘

I.“"

0
A‘-

-qu.-.v4..n

--_‘ov'rf
.-v‘*°
. \
.:‘=‘ 9°~o
M
--.s'.‘ .

. 2 - . . ‘-I ‘ ' . . V ' " c‘
. C . I. o , Q '1 - - . . O C
~ J - 2 3 "v I O i . h".- .w‘ 9.4 $5 .‘ i . .IO . h} ~‘r \fi- 0 4“? $1 . 7“ ‘4'0, ° ‘1 )‘S .' 1
t; :;—o : ou ; hex i H: ‘9 s :4 1'1- 43‘ 5-93.;ch ' ¢ .1 o 0’13 . s afi‘xa 33' Q. r us 0 zg *‘9 r-mclt't- ux‘v ¢ 5 v5" 0"
*. ool '~ .40" ‘J 4* . ta 3 fir’fl a - 'ul‘ 2 a «.31 . rv l :0 1'1 '4 y? {‘0 V "b. 8-6 ‘ -i .0 3 ‘ 1"
o‘.vo.v.°°tl|t‘-Y .ar:§'i’u1.s "(31.4IAnzv0110j13‘9nam 1“!
«0 ' 01 5f! 44' 0.1-3). x.n..---— ---

 

- 4 . ‘ 1 |.,. o . . I
. ‘ #ffiqunlhrldfiu‘fudn ..x .45 ...‘.J2'II&.<1O.IV . o o
r f. .1 .2 9:7 41.5.7 - . 11......Na1. .- rip--
( .. x5... Rumgrr... L u .z. . . . . w..«~»...7- ..
. . oIT . .. . I. u . I! , _ I. I . .. 1.. .
, . . 1.- J1)... . .n, .. p. .wildvvtkr. k

 

 

31/; a} 7

SOURCES LID UTILIZATIOH CF CASH IKCOLE OF NEGRO
FLQM FAEILIES, VANCE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA,

1936.

SOURCSS AND LllLIZATIOJ OF CASH INCOKE OF NEGRO
FARm FAMILIES, VRJCB COUNTY, NORTH CAROLIRA,

1936.

A.Thesie

Respectfully submitted to the Faculty of the
Michigan State College in partial fulfillment

of the requirements for the Degree of

Master of Arts

Michigan State College

Fred Allen Williams

ACKIOWLEDGIENT

I wish to make grateful acknowledgment to the 88 farmers
of Vance County, North Carolina who so willingly furnished
detailed information on their Cash receipts and expenditures
for farm, family and other living expenses.

The writer is indebted to messrs. B. L. Payton and L. E.
Spencer, county agricultural advisors, for their aid in
collecting most of the data on which this study is based.

The writer also wishes to thank Mr. Frank Parker, North
Carolina Crop statistician for furnishing farm census of Vance
County.

Appreciation is recorded of the reading of most of the
manuscript by Dr. H. S. Patton, Head, Department of Economics,
michigan State College, and his constructive criticism.

Grateful acknowledgment is due to Dr. 0. Ulrey, Assistant
Professor of Sconomics, Hichigan State College, for his
assistance in the preparation of the study, for without his aid,

this study would not have been possible.

14.10509

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

INTRODUCTION ------- 1
Purpose and Scope of Study - ---- - ---- 2
Terminology =——— ___ __ _ 2
Review of Similar Studies - - - — 4

DESCRIPTION OF VANCE COUNTY -- - ------------------ 5
History == - - 5
Location and Topography-------------------- - 5
Climate - -— —- — —_—_ -........ 8
Soils - - 8
Crops and Livestock Production -------;---- - 10
Type and Size of Farms - —— - - - ----- 10
Farm Tenure Group = - ——ll
POpulation =—— — -— — _____ 15
liarkets and Transportation Facilities 15

DESCRIPTION OF Rails ASE) FALL F.~'£.".ILISS STUDIED ---16
Location of Farms — 16
Tenure of Farms - - — - ———== - - 16
Size of Farms ---------—— - - —- -16
Utilization of Land - - - - -=== — —-16
Livestock ==~ -- ‘ ==18
Size of Fanilies ------------------------- w ~ -----20
Ages of Family Members ----* — ‘- ~ 21
Ages of Operators - -- ’ 22
Education of Operators — --- ---22

AMOIX‘IT AND SOURCES OF CASH 11303.13 - - 24.-

 

 

Gross Cash Income - -- -- --- 24

TABLE OF CONTEXTS - continued

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Page
Gross Cash Inaame Groups = = ~ -- -25
Cash Crop Sales ---------- 26
Cash Fruit Sales -- --------------------------- - ---------- 28
Cash Income from Animals and Animal Products — - --28
Other Sources of Cash Income - — --------- 51
UTILIZATIOZI OF CASE II'ICG‘E — - - ---34
Cash Income Used by Owner and Tenant Farms - - 35
Cash Farm Expenditures ----——— - ------ 55
Cash Used for Family Living -- — = - ---12
Expenditures for Food -= ---------e= =--43
Clothing Expenditures - — - ---45
Fuel Expenditures -------------- -48
General EXpenditures ---- — - -_—%9
Investments e -------------- — — -— 51
Apparent Savings — ==— --------53
FACTORS AFFSCTIJG CASH IJCOLES ---~----- -- - -- 54
Size of Farms - - --- - -- - 54
Size of Families - - - - - - 56
Adult WOrkers - —- - -56
dducation of Farm Operators ----------------------------------- 59
SESIARY AND CONCLUSIONS- — -- 52
Recommendations.==- A 55
APPENDIX ~----------—-------- -57
Exhibit of Questionnaire === 57

 

 

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY --— -- ——-=— -— _ — —7o

Tab 16 Page

 

 

 

 

l. - CrOp Acreage and Production, Vance County, 1935--------- ------ ---- ll
2. - Size of Farms --------------- - = ----- - 18
5. - Utilization of Farms - - -- -------- 19
4. - Livestock and Farms --- - —=- 20
5. - Size of Families ------------- -- — ---~ 21

 

o. - Composition of Families by Age and Tenure---------------- -------- 21

 

8. - Education Of Farm, Operators —-.-...._.... ____ _ 23
9. - Sources of Gross Cash Income -.... _____ -_.________,_______‘__________ 25

10. - Sources of Cash Income of Onmer and Tenant Farms ----------------- 25

 

 

 

11. - Distribution of Cross Cash Income by Groups --------- — 26
12. - Cash Income from Crepe ~----——— = “A“ 2'7
12:. - Cash Income from Creps of Owner and Tenant Farms — — — - 27

1"

15. - Cash Income from Fruits of Owner and Tenant Farms --------------- 29

 

16. - Cash Income from Animals and Alli..1ul Products - - ~---- SO

17. - Cash Income from Animal and Animal Products of Owner and Tenant

Ram‘s ------ ————————— n ------------- —---—---------------- ---------- 30

C)”.
H

18. - Cash Income from Other Sources ----------- -------------------- ---

.. Cash Income from Other Sources of Income of Owner and Tenant
19.

Farina ----- ----- --_--'. -------------- ---O-—-.---.--...--..-.---.---- 55

 

23. - UtiliZt.tiOfl of Cash Incose ------- -- ----- - ----- -- - --- 34

21. - Utilisation of Cash Income by Owner and Tenant Farms --------—------ o5

 

22.,- Cash Farm Expenditures ---------- ------- ----- -— —------ 56
3. - Farm Expenses by Cash Items ------- ------------ ------- --—---------- £57
24. - Farm Expenses of Owner and Tenant Farms ------------ ------------ -- 41

 

25. - Cash Ez-zpenditures for Family Living; ------------ - — — ---- 42

LIST OF TABLES (Continued)

Page
Cash Expenditures for Family Living of Owner and Tenant Farms'u-éfi

Distribution of Food Enpenditures-m- --------- ------------------44.

Distribution of Food Expenditures of Owner and Tenant FarmS'"""-46

 

Distribution of Clothing Expenditures -_- -- 46

Distribution of Clothing Dxpenditures of Owner and Tenant

 

 

Distribution of Fuel Expenditures ---- --- ---- 48

Distribution of Fuel Expenditures of Owner and Tenant Farms-rmm-49
Distribution of General Expenditures--------------—-----------5O

Distribution of General Expenditures of Owner and Tenant

 

Distribution Of IIlVGSJulflUIltS ""“"“"""“"~- "' """“‘-"’"‘-" 52

 

Distribution of Investment of Owner and Tenant Fanns- -52

Relation of Size of Farms to Cash Receipts and Net Cash

Income __.__---___ -- ___-_ __ ________-_55

 

 

Relation of Size of Family to Cash.Receipts and Net Cash
Income ------- —_.----._--.. _ _ 57

 

 

Relation of Adult Workers to Cash Receipts and Net Cash

 

Relation of Education of Farm Operators to Cash Receipts and
Net Cash Income------—-------- ------- ------------ — ‘-60

 

FIGURES

bflLflhfli Page
1. - Counties Forming Vance County ---------------—----------- 6
2. - Location of Vance County ---------------~-—----1r--------- 7

5. - Soil map of Vance County ----- --------------------------- 9

4. Railways and Highways in Vance County --------------------l4

' Location of Farms Studied ---------------------------- 17

U
o
l

1.

INTRODUCTION

In recent years much has been written and said concerning the economic
status of Negroes in the South Atlantic States. The conclusions of such
discussions have often been conflicting and based upon insufficient infor-
mation. This study represents an.attempt to obtain detailed factual
information as to the amount, sources and utilization of cash income of
Negro families in a selected county in Nerth Carolina, as a basis for
analyzing the economic status and.needs of Negro farm owners and tenants
in this region, and suggesting adjustments Which may be made in the inter-
ests of improved living standards.

The county selected for the survey, vance County, is one in which the
writer lived for a period of five years, serving as a teacher of vocational
agriculture at Henderson Institute, the local county school for Negroes.

It was during this period that the writer became interested in the economic
welfare of Negroes in this area, which prompted him to attempt this study.
. The primary data for this study were obtained by the use of question!
naires‘, which were taken directly at the farm homes, in order to procure
the desired information. Data for twenty of the 88 farms in the study

were secured by the writer, while data for the remaining 68 were secured
by two agricultural workers in the county, who were practically as familiar
with the county as the writer. The data collected on these questionnaires
were procured from such sources as farm records, lodgers, commerchal

accounts, receipts, daily record sheets, bills, and by estimates. Errors

have been greatly minimized due to the care of the two field assistants.

 

‘Appendix.

2.

The secondary data were secured fran the following sources:
1. Bureau of Census, Washington, D. C.
2. Department of Commerce, Washington, D. C.
3. North Carolina Township Farm Census, 1936.
4. Studies of Southern Agricultural Experiment Stations.‘
5. County Agricultural Extension Program-Reports.”

6. Booklet, Buck, John E., "Vance County, 1881-1931.”

Purpose and Scope of Study. The primary purposes of this study are to
determine the sources and utili cation of cash income of Negro farmers in
Vance County, North Carolina, and to arouse interest in the keeping of
better farm and household records.
The scepe of the study includes:

1. A description of the county and farms studied.

2. Cash income from farm and non-farm sources.

3. Utilization of cash incone and saving practices.

4. Analysis of cash income and expenditures on the basis of tenure.

5. The effects of size of farms, education, composition of family,

and number of adult workers on cash income and expenditures.

Terminolog. In order to avoid possible misunderstanding, some of the terms
employed in this study are defined as follows:

1. Gross cash income includes cash receipts obtained from both

farm and non-farm sources.

 

‘Includes studies from Kentucky, Alabama, Virginia, South Carolina and
North Carolina.

”Includes program-reports from the files of H. E. Webb, County Agent,
Vance County, North Carolina, 1936.

2.

5.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

5.

Net cash income includes that money Vhich remains after
subtracting from gross income farm expenses incurred in pro-
ducing the income, and represents what is available for family
living, improvements and savings.

Farm expenses includes expenditures incurred in craps, live-
stock, feed, labor, taxes, cash rent, crop rent, interest,
machinery and farm improvements.

Family expenditures includes cash spent for home repairs, food,
clothing, fuel and general living costs. I
Investments includes money used for building new homes, persoml
insurance and taxes on otter preperty.

Apparent savings includes the cash which remains after sub-
tracting farm, family and investment expenditures from the
gross cash income. This sum also includes money held in
saving accounts. .

Personal taxes includes p011 taxes.

Personal insurance includes sick benefits, life and endowment
policies.

Farm—Owner Operator means a landlord who operates his own land
whether it ismortgaged or not.

Cash-Renter Operator is a tenant who pays a specific cash
amount for the lands he cultivates.

Cropper-Operator is a tenant who farms on two-thirds cash
share basis.

Tenants include both straight-croppers and cash renters.

4.

Review of Similar Studies. The following studies have been reviewed in the

 

preparation of this study:

1.

2.

5.

4.

5.

6.

A study of Organisation and Management of Farms in Grayson County,
Virginia, 1931.

An Economic Study of Sumter County, South Carolina, 1933.
Economic Status of Tenure Groups in Tallapoasa and Chambers
Counties in Alabama, 1935.

Cost of Living and Papulation Trends in Laurel County, Kentucky,
1930.

Living Conditions Among White Land-Owners in Wake County, North
Carolina, 1926..

Farm Income and Taxation in North Carolina, 1929.

The studies listed above cover different size samples in the particular

counties named in the various states with the exception of the study con-

ducted by the State Tax Commission of North Carolina which included a se-

lected group of 25 counties in the state. The procedure used in collecting

the data in these studies was somewhat similar to that used in this study.

None of the studies reviewed attempted to analyze the sources of all cash

incane and the classified expenditures for both fans and family living.

Another factor which may be mentioned is that only one of these studies

made an attempt to include Negroes, that one being, the Alabama study.

I. DESCRIPTION OF VANCE COUNTY

History. Vance County was created by the General Assembly of Nerth Caro-
lina‘ on March 5, 1881, and was named for Zebulon B. Vance, Who was
Governor at that time.

Considerable Opposition was incurred during the struggle for the new
county, largely due to the fact that the county was to be comprised of
certain portions of the three adjoining counties, Granville, Franklin and
Warren (Figure l). The county as organized at that time was designed to
be Republican as a result of existing conflicts between a large number of
Republicans living near Henderson, and Democrats, who were living in other
sections of the three counties. Both White and Nearc Republicans fought
desperately for the creation of this new county. The favorable relations
existing between the races is shown'by the fact that the late Dr. Plummer
Cheatham, a Negro, was Register of Deeds in Vance County for more than

twenty years.

Location and Tepography. Vance County is a northern border county of North

 

Carolina (Figure 2). It is bounded on the north by the state of Virginia,
on the south by Franklin County, on the east by warren County and on the
west by Granville County. The county lies in the Piedmont Region Which
extends between the Blue Ridge mountains and the Coastal Plain Region.

The tepography of the land ranges from nearly level to rolling, hilly

and broken, with many isolated ranges of hills in the vicinity of its lower

 

*A more detailed—historical description of the county is given in a booklet,
The History of Vance County from 1881 to 1931, by John 3. Buck, Henderson,
NorthVCarolina.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

em
\r ‘6
I ‘ Irimed \,6
1",1 ’ h
/ , \
“c ,W" is"
Q /// ’f‘f 3 vi .’
0 . x a
o 6 a“ it"
x 2‘4 '
40
C. o
.u M
,/ ““51,
hr

figure lam-counties forming Vance County.

 

 

flag/”"4 ‘ N
0 W0 0 d5 [4}de A
7'5 ones r/Y/c
V ‘
M/Ki‘IaDHQSVI/le J!
mfg LY
s ~~z\ Nufb“ 56
a
M” , 7:: \\
r r ,_. 9 W7
6““.
My/mnfigyo
: OM)/,£7m550'a
.fl/ ,; \ \L.
‘3» K“ M‘“ \ ‘ \g/ ‘
i 5
T? c
. 9
001.1767 “ "\ O 7'
of, :
\M/ 5 '
3i“ \'\f U f
k, \
3T YE g3. Iii
% \: k
31:. enq’er507 .. E ‘S a n d7 CY 28.. C°’e7s X ., °mis
‘ r
\ 3‘» 0 3"
«U

Q,
, , 17/7/fO’4/

‘ Dukes X @44‘

”war 50W 77/
new

00

, . I \
_ 7 Absvugaix 7 A I“
,v\\

,A'

    
     

N 2&3 9 <9” O .2155

L
I
5p.
o..-‘

3-H
.
0.

(xi;

%\\'\\i s to: «K .
paw

_-,—'
z‘”*
r’

 

 

 

 

.7.

 

 

 

 
   
 

, 7 .
Ask: MC? /50Vk Woke: Iguana

. L—
qu W: ”(as m f3» 5771!
Gut/{DWI

I“ rectum? M‘s-w
Amish an/I/A\

Nehflxaw
‘1 Hold“ ML

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

/ . " 0‘"
J'WM _ Lina.
Ckebohee C 5 We“;
Ck' a _' ail/:7” ECCKM.
Ans.”

 

 

WOEr/Z CA em //1/,4 -'

Figure 2.-....Locatien of Vance County.

   

- -— —- -->- - me-*’-“~~l-- n4.

«0?, \ylmi 335:4

    
 
    
 
 

{fiscal}

do“

curl-M...—

 

8.

streams. The northern portion of the county is drained by numerous small
creeks flowing into the Roanoke River, while the southern portion is drained

by the Tar River.

Climate“ The area has a mild climate. The average date of the last killing
frost is usually about the tenth of April and the first killing frost about
the twenty-fifth of October‘. This gives the county approximately 200
growing days, which makes it suitable for a diversified agricultural pro-
duction. The average annual rainfall of'about 48.5 inches is usually well
distributed throughout the entire year. This heavy rainfall has caused con-
siderable soil erosion.and.consequently affected the cash income of farmers

as a portion of the land previously cultivated has become unfit for crop use.

Soils: Since vance County lies within the Piedmont Region of the state, its
upland soils were formed from weathering'and the decomposition of underlying
rocks. According to a soil survey" these rocks varied widely in chemical
and physical composition. The resulting soils (Figure 3) which vary con-
siderably in texture, color, and structure, are grouped into the following
series: (1) Cecil, (2) Durham, (3) Appling, (4) Davidson, (5) Iredell,
(6) Wilkes, (7) Georgeville and (8) Alamance. In addition to these upland
soils, there are three types of lowland or alluvial soils known as, Roanoke,
Congaree, and Meadow.

These soil types make vanes County a suitable area for production of

the food, feed, and cash craps commonly produced in the county."‘

'Beattie, J. H.. “The Farm Garden”, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Farmers'
Bulletin 1673, pp. 13-18.
"Fbr a more detailed study of soils in Vance County, see "Soil Types in
N. C! prepared by Dr. Carl Williams, Soils Department, N. C. State College,
Raleigh, North Carolina.
"'Agricultural Extension Staff, "Agricultural Program For N. 0.", Extension
Circular, No. 208, February 1936, pp. 71-72.

 

10.

The Cecil loams and clays are adapted for general farming, the Alamanace
' ' clays such as

. .in, cotton,

 

crops are
pplies are

y one-fourth

  
  
  
  
 

using 74.2
a1 land area.

extremely

-e engaged

 

 

arcent, d ‘

 

lclassifisd.

 

  
    
 

10.

The Cecil 10ams and clays are adapted for general farming, the Alamanace
series for tobacco and truck crops, and.the heavier loams and clays such.as
Wilkes, Durham, Iredell, and Davidson are best adapted for grain, cotton,

and hay crops.

Craps and Livestock Production. The most commonly grown.cash.crops are

 

tobacco and cotton, while the most important crops for home supplies are
corn, oats, wheat, hay and potatoes. Crop land occupies nearly one-fourth
of the total area of the county, with.corn, cotton and tObaccc using 74.2
percent of the crop land, and 17.8 percent of the county's total land area.
The average production per acre on most farms in the county is extremely
low. (Table l). The production is higher on those farms which have engaged
in the agricultural planning programs of extension and vocational workers.

Livestock production is of minor significance. However, work-stock
including horses and mules is of considerable importance because they are
almost the only source of farm power used in the cultivation of crOps. The
low number of only 1.2 horses or mules per fans is due largely to the fact
that the average fhrm contains only fifty-five acres of which about fifty
per cent is cultivated.

The number of food animals is insufficient for a balanced live-at-home
program.as the average per farm was: hogs, 1.4; chickens, 10.9; cows, 2.8;

and sheep only 0.08.

Type and Size of Farms. The 1935 united States Agricultural Census for North

 

Carolina shows that at least eight types of farms were operated in Vance
‘ County. It was estimated that 78.09 percent were tobacco farms;'9.81 percent,
cotton; 3.45 percent, general; 0.82 percent, part-time; 0.28 percent, dairy;

0.12 percent, truck; 0.07 percent, forest; and 7.23 percent, unclassified.

11.

1
Table I. -- Crop Acreage and Production, vance County, 1935‘ )

 

Average production

 

 

name of crop Acreage Production per acre
Unit Amount General Improved
practices(2) practices(3)
Corn 30,088 Bu. 213,893 14.47 37.50
Tobacco 9,343 Lb. 6,878,903 747.00 1,000.00
Cotton 6,988 Lb. 2,695,230 385.00 625.00
Hay 5,250 Ton 4,821 1.08 2.50
Wheat 2,508 Bu. 20,322 8.15 44.00 ‘/
Sweet potatoes 800 Bu. 63,391 79.24 250.00
Date 503 Bu. 693,158 15.86 30.00
White potatoes 356 Bu. 18,808 52.82 140.00

 

(1) Nbrth Carolina Farm Census, 1935.
(2) General average in the county, 1935.
(3) Farmers enrolled in extension and vocational classes, 1932-1935.
Approximately eightyweight percent were tobacco and cotton farms.
The average size of.farms in the county was only 55.5 acres as compared

with the state average of 66.2 acres.

Farm Tenure Groups. Sixty-seven percent of the 2,561 in vance County were

 

operated by White farmers, and the remaining third by Negroes‘. It is of
interest to note that 784 were Operated'by full owners, 131 by part owners,
3 by farm managers, 760 by crOppers and 833 by cropper renters and cash
renters. Thus, only 34.5 percent of the farms in the county were cultivated
by farmers who possessed any equity in the farm unit.

The five distinct types of tenants in Nerth Carolina, as well as in the
state of Virginia” are: straight croppers, cropper renters, standing renters,
stock share renters and.cash.renters. These types vary to a considerable

extent in regards to differences in agreenents made by both.landlord and

 

I‘Uhited’states Agricultural Census, 1935.
"Taylor, Clifford 6., "Renting Farms in Virginia", Virginia Agricultural
Experiment Station, Blackburg, Virginia, Bulletin 249, may 1926.

12.

tenant. The most important differences are revealed in the following
explanations: (1) Straight crappers receive two-thirds of the cash income
from cash crops and furnish all labor, work-stock and equipment. In some
instances the landlord may share in fertilizer expenses; (2) crapper renters
receive either one-third or one-half of the cash income depending upon the
amount of work-stock and equipment furnished. Landlords pay a share of the
fertilizer, seed and feed used by their tenants; (3) standing'renters receive
one-half of the cash income, while landlords bear all expenses of fertilizers,
seed and marketing. The tenant furnishes all the labor, workrstock:and equip-
ment; (4) stock share renters generally receive one-half of the cash income
from craps and livestock. The landlord furnishes the fiann and one-half in-
terest in the dairy herd, swine, poultry and.other livestock excepting work-
stock, While the tenant furnishes the work stock, machinery and one-half
interest in the other livestock. The Landlord.also pays one-half of such
expenses as fertilizer, seed, transportation.and.other Operating expenses,
while the tenantvpays the other half of these expenses and furnishes all
labor; and (5) cash renters furnish all of the work-stock, machinery, equip-
ment and feed; they receive the entire crop and pay all of the expenses
excepting the usual expenses of the landlord such as land taxes, building
insurance, repairs and.depreciations. A fixed money rent is paid by the
tenant to the Landlord for the use of the farm.

In the area of this study, the two types Which predominate are
straight croppers and cash renters. In the former system, a practice exists
which is peculiar to the area, namely, that of allowing tenants to receive
cash incomefrom fruits, livestock and livestock products up to a certain
proportion, providing the tenants plant at least one-fourth of the crop land

in tobacco and cotton.

13.

Population. The pOpulation of the county was 27,295 in 1935. 01’ this number

 

56.14 percent were White, while the remaining 43.86 percent were Negroes.

The rural papulation comprised 76.77 percent, while the rural farm population
formed 50.22 percent of the county's pOpulation. Thus, sixty-five percent of
the rural papulation are farmers.

Approximately thirty-six percent of the Negroes who lived in rural
areas were not engaged in farming. These rural Negroes secure their liveli-
hood through such work as cement workers, stone workers, bag makers and
other seasonalwork available in Henderson and surrounding territories.

Henderson, which is the only town in the county had a papulation of
6,345. Thus, 23.0 percent of the total pepulation of the county lived in

this urban center of which Negroes comprise 45.0 percent.

Markets and Transportation Facilities. Vance County is located near a large

 

number of thriving cities and towns. Henderson, the county seat is one of
the largest tobacco marketing centers in North Carolina. It is also the
largest seed cotton market in the state and provides two large cotton
mills which consume a large proportion of the lint cotton produced in the
county and surroundim areas. Most of the corn, cotton, wheat and vege-
tables are consumed in the local area, while tobacco and truck crops move
into other narkets. Two curb markets in Henderson provide an outlet for
vegetables and livestock products. (A number of smaller as well as larger
markets within a distance of fifty miles also provide readily accessible
outlets for products grown in the county. The most important of these are
Durham, Oxford, Louisburg, Franklinton, Warrenton and Wilson, the largest
tobacco market in the South.

The main line of the Seaboard Air Line Railway from New York to Florida

serves the county (Figure 4). This railway operates a branch line from

/
/

/

lo~

a, .. ‘ ‘5 ’ HENDERSON .
\

V»

SCALE

8
‘—.’

500

REVISED

 

7— 6—35-H

 

n—e-as-S

 

l - 20-3b-5

 

7~ 12- 66-5

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2000

 

(3000

 

 

V

\:\ t f

/,\A 

* /
/—-

/

(6
\ ‘Phlladelpma

VANCE COUNTY
DEV. C DIST. l

    
 
  
    

 

  

   
  

 

 

  

(
R G I N ' A s CALE
MILES
o 1 2 3 4
a
W
VATS)
Oak Level
2
|
M3 pleasant Delight
\ ODREWRY
SLPPLENENT
1,. SECTION
L EG E N D

 

 

STATE HIGHWAYS —®—-

COUNTY ROAD TYPES
HARD SURFACE
T.S.- S.C.- GRAVEL

 

 

 

GRADED

UNIMPROVED = = ===

CONSOL. SCHOOLS ©

PRISON CAMP *

RAILROADS

OVERHEAD XING O.H.
Figure 4.--Railways and highways in Vance County. UNDERPAss up.

ELEC. SIGNAL 5.5.

OTHER SCHOOLS s

“ACHURCHES 3

 

 

 

 

 

 

15.

Henderson, Nerth Carolina to Norfolk, Virginia. The Southern Railway
operates a branch line from Henderson to Durhmn, North Carolina, a tobacco
manufacturing center.

There are three hardsurface highways which run through the county,
one of which is the United States Highway Number One. These highways
radiate from the principal cities of the state and furnish.connection with
all counties of the state and other states both.north and south of the
county. Over this network of highways, fast freight and express truck
lines Operate among the principal cities of Nbrth Carolina, South Carolina,

Georgia, Florida, Virginia, andznany of the eastern states.

16.

II. DESCRIPTION OF FARMS AND FARM FAMILIES STUDIED

Location of Farms. The 88 farms included in the study were located in

 

seven of the nine townships in Vence County. The distribution was as
follows: Henderson, 19: Townsville, 19: Kittrell, 18: Williamsboro, l4:
Middleburg, 12: Nutbush, 5: and Dabney, 1: (Figure 5). Since Negroes are
sparsely settled in'both Sandy Creek:and watson townships, no samples

were taken in these two areas.

Tenure of Farms. 0f the 88 farms, 64 or 72.8 percent, were operated.by

 

owners, while the remaining 24 or 27.2 percent were operated by tenants,
of which 21 or 23.8 percent were operated by straight croppers and the
remaining 3 or 3.4 percent by cash renters. The sample of farms selected
contained more than twice as large a percentage of owner farms as did the

entire county.

Size of Farms. The farms studied ranged from 10 to 400 acres, averaging

 

63.1 acres per farm, which was 3.1 acres less than the average for the
state and 7.6 acres more than the average for the county. Sixty percent
of the farms were less than 50 acres in size, while the average was 72.7
acres on farms operated by owners and 37.6 acres on those operated by
tenants. Thirtybsix percent of the farms cultivated by owners and sixty-
six percent by tenants were less than 30 acres in size. Six farms had ten
acres or less (Table 2), and only four farms or 4.6 percent had more than

200 acres.

Utilisation of Land. The average number of acres in crops for all farms

 

was 34.2 acres (Table 3), or 54 percent of the total acreage.

 

 

 

 

Vlkylhla . N

 

 

 

 

 

 

Is '
. ‘ . 7'
h , fall/M55042 ° 7 s
. C
/ , ‘.
flwnsfi/flg 0” 51/ i
I, ‘ . C 4 .
/.
X” 0 ' C C o
r’-—— . ————~« ,
O ' .
' . I‘
M/flmrs 54 0
' . ofi’ilh'amsbom
O . . . ‘
”xv/0% 54417 by)?
I ' . O 0 deg}
3//’—— -- f "H' ”x . / ‘
’ \‘ Rx\_ 0 row
e .‘I‘ '“r ~mic . -i- g , ~\
5 Q I Q
babe} 0 e . . ‘ O . . e x
e O

\

\
17 ' k
Mam/ks . . 3” ”/4 Q” Mas/56%.,

a Ayedh‘hflq/ ;é:\\\ ///
0 ~' \ \\\ //
. Y” “J 4
. K117)?” . 9V0“ § § [Fishy
~ , ° 59’ as \Q /,
“V mfl‘re// '
‘ e
‘“ w. Kid/(4 (0045272 -
. A9.”

1.1. '—
nigure J.-~Location of Farms dtudied.

 

'Al'

 

. ——

 

I'

~ '. 1’ I

\ ,Z, :4.

t

I‘.
‘(
59
\3
i ‘~_
.\ _
\ W a '
\\ i , 3“}. '
L 4 \:~

‘(if ‘. ( 1 r -
'2} "Lift-:4“ _t_«.\’

 

a3
1"
-I/ ,1

43

if”? ‘1 a C4

 

 

18.

Table 2.-Sise of Fanms

 

 

 

 

Acres in Owners Croppers Renters All farms
farms No. Per- No. Per- , No. Per- Nb. Per- Cumu-
cent cent cent cent lative
0-10 6 9.4 0 - 0 -- 6 6.8 6.8
11-20 6 9.4 2 9.5 1 33.3 10 11.5 18.3
21-30 11 17.2 12 57.1 1 33.3 24 27.3 45.6
31‘40 6 9.4 2 9.5 O -- 8 900 5406
41-50 6 9.4 0 - 0 -- 5 5.7 60.3
51-60 5 7.8 2 9.5 1 33.3 8 9.0 69.3
61-70 2 3.1 0 - 0 - 2 2.3 71.6
71-80 4 6.2 l 4.8 0 -- 5 5.7 77.3
81-90 2 3.1 0 - 0 - 2 2.3 79.6
101-200 6 9.4 1 4.8 0 -- 7 7.9 95.4
200 and over 4 6.2 O - ‘ O - 4 4.6 100.0

Total 64 100.0 21 100.0 3 99.9 88 100.0

 

Woods occupied nearly 25 percent of the total land area, while idle crop
land consisted of about 12 percent of the area which is due in part to such
factors as, reduction in tobacco acreage and the low productivity of some
soils on most farms.

Pasture land was exceptionally low on most farms with the average being
only six acres. However, farmers in this area of the state are starting to
replace soil depleting crops with temporary pasture crops, evidenced by the
fact that plowable pasture increased from 3,795 acres in 1930 to 5,061 acres

in l935.‘

Livestock. The livestock production program on the 88 farms studied was of
little significance in providing'cash income from livestock:and livestock
products. However, animal power was of importance in that it provided the

power necessary to produce the crOps from which farmers received most of their

cash income.

 

mud States Agricultural Census, North Carolina, 1935.

19.

 

 

 

 

o.ooH Hwnm mnnm 0.00a mwmn oaa, o.ooH m.mmfl «mm, o.ooH Numb” #nme Hopes
¢.N a.H med 5.“ o.H n m.~ m.o ma o.n m.a pma dampneumm

T: «.2. mg 93 as 2 2a Em mm «.3 m5 man 33 no.8 33

a.am p.na «oma n.¢H n.m on m.¢a m.m maH o.nm u.ma oboa mecca

a.m a.m nan o.oH a.» HH ¢.m n.n ma m.m o.n mes ouspmam

n.¢m N.¢n moon o.am n.~m so «.00 o.m~ mum o.mm h.an naem nacho

ammo mound amuse ammo nouns amaoe pace aches amped peso moped memos.

them .mp4 Hence them .o>4 Hmppmfitilamm .opd Hmumwfl them .opd Hopes aura no can

aspen Hag uneanom uneqmoao unease

 

undA Mo meandNAHHpDII.n magma

.....

.....

 

20.

The average number of horses and mules amounted to only 2.1 per farm
(Table 4). The largest number of mules on a single farm was five, with
only two families having that number. Most farms used mules instead of
horses, the ratio being five to one, as they are a cheaper source of work
power in the area.

The average number of cows of only 1.1 per farm and the fact that 15
families or 17.0 percent of them were without any cows, indicate that
families are consuming a very small amount of milk.

Poultry flocks averaged 72.9 birds per farm, which was two-thirds
larger than the average size flock in the county. The largest flock was
250, while the smallest flock was eight. One farm did not have any poultry.
0n the whole the flocks were larger on owner farms as the size of poultry
flocks was limited by landlords on most farms Operated by tenants, a prac-
tice which is common in most sections of the South.

Hogs were raised on most farms as a source of food, although they

furnished a limited source of cash income.

Table 4.-Livestock on Farms

 

Kind of Owners ‘ Creppers Renters All fame

 

 

livestock ram Ave. Total Ave. JTIotal Ave. j‘i‘fotal Ave.
Horses 23 003 7 005 O O 30 0.03
Mules 125 1.9 27 1.3 5 1.7 157 1.8
COW. 67 1.04 25 1.2 5 1.7 97 101
Calves 62 0.96 16 0.7 0 O 78 0.08
SVine 318 4.9 67 3.1 4 4 397 4.5
Poultry 5285 82.6 747 35.5 390 130 6422 72.9

Size of Families. Thirty-six percent of all the families studied had at
least five persons per family, the average family consisting of 6.8 persons.
or the sixty-four owners, 37.0 percent had from six to eight persons

in their families, while 47.6 percent of the crappers had the same number.

21.

On the whole, the creppers had larger families than owners, as 33 percent
of the former had families of over eight, as compared.with 21.8 percent of
owners (Table 5). The foregoing data include all persons living on farms,
even though they are supported not only from the cash income available

from various farm sales but also from other sources.

Table 5.-Sise of Emailies

 

 

 

 

 

Owners Croppers Renters All farms

Number in

family No. Percent No. Percent No. Percent No. Percent

0-2 1 1.5 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 1.2

3-5 25 39.1 . 4 19.1 2 66.6 31 35.2

9-11 14 21.8 6 28.6 0 0.0 20 22.7

12 or more 0 0.0 1 4.7 0 0.0 1 1.2
"_;Total 64 100.0 21 10m. 9979” as 100.0

 

Ages of Family Members} Nearly seventy percent of the persons in the

 

families studied were less than 21 years of age (Table 5). Approximately
44 percent of the persons were less than 15 years of age, While 15 percent
were less than seven years of'age. The age composition means that most of
the farming operations are carried on by about fifty-six percent of the

family membership.

Table 6.-Composition of Families by Age and Tenure

 

 

 

Owners Croppers Cash Renters All farms

No. of' Per- No. of Per- No. of Per- NOJET' Per-

Age groups persons cent #persons cent persons cent personscent
0-6 56 13.7 31 18.0 3 21.5 90 15.1
7-14 110 26.8 60 34.9 2 14.2 172 29.0
15-20 101 24.6 43 25.0 3 21.5 ‘147 24.6
21 and above 143 34.9 38 22.1 6 42.8 187 31.3

 

Total 416'“ 100.0 172 100.0 14 100.0 596 100.0

 

22.

Ages of Operators, Farm Operators included in this study are in the most

 

productive period of life since 71.6 percent of the group was between thirty-
five and forty-four years of age (Table 7). Ninety-two percent of the total
were less than sixty years old. No farm Operator was over 64, and only two
who were cash renters were less than 25. The average age of all farm
Operators was 47.3 years, the average among owners being 47.9 years and

45.6 years among'tenants.

Table 7.-Ages of Farm Operators

 

 

 

 

Owners Croppers Renters - All Farms
Age group No. Percent No. Percent No. Percent No. Percentfi
20-24 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 66.6 2 2.3
25-29 0 0.0 l 4.8 - - l 1.2
30-34 3 4.7 l 4.8 - - 4 4.5
35-39 4 6.2 l 4.8 - - 5 5.7
40-44 15 23.6 4 19.0 - - 19 21.6
45-49 11 17.1 6 28.6 - - 17 19.3
50-54 18 28.1 4 19.0 - - 22 25.0
55-59 8 12.4 2 9.5 1 33.3 11 12.5
60-64 5 7.9 2 9.5 - - 7 7.9
65 and over 0 0.0 0 0.0 - - 0 0.0
Total 64 100.0 21 100.0 3 99.9 88 100.0

 

Education of Operators. The relation of education to farm income is signi-

 

ficant. It is generally agreed that education in its broader sense has the
effect of raising the standard of living. However, there is no definite
method Of measuring it. Formal education is more easily measured than gen-
eral education. The school grade completed by farm Operators is used as a
measurement in this study. Of the 88 farmers in this study only one had
attended college, while three had received no formal schooling (Table 8).
The average number of years spent in school by farm owners was 4.5 years,
while the average for the entire group was 4.4 years. Only 30 percent of
the farm operators had attended school beyond the fourth grade. However,

at least fifty percent had attended vocational agriculture and extension

classes.

23.

Table 8.-Education of Farm Operators

 

, Owners Crappers Renters All farms
Grades

completed NO. Percent No. Percent No. Percent No. Percent

 

 

 

0 0 0.0 2 9.5 1 33.3 3 3.4

l 2 3.1 0 0.0 0 - 3 2.3

2 11 17.1 2 9.5 0 - 13 14.8

3 9 14.0 5 23.9 0 - 14 15.9

4 15 23.6 4 19.0 0 - 19 21.6

5 5 7.9 1 4.8 0 - 6 6.8

6 10 15.6 3 14.3 0 - 13 14.8

7 5 7.9 2 9.5 0 - 7 7.9

8 3 4.7 0 0.0 0 - 3 3.4

9 1 1.5 2 9.5 0 - 3 3.4

10 2 3.1 0 0.0 2 66.6 4 4.5

11 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 - 0 0.0

12 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 - 0 0.0

Attended 1 1.5 0 3.0 0 - 1 1.2
college

Total 64 100.0 21 100.0 3 99.9 88 100.0

 

24.

III. ALIOUI‘IT AID SOURCES OF CASH INCOME

The amount of cash income largely detennines the standard of living
of farmers. It sets the limits to possible expenditures, and the manner
in which these incomes are expended provides an index to the standard of
living maintained by a farm family. Cash income as used in thus study
includes all the money earned or received by the entire familyduring the
year, 1936. It does not include the value of commodities such as food and
fuel which are produced on the farm and used in the home nor does it in-
clude the rental value of the farm home occupied by the flamily. Home pro-
duced products enabled many of the families inc luded in this study to live
more comfortably and enjoy a degree of economic security which they would

not have otherwise obtained.

Gross Cash Income. The Operators of the 88 farms in this study received

 

during 1936, a total of $143,214 in cash, or an average of $1,627.09 per

farm (Table 9), as compared with.an average of $1,894 on 311 farms in the

Piedmont Region of NOrth.Carolina, during 1928.‘ Eighty-seven percent

came from the sales of crops, 5.8 percent from livestock and livestock pro-

ducts, 2.2 percent from fruits, and the balance of 4.7 percent came from

other sources such as labor off farm, sale of firewood.and rent from farm

preperty and frOm relief, benefit payments, gifts, boarders and fair premiums.
The average cash income on farms operated by owners was $1,814.39,

while the average on tenant farms was $1,131.03 (Table 10). Crops con-

tributed 86.6 percent of the total cash receipts received by owners and 89.9

percent of that received by tenants.

 

‘Farmthcome and.Taxation in North Carolina, Tax Commission of NOrth Carolina,
June 1929.

{3%

Table 9.--Sources of Gross Cash Income

 

 

 

Sources Total cash Ave. cash Percent.of total
income income per cash income
farm
. Dollars Dollars
Crops (1) 124,996 1,420.0? 87.3
Fruits (2) 3,164 35.95 2.2
Livestock (3) 8,312 94.45 5.8
Other sources 6,742 76.62 4.7
Total 143,214 1,627.09 100.0

 

(1) Includes potatoes, melons, and vegetables.
(2) Includes tree and small fruits.
(3) Includes livestock products.

Table 10.--Sources of Cash Income of Owner and Tenant Farms

 

 

 

 

Sources Average per fans Propertion of total
Owners Tenants Owners Tenants
Dollars Dollars Percent Percent
Crops 1,571.68 . 1,017.00 8606 8909
Fruits 46.89 6.79 2.6 0.6
Livestock 94.65 93.95 5.2 8.3
Other sources 101.17 13.29 5.6 1.2
Total 1,814.39 1,131.03 100.0 100.0

 

Gross Cash Income Groups.

 

About two-fifths of the farms studied had

annual gross cash incomes of less than $1,000, another two-fifths had

incomes from $1,001 to $2,000, and the incomes on tMe remaining 17 farms

were over $2,000 (Table 11).

0f the low income groups, one farmer received less than $400, while

two in the extremely high group for'the area studied received more than

$5,000. Almost 32 percent Of the owners and 63 percent of the tenants

received cash incomes of less than $1000,while 26 percent of the owners

and only 8.4 percent of the tenants received incomes above 82,000.

From such a distribution of incomes one can obviously conclude that

there is a wide range in the standard of living among Negro farmers, from

poverty at the lower extreme to a relatively high standard anong a few

farm families.

Table 11.-Distribution of Gross Cash Income by Groups

 

 

 

 

Owners Tenants All Farms
Income groups No. Percent NO. Percent No. Percent
Dollars
1-200 -- - -- - -- -
201-400 - - l 4.2 l 1.2
401-600 5 7.8 4 16.6 9 10.2
601-800 10 15.6 4 16.6 14 16.0
801-1000 5 7.8 6 25.0 11 12.5
1001-1200 6 9.4 1 4.2 7 7.9
1201-1400 8 12.5 4 16.6 12 13.6
1401-1600 6 9.4 -- - 6 6.8
1601-1800 5 7.8 2 8.4 7 7.9
1801-2000 2 3.2 -- - 2 2.3
2000 and over 17 26.5 2 8.4 19 21.6
Total 64 100.0 24 100.0 88 100.0

 

Cash CrOp Sales The fact that 83 percent of the cash.income of the

 

farms studied was from tobacco and cotton shows that the prevailing type
of agriculture in the area is the raising of these cash crops which are
produced on small farm units by the use of considerable family labor
(Table 12).

All but one of the farms studied sold tobacco as a cash crop. The
total sales of $95,588 amounted to 76.5 percent of the cash income from
crops and to two-thirds of the total cash income. The average cash in-
come from tobacco on those farms making sales was $1,098.71.

Cotton sales which were made by 82 farmers amounted to $22,984 or to
approximately one-fifth of the crop sales and a little over one-sixth of
the caSh gross income. Oh those farms selling cotton, the average receipts
were $280.29.

Although the farms as a group produced considerable amounts of corn,
wheat, potatoes, cantaloupes, watermelons, sorghum and vegetables, these
items accounted for only 16.1 percent of the crop income and 4.6 percent

of the gross cash income. It is apparent from a comparison of tables 1

27.

and 12 that these products were consumed mostly on the farms where grown.

Table 12.-Cash Income from Craps

 

 

 

CrOps NO. of Percent Total Ave. Ave. Percent Percent
farms of farms crop sales of crop of crop of
selling selling sales farms sales of sales gross
crOps crops selling 88 farms cash

crOps income
Dollars Uollars Dollars

Tobacco 87 98.8 95,588 1,098.71 1,086.11 76.5 66.7

Cotton 82 93.1 22,984 280.29 261.14 18.4 16.0

Corn 35 39.7 1,678 47.94 19.06 1.4 1.2

Wheat 26 29.5 690 26.53 7.84 0.5 0.5

W. potatoes 25 28.4 857 34.28 9.70 0.6 0.6

3. potatoes 15 17.0 488 32.53 5.54 0.4 0.4

Cantaloupes 24 27.2 1,190 49.58 13.52 0 9 0.8

watermelons 17 19.3 253 14.88 2.87 0.2 0.2

Sorghum (1) 34 38.6 852 25.05 9.68 0.7 0.6

Corn (2) 13 14.7 153 11.76 1.73 0.1 0.1

Vegetables 14 15.9 263 18.78 2.98 0.3 0.2

Total - --- 124,996 ------ 1,420.17 100.0 87.3

 

(1) Sorghum for syrup.
(2) Corn for meal (market)

Table 13.-Cash Income from Crops of Owner and Tenant Farms

 

 

 

Owners (TEnants
Crops No. 6fw “Percent Ave. No. of Percent Ave. sales
farms of farms sales of farms selling of farms
selling selling farms selling crops selling
crOps crops selling crOps crops
OLPEQPB .
W1 1% 1&1;er
Tobacco 64 100.0 1,195.43 23 95.8 829.56
Cotton 60 93.7 307.22 22 91.6 206.68
Corn 31 48.4 50.03 4 16.6 31.75
Wheat 18 65.6 30.61 8 33.3 18.25
W. potatoes 23 35.9 34.21 2 8.3 35.00
S. potatoes 14 21.8 34.28 1 4.1 8.00
Cantaloupes 19 29.6 48.15 5 20.8 55.00
watermelons 13 20.3 15.46 4 16.6 13.00
Sorghum 34 53.1 25.05 - -- ----
Corn 10 15.6 12.80 3 12.5 8.33
Vegetables 9 14.0 19.77 5 20.8 17.00

 

Although crop sales were considerably larger on owner than on tenant
farms, crOps constituted.about the sane proportion of the total sales for

each group, namely, 86 and 90 percent, respectively. All of the owners sold

C

28.

tobacco averaging Q1,195 per fans, while all but one of the tenants made
tobacco sales averaging $829.56 per farm (Table 13). The owners also re-
ceived about $100 more per farm for cotton than did the tenants. Tenants
received less cash income from other crOps than did the owners, probably
due in a large measure to the fact that restrictions placed on the acreage

Of minor cash crOps on tenant farms prohibited sales from such being larger.

Cash Fruit Sales. Cash income from fruit sales was insignificant, amounting

 

to only $3,164 for all farms, which was only 2.2 percent of the gross cash
income (Table 14). .

Less than a third of the farms sold fruits, with.peaches, pears, and
apples accounting for more than two-thirds of the cash income received
from fruits by the farms making sales.

Small fruits, including dewberries, strawberries and grapes provided
only $298 in cash, but it was an indication of the fact that Negro farmers
are beginning to enter into this farm enterprise as a source of cash income,
an enterprise carried on for many years among German farmers in Vance County.

Host of the fruit sales were made on the local Negro curb market,
organized in 1933 and located in Henderson, the county seat. However, a
number of the farmers are still engaged in selling fruits by peddling from
house-to-house.

Almost all of the fruit sold was by owners, as only five tenants made
fruit sales (Table 15). There are possibilities of an expansion of small
fruit production by some tenant farmers as shown by the fact that one
tenant received $100 from strawberries. About one-half of the owners sold

tree fruits in the local markets.

Cash Income from Animals and Animal Products. Total cash receipts of

 

$8,312 from animal and animal products amounted to only 5.8 percent of the

29.

Table l4.--Cash Income From Fruits

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

‘PNo. of Percent Total Ave. Ave. Percent Per-
Fruits farms of farms sales sales of sales of fruit cent
' selling selling farms of 88 income of gross
selling farms cash
income
Dollars Dollars Dollars

Apples 33 37.5 662 20.06 7.52 20.9 0.46
Peaches 35 39.7 679 19.40 7.71 21.5 0.47
Pears 32 36.3 730 24.68 8.97 24.9 0.55
Plums 4 4.5 32 8.00 0.36 1.0 0.03
Cherries 8 9.0 136 17.00 1.54 4.3 0.09
Dewberries 6 6.8 107 17.83 1.21 3.4 0.07
Strawberries 3 3.4 110 36.66 1.25 3.5 0.07
Canned fruits 15 17.0 567 37.80 6.44 17.9 0.39
Grapes 8 9.0 81 10.12 0.92 2.6 0.05

Total - --- 3,164 --- 35.92 100.0 2.2

Table 15.-Cash Income From Fruits of Owner and Tenant Farms
Owners —':' Tenants
Fruits No. of Percent Ave. sales No. offi Percent Ave. Sales

farms of farms of farms farms of farms of farms

selling, selling selling selling selling selling
Dollars Dollars

Apples 31 48.4 20.87 2 8.3 8.50
Peaches 34 53.1 19.97 1 4.1 15.00
Pears 32 50.0 24.68 - --- §----
Plums 4 6.2 8.00 - -- ---
Cherries 8 12.5 17.00 - -- ----
Dewberries 6 9.3 17.83 - -- ----—
Strawberries 2 4.6 5.00 1 4.1 100.00
Canned fruits 12 23.4 47.25 3 12.1 10.34
Grapes 8 12.5 10.10 - -- ---

 

gross cash income (Table 16). Thus, cash income from this source was of little
significance on most farms. However, Negro farmers in the area studied are
becoming inclined to diversifiy their production program.in order to secure
as much cash income as possible, without depending on a single source.

Swine and cattle sales contributed more than two-thirds of the cash
income received from animal and animal products on those farms making such

sales, which.was only about four percent of the gross cash income. Swine

30.

sales also constituted about two-thirds of the animal sales for both owner
and tenant farmers, averaging $60.59 and $46.31, respectively (Table 17).
Most of the farms produced animals and animal products but they were
primarily used to supply home demands for meat and animal products, although
approximately one-third of the farms made sales of their surplus products

on local markets.

Table 16.-Cash Income From Animals and Animal Products

 

 

 

No. of Percent Total Ave. Ave. Percent Percent
Kind farms of farms sales sales of sales of Live- of
selling selling farms of all stock gross
selling farms income cash
income
Dollars Dollars Dollars
Swine (1) 60 68.1 3,407 56.76 38.71 40.9 2.37
Cattle and Ca1ves(2) 34 38.6 2,356 69.29 26.77 28.4 1.64
Horses and mules 4 4.5 378 94.50 4.25 4.5 0.26
Poultry (3) 30 34.0 678 22.60 7.70 8.3 0.48
Other animals (4) 5 5.6 112 22.40 1.27 1.4 0.08
Eggs 34 38.6 474 13.94 4.38 5.7 0.33
Milk 21 23.8 504 24.00 5.72 6.0 0.35
Butter 21 23.8 377 17.95 4.28 4.5 0.27
Honey 2 2.2 26 13.00 0.29 0.3 0.01
Total -- -- 8,312 ----- 93.37 100.0 5.8

 

(1) Includes young pigs and market hogs.
(2) Includes butchered calves and cows.

(3) Includes chickens, turkeys and guineas.
(4) Includes hunting and pet animals.

Table 17.-Cash Income From Animals and Animal Products
of Owner and Tenant Farms

 

 

 

Owners Tenants
Kind Nd. or PEFcenf Ave. No. or W
farms of farms sales of farms of farms sales of
selling selling farms selling selling farms
selling ' selling
DOllars - Dollars
Swine 44 68.7 60.59 6 66.6 46.31
Cattle and calves 26 40.6 63.30 8 33.3 88.75
Horses and mules 1 1.5 80.00 3 12.5 99.33
Poultry 21 32.8 25.47 9 37.5 15.88
Other animals 1 1.5 22.00 4 16.6 22.50
Eggs 29 45.3 13.89 5 20.8 14.20
Milk 15 23.4 22.13 6 25.0 28.66
Butter 20 31.2 17.35 1 4.0 30.00
_§oney 2 3.1 13.00 - --- ----

 

31.

A greater prOportion of the owners, as would be expected, made live-
stock and livestock products sales. however, the proportion of tenants
making such sales Was also high, indicating that tenants are seeking to
increase their cash income from those sources which would receive no de-

ductions from their landlords, and thus, be in a position to spend.more

for fandly living as well as for the Operation of the fanning'business.

Other Sources of Cash Income. Cash income from sources other than those

——_ W

 

discussed above contributed a total of $6,742 in cash, from at least
fourteen different sources (Table 18).

Table 18.-~Cash Income from Other Sources

 

 

 

N0. of’ Percent Total Ave. Ave. Percent Percent
Items farms of farms cash sales cash received of
receiving receiving incoue of income from gross
income income received farms received other cash
selling from all sources income
farms
Dollars Dollars Dollars
Labor elsewhere 12 13.6 1,247 103.91 14.17 18.5 0.87
Firewood 42 47.7 1,989 47.35 22.60 29.5 1.39
Rent from land 6 6.8 1,388 231.33 15.77 20.6 0.97
Rent from bldgs. 12 13.6 362 30.16 .4.11 5.4 0.25
Rent from team _ 4 4.5 14 3.50 0.16 0.2 0.009
Rent from trucks ‘ 2 2.2 29 14.50 0.55 0.4 0.02
Benefit payments 3 3.4 285 95.00 3.23 4.2 0.20
Boarders 2 2.2 600 300.00 68.18. 9.0 0.42
Fair Premiums 21 23.8 136 6.47 1.54 2.0 0.09
Gifts 5 5.6 185 37.00 2.10 2.8 0.13
Relief 2 2.2 25 12.50 0.28 0.3 0.02
Bonuses l 1.1 125 125.00 1.42 1.8 0.09
Miscellaneous (1) 6 6.8 357 57.82 4.05 5.3 0.25
Total - --- 6,742 ------ 137.94 100.0 4.7

 

(1) Includes day boarders, litter and vegetable plants.

Firewood is a more or less definite source of additional income for
most farmers in vance County, primarily because of the available supply of
growing timber and the large number of families who use wood as a cheap

source of fuel for cooking and heating purposes. About one-half of the

32.

families sold firewood and received an average of $47.35 per farm.

Firewood, rent from farm land and labor Off the farm accounted for more
than three-fifths of the cash income received from other sources while cash
income from bOarders, rent from farm buildings and miscellaneous receipts
figured quite heavily in the remaining'two-fifths.

Only three farmers received benefit payments from the Agricultural
Adjustment Adi‘ninistration, which makes it apparent that Negro farmers in the
area of the study failed to make application for participation in the Agri-
cultural Adjustment Program.

Approximately one-fifteenth of the owners received income from rent of
land not used by themselves, amounting to over one-fourth of the cash income
derived from other sources of income, vhich indicates that a fair number of
farmers, especially owners, have made investments in farm property as a
means of securing a better standard of living due to. this additional income,
(Table 19).

Very few families, either owners or tenants, had an Opportunity to secure
employment off their own farms as a source of additional cam income. This
was due in part, especially among owners, to the intensity of tobacco culture,
a crOp which requires family labor about five-sixths of the entire year. It
would have been almost impossible in most instances for tenants to have
secured employment elsewhere, as they are more or less obligated to have their
labor consumed on the farms which they have agreed to Operate for their land-
lords.

Cash income and the numbers receiving such from other sources on farms
Operated by owners, as would be expected, were far above that Of‘tenant farms.
0f the twenty-four tenants included in this study, only six different families
received any cash income from otter sources. Of the $287 received from other

sources by tenants, one family received $144 of that amount which shows that

only the very progressive tenants who are favorably located are able to

33.

Table 19.--Cash.Income from Other Sources
of Owner and.Tenant Farms

 

 

 

Owners Tenants
Items __
NO. re- Percent Ave. re- No. re- Percent Ave. re-
ceiving receiving eived ceiving receiv- ceived
income income income ing
income
Dollars Dollars
Labor elsewhere 10 15.6 122.00 2 8.3 13.50
Firewood 39 60.9 50.61 3 12.5 5.00
Rent from land 6 9.3 231.33 - --- ---
Rent from buildings 8 12.5 40.00 ,4 16.6 10.50
Bent from team 4 6.2 3.50 - --- ---
Bent from trucks 1 1.5 20.00 1 4.2 9.00
Benefit payments 2 3.1 120.00 1 4.2 45.00
Boarders 2 3.1 300.00 - --- ---
Fair premiums 20 31.3 6.70 l 4.2 2.00
Relief 1 1.5 15.00 1 4.2 10.00
Bonuses 1 1.5 125.00 - --
Miscellaneous 5 7.8 53.60 1 4.2 92.00

 

 

procure income from sources other than the major and minor cash crOps of the

area.

IV. UTILIZATION OF CASH INCOME

The total cash income is utilized to pay current famnxand living ex-
penses; and if there is any remainder, it is used for investment in the farm
or home or for acme other type of savings. The difference between total cash
income and farm business expenses detennines the balance available for family
living, and consequently the standard of living, and also any residue which
may be invested within or outside the farm.

0f the total cash income from 88 farms, 50.0 percent was used to pay for
current farm expenses, 21.5 percent for family living expenses, and the re-
mainder or 28.5 percent was invested within the farm or home or held as

apparent savings (Table 20).

Table 20.--Utilization of Cash Income

 

 

 

Items
using Total Ave. used Percent Of
income used per farm total cash
income
Dollars Dollars
Farm.Bxpense 71,668 814.40 50.0
Family living (1) 30,722 336.61 21.5
Investment costs 7,238 82.20 5.0
Apparent savings (2) 33,586 381.66 23.5
Total 143,214 1,614.87 100.0

 

(1) Includes home, food, clothing, fuel and miscellaneous expenditures for
IIVIDSO
(2) Includes saving accounts and cash held on farms.

The total amount of cash income expended amounted to $109,628. The
gross cash incOme from the 88 farms studied was g143,214 (Table 9), which
was a difference of 233,586. Of this difference, $10,230 was held in saving
accounts with banks, leaving an apparent balance of $23,356, or an average

of $265.40 per farm. This sum seems surprisingly large, and therefore, it

 

35.

is highly possible that some of the farmers failed to report all of their
cash expenditures, .or underestimated certain items. An undetermined amount

may have been used in paying off or reducing past indebtedness.

Cash Income Used by Owner and Tenant Farms. Farm owners used 46.8 percent

 

Of their cash income for the farm business, while the tenants used 64.9
percent for the same purpose which included $6,085 paid to landlords as

their cash share of the harvested crops (Table 21).

Table 21.-Utilization of Cash Income by Owner and Tenant Farms

 

 

 

 

Owners ‘ Tenants
Items TetaI' Ave. per ‘Percent’ ‘TOtaIF' Aye. per Percent
using used farm of cash used farm of cash
income income income
' Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars
Farm Expense 54,877 857.45 46.8 16,791 699.63 64.9
Family living 24,733 386.45 21.0 5,989 249.70 23.2
Investment costs 7,173 111.05 6.1 65 27.08 0.4
Apparent savings 30,572 480.81 26.1 3,014 121.51 11.5
Total 117,355 1,835.76 100.0 25,859 1,097.92 100.0

 

Living costs, absorbed more than one-fifth of the cash income received
by all farmers. However, the owners spent about $140 more per year on family
living and consequently enjoyed better living conditions. Cash income from
tobacco and cotton was higher in 1936 than in any year since 1929. The
practice 0f keeping money at home for safe keeping is cmmnon t0 the area, as
most farmers who make profits are more or less reluctant about revealing such

information.

Cash Farm Expenditures. Cash farm expenses in this study have been classi-

 

fied into the folloWing groupsz’ CrOps, livestock, feed, labor, taxes, cash

rent, crOp rent, interest, machinery, and improvements (Table 22).

 

‘As used in the Farm Account Book, Michigan.State College, Farm Management
Department, Extension Service.

C)!
O)
0

Table 22.--Cash Farm Expenditures

 

 

 

Items of Total amount Ave. amount Percent of Bercent of
cost used by all used per farm cash in-
farms farm expenses come
Dollars Dollars

Crop 27,436 311.77 38.4 19.3
Livestock 802 9.12 1.1 0.6
Feed 3,274 37.20 4.6 2.3
Labor 2,124 24.14 2.8 1.4
Taxes 2,162 24.56 3.0 1.5
Cash rent 499 5.67 0.6 0.3
Crop rent 6,085 69.15 8.5 4.2
Interest 810 9.21 1.3 0.6
Machinery and

equipment 24,081 273.65 33.6 16.8
Improvements . 4,395 49.94 6.2 3.0

Total 71,668 814.41 100.0 50.0

 

The crOp expenses Which included expenditures for Seed, fertilizers,
spray materials, crop insurance, twine, containers, lime and miscellaneous
crOp items (Table 23) constituted 38.4 percent of the total farm expenses
and 19.3 percent of all cash income. The average crop expense for all farms
amounted to 9311.77. Crop expenditures were significant on all farms since
87.3 percent (Table 9) of the gross cash income was derived from the sale of
crops. All farms purchased complete fertilizers which totaled more than
four-fifths of the crop expenses, and amounted to an average of $234.34 per
farm. Seventy-seven of the fanns used nitrate of soda for side-dressing
crOps. Fertilizers consumed about one-fifth of the cash income received
by all farmers. North Carolina uses more commercial fertilizer than any
other state in the Union.‘ During 1931, the state eXpended for fertilizers
an amount equivalent to more than the entire gross cash income from the

state's cotton crop.

 

’Uhiversity of North Carolina, "News Letter", Aug. 3, 1932, Vol. XVII,
No. 16, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.

"’.‘—-‘0—w-"~o--—o --w . ,. 1...»...93 __. ,,, .__( u ,7: _ ~-<'4---—M a m“! -1 ‘_ r, .45. «v _‘ ‘>‘i ‘ -—-'...,

 

 

.---11,I-....11,-1-_,1,m“111-1-1-»11HH,11111,,-1_.11~,
Le. 01‘ .xuxnrfi; Fetal amt. Ave. amt. five. .55.. Poreeni3 Percent
farm: 31:3325: Jar 3:"u: fin‘ihrmn ,flnéell of £532 0"“11
3:23:45” TLRJTAf“ gm u3511 L Spt 15.5.; ifliimis =333903186H§ 0218? 013‘
11' i: menses
vv wa—nur .._r .. 2.. .. - 7......“ J-

1: Q :0 v-u' ~u~r> v ,,,_ ‘0. «‘3. - a- .-,.. .1. .. .._.,w..._;.w,.,._.._. 1....-.mmw,‘ ,1". «=- *, ,._ ,,-..”1*..-flw,._-m.w..q ...'.-_...--.., -, .-».- “up-o .5.wa-umm4
,ell r: 151155: 531 rs
Crep:
, fl ,. n. ,, , ,. .- .- ,.
59630. 710 139.5,“ 197 7 .19 11.1.5; 0.6: O 011...:
Fertilizer (1) 58 300. O >>::U’% 284 35 "‘ ”“ 28. 8 14.41

I. -_j 9 ._I $0.; 4 cg. ~-,:- . Vg- .' 11,"- Q i. x)
.7. 1‘ . ‘ , . rs ”i r r v~ r « 2* I” -— ~ ‘ : . F .'
331+I‘atu 01 800.5. I I 7 .Q 9C} ":3 1‘ 23.91 f,~;.1’;.3 f: .‘y' (3.8:)

!
spray mate rials 22 25.0 115 5.2; 1.50 0.2 0. 08

 

Insurance (2) 12 15.8 820 11.5; 7.04 0.9 0.45
TWine 55 5?.5 154. 5.15 3. 38 0.1 0.07

Containers 5 3.0 $3 5 “5 “ 0 0.02 0.01
Lime 58 40." iitl '” “‘ 1- 1.4. <3.68
Other 28 51.?: afi%_ 24.45 /.:i 0.9 0.48

, ..‘
a; z ,1?

t-J C
o
\4 t“. '2‘

Livestock:
Veterinary fees 85 88.1 at“ 20 75 2.81 5.5 0.1?
medicine <Ai 48.9 31%} 5.55 5.50 " 0.20

0 K1
,3 ' ,, “1', ,c f . ~ . ~ ‘- 9f :‘ ~. ' ,« ‘ "
Bree 0. 111:". l "J 0 8 ‘Ii-l; r.) :5 _7' 7.- 8.} if I.» i} (_ ‘3 01 ‘V" o L} {J 0 l E)

Feed:

. (7):?) I U I'_ ‘1 ‘ ‘ (2'? I,» H 1‘31.
('4‘... L: \I Q ' .‘-’__ 0 Q. . ._"_;' “r .o .' 93.3

~-'

0'23

0
7:“ (:9

7 ' ' ,- 1": ‘ : F '-= -"~, ‘ , , , .
()a‘lry £806. 2) 1 U5 0 :J' f’n/ I." v" o (r U :11017'3 c U o 534
3‘ 1 v " ,3 ‘ ¢ ,1 «f y I , - - . - f‘ , . .

roultry 1600 52 50.4 553 10.55 .55 , 0.24
‘1'.’ fl - :2 ,V r 5 r--r . ~ 4, ;- : , rs
mule Ieed 2 22.7 58? ¢§.h5 , 3 ,0 0,20

O C.) C.) 1'” i-'
0
’31

w

Other feed 24~ 2?.5 éflflé ?O.“E 4.?1

.45

0.55

”axe s:

Preperty 74 84.0 1, 808 25.51 21.45 2.5 1.52
fiersonal 49 55.? 274 5.59 5.11 0.5 0.19

Cash Rent:

Land 5 5.7 499 99.80 5.57 5.? 0.35
r . - : -" VI "'1 v: {7‘ 33' ' ‘ C: 5 5 ... ‘
croi‘) Rel—1L; :3 die/0;" U ,(332) 2.389 Q?U {.39 01:.) ‘05:) ‘$o;25

Labor:

'_ ’ if A; 1 n ' ' - Us": Err." I“) ’I “ "C' 3") f3
Hired .m: 51.2; 2,12z 59.2w: 55.12% u.u 1.48

Interest (3) 15 1?.5 510 55.00 9.20 1.1 0.56
machinery and equipment;
Machinery repairs 55 82.5 2,750 55 J; 51.09 3

4.5.1 . K) .2.

8 1.90
HEW machinery 97 54.7 11.423 200. 50 29.8? 15.9 7.98
Truck repairs 12 15.5 510 “>.“5 5.95 0.8 0.42
Truck licenses 13 14.? 251 18.50 2.85 I 4 0.18
Auto repairs 41 46.1 2,578 58.00 27.02 3.3 1.55
Auto licenses 50 56.8 817 12.34 7. 01 0.9 0.43
Gas and oil, truck 25 28.4 1,185 47. 40 13 ,46 1.7 0.85
Gag and .311, gatg QC." L {A} o i; ’.:: , 0 l (‘3 317': o 5 L: ":15. L313 .5 0 {5 2 . 80
Other e uiwnent 24 25.5 335 55.35 9.21 l 2 0.50

c

.J

Improvements°
Barn repairs 45 51.1 5,021 52.13 54.55 4.2 2.10
Fence reps ire L9 44.5 514 20.55 2.25 1.1 0.57
Insurance (4) 14 5.9 553 40.00 5.55 3 8 0.59

."

 

 

 

 

Total ....,. mm- 71 ,eee 1...... 814.41 100 .0 50.0

 

(1) Includes all kinds of co Mole Lbrulll era.

(2) Includes all classes of crop and storm insurance.
(3)1Lieludes interest maid on varieus loans and her.” age a.
( ) Includes i’led‘=' "'1 es en marine if... m buildings.

4

9 _

 

-p-‘-M--.V----“-—--”~

.3) caateJnI

‘

     
 
 
  
 
  
 
 
  

if vgzsn L'iafif:
' “tfiaulfifisfl
Whimm V6334
nzlaqes'fiavw?
8851115011. 31";
BiiPtaw Oknfi
s- s. 7791) *i 0352..

r.
““ “‘- ‘—"3

 

 

Expenditures for machinery and equipment Which ranked next in impor-
tance, constituted 33.6 percent of the farm expenses and 15.8 percent of
the gross cash income. About $274 per farm was spent for new machinery,
machinery repairs, automobile and truck licenses, petroleum products, and
other farm equipment. New farm machinery accounted for nearly half of the
machinery and equipment costs, as fifty-seven farmers spent an average of
$200.50 for making purchases of new farm machinery. This fact, indicates
that Negro farmers in Vance County, especially owners are gradually purchasing
labor saving machinery for tobacco culture; with a view of reducing unit
production costs.

Gasoline and oil for automobiles averaged $80.56 per farm for those
families purchasing such products, or an average of $45.67 for all farms.
This sum was $7 per farm less than that Spent in 1955 by 46 rural fimnilies
in South Carolina.‘ Expenditures for gasoline and oil were charged to the
farm business due to the fact that automobiles in the area of the study are
used primarily in the transportation of cash crOps to local markets rather
than for traveling for family pleasure.

Machinery and equipment expenditures in 1936 were far greater than
would usually be expected. This increase Was no doubt due in part to the
increase in tobacco and seed cotton prices which during the depression had
declined to levels far below the average prices in 1929 of eighteen and
five cents per pound, respectively, as maintained on the local "Golden Belt"
market for Franklin, Granville, warren and Vance Counties.“I During the

recent period of low prices, farm machinery and equipment and.motor driven

 

’Frayser, nary E., ”A Study of Expenditures Ebr Family Living by 46 South
Carolina Rural Families", South Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station,
Bulletin 299, September 1934, p. 26.

"North Carolina crop and Livestock Report, No. 68, February 1956, p. 5.

vehicles used in the farm business had bec0we badly depreciated; and with
a rise in prices and a substantial increase in cash income, farmers spent
rather heavily for new machinery and for making necessary repairs of farm
equipment as well as for renovating many old automobiles which had stood

in sheds for a period of about five or more years.

CrOp, machinery and equipment costs amounted to three-fifths of the
farm expenditures and more than a third of all cash income. Such expense
items as crop rent, livestock, feed, labor, taxes, Cash rent, interest and
improvements accounted for 58.0 percent of the farm expenditures and 15.9
percent of he cash income. Of these expenditures crop rent amounted to
an average of g289.76 for the 21 tenants paying such rent, which was 15
percent less than the third of their cash income.

The system of tenancy prevalent in this area allows one-third of the
cash income derived from tobacco and cotton; and the landlords usually grant
tenants the privilege of selling fruits, livestock and livestock products,
and a few minor Cash crOps without any cash deductions up to a stipulated
amount. Since at least a third of the tenants included in this study took
advantage of this Opportunity, their crOp rent Was less than one-third of
their cash receipts.

Expenditures for farm improvements amounted to only an average of
$49.94 per farm, which indicates that most farmers failed to make the
necessary improvements on their partially rundown farm buildings and fences.
However, quite a few farmers are skeptical about making many improvements
for fear such would raise their taxes and might reduce prices which they
obtain on the auction market for tobacco.

Feed costs amounted to nearly 5.0 percent of the farm expenses. This

amount was Spent in general for feed concentrates as most farmers produced

40.

their own roughages. However, approximately one-third of the farms studied
purchased feed that could be produced on their own farms.

Taxes amounted to only $1,888, or an average of $25.51 for the 74 farms
making such payments. Taxes on the remaining 14 farms were not paid by the
end of the year for 1936. This ammunt was 47 percent less than the average
for farmers in Grayson County, Virginia in 1951."I Farms in NOrth Carolina
are small and relatively poor with small tax paying capacity.‘*

Fifty-four farms paid out a total of p2,124 for hired labor which was
only 2.0 percent of all cash income. It is generally thought that Negro
farmers perform all of the work on their farms but with the type of agri-
culture prevalent in the area of this study, extra farm labor is often
necessary during the rush season on most flarms. Tobacco priming, (harvesting)
requires rapid work in order to ccmplete the curing process before the crOp
is seriously damaged, thereby, reducing the potential amount of net cash
income. A few farmers use additional labor for picking cotton but since
cotton acreage is much smaller and work less technical, family labor in-
cluding children is usually sufficient.

The leading items of farm eXpenses on farms Operated by owners were
fertilizers, new machinery, petroleum products, repairs and taxes, while the
heaviest expenses for tenants were fertilizers, crop rent, micsellaneous crOp

expense, machinery repairs and petroleum products (Table 24).

 

‘Uhiversity of North Carolina, "News Letter", August 3, 1932, Volume XVII,
N00 100 ‘

“Vernon, J. J., "A Study of the Organization and.management of Farms in
Grayson County, Virginia"., Virginia Agricultural Experiment Station,
Bulletin 304, June 1936, p. 21.

Table 24.--Farm Expenses of Owner and Tenant Farms

41.

 

 

 

Owners Tenants
No. Percent Ave. No. Percent Ave.
Spending spending spent Spending spending spent
CrOp: Dollars Dollars

Seed 17 26.6 6.82 9 37.5 7.88

Fertilizer 64 100.0 264.22 24 100.0 155.54

Nitrate of soda 56 87.5 58.18 21 87.5 38.95

Spray materials 19 29.7 4.89 3 12.5 7.33

Insarance 7 10.9 35.00 5 20.8 75.00

Twine 24 37.5 2.83 9 37.5 4.00

Containers 7 10.9 7.28 l 4.2 3.00

Lime 28 43.7 27.64 8 33.3 25.87

Other 16 25.0 18.50 12 50.0 32.33
Livestock:

Veterinary fees 18 28.1 9.78 5 20.8 14.20

medicine 33 51.6 5.03 10 41.6 9.10

Breeding fees 34 53. 6.18 10 41.6 5.50
Feed:

Hay 21 32.8 35.28 4 16.6 25.00

Dairy feed 26 40.6 31.42 5 20.8 21.40

Poultry feed 24 37.5 11.62 8 33.3 7.50

Mule feed 14 21.9 31.5 6 25.0 37.50

Other feed 20 31.3 2.30 4 16.6 14.25
Taxes:

Property 64 100.0 31.65 10 41.6 13.20

Personal 3 54.8 5.76 12 50.0 5.08
Cash Rent:

Land 2 3.1 62.00 3 12.5 125.00
Crop Rent: -- --- ----- 21 100.0 289.76
Labor:

Hired 44 68.7 39.89 10 41.6 36.90
Interest 10 15.6 04.20 5 20.8 32.80
nachinery and equipment:

Machinery repairs 48 75.0 48.98 7 29.2 54.14

New machinery 49 76.6 212.63 8 33.3 126.25

Truck repairs 12 18.7 50.83 - --- ~ -----

Truck licenses 12 18.7 19.25 1 4.2 20.00

Auto repairs 32 50.0 54.53 9 37.5 70.33

Auto licenses 40 62.5 12.70 10 41.6 10.90

Gas and oil, truck 15 23.4 76.33 10 41.6 4.00

Gas and oil, auto 40 62.5 55.77 10 41.6 78.00

Other e;uipment 18 28.1 38.89 6 25.0 27.16
Improvements:

Barn repairs '5 70.3 67.13 - -- ----

Fence repairs 3 57.8 20.35 - ---- --—-

Insurance 14 21.9 40.00 - --- ----

 

V
!

Casn Used for Family Living. Expenditures for flwnily living were relatively

 

4
low, the amount averaging only ;549.00 per family, or 25‘50 per capita.

(Table 25 ) 0

Table 25.-Cash Expenditures for Family Living

 

 

 

Items of Total Ave. per Percent Percent
cost used family of living of cash
costs income
Dollars Dollars

Home repairs 4,095 46.53 13.4 2.9
Food 7,843 89.12 25.5 5.5
Clothing 12,004 136.41 39.0 8.4
Fuel 1,280 14.54 4.2 0.9
General 5,500 62.50 17.9 3.8
Total 30,722 349.10 100.0 21.5

 

Expenses for clothing and food consumed more than three—fifths of the
cash utilized for family living, while miscellaneous expenditures and re-
pairs accounted for most of the remaining two-fifths. Expenditures for fuel
costs amounted to only one-twentieth of the family living expense.

The low expenditures for living purposes by the 88 fiamilies included
in this study, would indicate that the standard of living on these farms
was exceptionally low, but this meager outlay is probably due in part to
the fact that most farmers engaged in producing food supplies; thereby,
conserving a portion of their cash income which would otherwise have been
utilized for food costs, an important item in family living.

Owners spent 21.0 percent of their cash receipts for family living,

hile tenants Spent 23.2 percent of their available Cash income (Table 26).
These figures indicate that owners and tenants spent approximately the same
proportion of their cash income for family living, but inasnuch as owners

received cash incomes equiValent to almost twice as much as those received

by tenants; it is evident that owners spent on an average more than twice

as much for family living as did the tenants.

Table 26.--Cash Expenditures for Family Living of Owner
and Tenant Families

 

 

 

 

Owners Tenants
Items of Total Ave. per Percent Total Ave. per Percent
cost used family of cash used fanily of cash
income incog;9_
Dollars DolLars Dollars Dollars
Home repairs(1) 4,095 63.98 3.5 ----- ---- ---
Food 5,699 89.05 4.9 2,144 89.33 8.3
Clothing 9,473 148.02 8.0 2,531 105.46 9.8
Fuel 1,002 15.68 0.8 278 11.58 1.0
General 4,464 69.75 3.8 1,036 43.17 4.0
Total 24,733 386.48 21.0 5,989 163.20 23.2

 

(1) Includes additions.

Forty-nine fanilies either made additions or repairs to their homes
amounting to g4,095, an average of 63.98 per family,(Table 26). Thus,
77.6 percent of the farm owners provided their families with more comfort-
able homes. This in an indication of the improvement of general housing
conditions among owners included in this study and is also in accordance
with the general "Better Home Movement", as sponsored by the Negro extension
division of North Carolina. This is in line with the improvement in
housing conditions which appears to be taking place all over North Carolina
at the present time. Expenditures for hpme improvements were made by

owners alone, as tenants lived in homes owned by their landlords and there-

fore, as would be expected, spent nouhing at all for home improvements.

Expenditures for Food. Inasmuch as this study fails to include figures

 

for food produced on the farm and consumed by the farm fanily, the cash
expenditures for food should not be regarded as a true measure of the

general family living conditions with respect to food or family diets,

Food expenditures amounted to a total of p7,843 or an average of $89.11
per family which was only 5.5 percent of all cash income (Table 27). This
would indiCate a lack of proper diet and in most instances such would be
the case, especially with share-crOppers, as their gardening and home pre-
serving practices are sadly neglected. However, mOSt of the farm owners
have a wide Variety of garden products and therefore, carry on a home
canning program during the summer months which provides a fairly suitable

family diet during the winter months.

Table 27.--Distribution of Food Expenditures

 

 

 

No. of Percent Total Ave. for Ave. Percentfi'
Kind farms of farms amount farms for all of food
purchas- purchas- spent spending farms expen-
ing ing ' ditures
Dollars Dollars Dollars
Flour 82 93.2 3,560 43.41 40.45 45.9
Coffee 73 82.9 535 7.33 6.08 6.2
Lard 47 53.4 546 11.62 6.20 6.9
heats 29 32.9 585 20.17' 6.65 7.4
Beans 22 25.0 128 5.82 1.45 1.7
Canned goods 29 32.9 297 10.24 3.37 3.8
Pastries 11 12.5 49 4.45 0.56 0.6
Fruits' 26 29.5 245 9.42 2.78 3.2
Vegetables 14 15.9 137 9.78 1.56 1.8
Other 22 25.0 375 17.04 4.26 4.8
Total -- --- -7,843 ---- 89.11 100.0

 

Flour was the most important food cost, with 82 families purchasing
some flour during the year. The total spent by these families for flour
was $3,560, or an average of p43.41 for those families having such expense,
while the average for all families was p40.45. Thus, flour cynsumed was
40.9 percent of the food costs, or 2.5 percent of all cash income. Those
families that did not purchase any flour at all utilized their own flour
which was milled by local millers for a certain percentage of wheat. This
method of securing flour for fanily usuage is a common practice anong all

farmers in Vance County.

Sugar was the second highest item of fOOd costs, averaging $17.11 for
those 81 farms purchasing sugar. The amount of cash Spent for sugar as
well as the number of families purchasing sugar indicate that little sugar
is consumed. In other words, the amount spent for sugar was equivalent to
only $2.30 per capita for all families. This Was due in part to the fact
that a number of families, eSpecially those in the lower income groups,
use sorghum syrup instead of sugar for beverages, pastries and sweets.

Meats were next, with an average of §20.l7 for the 29 families pur-
chasing meats, while the average for all families was only $6.65 per
family. Meat consumption indicates that more than two-thirds of the fami-
lies studied, utilized only meats which were produced on the home farm.

Only 1.6 percent of the food expenditures were for items other than
flour, sugar and meats.

With the number of cows being only 1.1 per farm (Table 4), it is
readily seen that dairy products were insufficiently consumed. Therefore,
with 15.0 percent of the persons in the families studied being under 8
years of age, it appears that most of the children suffer from under-
nourishment.

0n anaverage, as revealed in (Table 28), those owners who utilized
money for food spent approximately the same anount as did the tenants,
even though in most instances the families of tenants were larger than
those of the owners. 0n the other hand, the amount of cash income was
greater, and more money could be spent for food. The absence of a Negro
home demonstration agent in the county may account for the types of food
generally purchased by both owners and tenants. Thus, the lack of sufficient
information on nutrition probably causes inadequate diets to prevail in most
farm homes in the area.

Clothing Expenditures. Expenditures for clothing amounted to an average of

 

$136.36 per farm (Table 29) or nearly 9 percent of the expenses used for

Table 28.--Distribution of Food Expenditures of
Owner and Tenant Farms

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Owners Tenants “'
No. Of Tercent Axe. no. of Tercemt ‘Iie.
Kind farms of farms spent by farms of farms spent by
purchasing purchasing farms purchasing purchasing farms
' ‘Ibllars ‘DoIIars
Flour 62 96.9 42.22 20 83.3 47.10
Sugar 59 92.2 18.47 22 91.6 13.45
Coffee 54 84.4 7.35 19 79.2 7.26
Lard 32 50.0 10.90 15 62.5 13.13
Meats 16 25.0 21.94 13 54.2 18.00
Beans 14 21.9 3.50 8 33.3 3.14
Canned goods 20 31.2 10.95 9 37.5 3.90
Pastries 10 15.6 4.70 1 4.2 2.00
Fruits 18 28.1 11.28 8 33.3 5.25
Vegetables 7 10.9 7.14 7 29.2 11.43
Other 15 23.4 19.40 7 29.2 12.00
Total - -- 137.85 - --- 138.66
Table 29.--Distribution of Clothing Expenditures
No. of Percent Total Ave. amt. Ave. for Percent
Items farms of farms amt. for farms all of
purchasing purchasing spent purchasing farms clothing
expenses
Dollars Dollars Dollars
Shoes 87 98.8 1,573 18.08 17.87 13.2
Socks 84 95.4 385 4.58 4.37 3.2
Suits 80 90.9 3,451 43.14 39.22 28.7
Coats 73 82.9 2,028 27.78 23.05 16.9
Dresses 79 89.7 1,532 19039 17040 1208
Undergarments 73 82.9 808 11.07 9.18 6.7
Hats and caps 80 90.9 577 7.21 6.55 4.8
Shirts 78 88.6 615 7.88 6.98 5.2
Ties 61 69.3 244 4.00 2.76 2.0
Other clothing 30 34.0 352 11.73 4.00 2.9
Total -- ---- 12,004 --- 136.36 100.0

 

family living. The average annual clothing expenditures for 46 families in

South Carolina' was y60 less than the average for 88 families in this study.

 

‘Frayser, nary 3., "A Study of Expenditures For Family Living'by 46 South
Carolina Rural Families.", South Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station,
Bulletin 299, September 1934, p. 19.

47.

This difference may be due in part to the rise in clothing costs during
1936 as compared with the cost of clothing in 1932, the year when the
study in South Carolina Was completed. The amounts spent fer clothing
ranged from §28 to 3439 among ownersaand from 318 to 3184 along tenants.
These figures indicate that most of the owners were clothed fairly decently,
while most of the tenants spent sums too small to be prOperly CILd. Coats
utilized 16.9 percent of the clothing budget, while shoes consumed 13.2
percent. Thus, suits, ceats and shoes utilized nearly sixty percent of the
money spent for clothing and approximately 5.0 percent of the cash income.
Dresses, undergarments, shirts, hats, caps, socks and other clothing con-
sumed the remaining 41.0 percent of the clothing budget in the order named.
Shoes were purchased by all of the owners and all but one of the tenants,

(Table 50) 0

Table 30.--Distribution of Clothing Expenditures of
Owner and Tenant Farms

 

 

 

 

Owners Tenants
No. of fiercent Ave. amt. No. of' Percent Ave.amt.
Items farms of farms spent by farms of farms spent by
purchasing purchasing farms purchasing punhasing farms
purchas ing purc‘z'...:si 3
Dollars Dollars
Shoes 64 100.0 17.33 23 95.8 20.17
Socks 62 96.9 4.70 22 91.6 4.23
Suits 60 93.7 49.9 20 83.3 37.85
Coats 57 89.0 29.82 16 66.6 20.50
Dresses 61 95.3 20.15 8 75.0 15.72
Undergarments 59 92.2 10.73 14 58.3 12.50
Hats and cap 64 100.0 7.22 16 66.6 7.19
Shirts 59 92.2 8.05 19 79.2 7.37
Ties 51 79.7 4.41 10 41.6 1.90
Spreads 3 50.0 11.66 6 25.0 11.00
Other clothing 20 31.2 14.05 10 41.6 7.10
Total - ---- 178.02 -- --- 145.53

 

The average was $17.33 for owners and $20.17 for tenants. The difference in

this average was prdbably due to differences in the size of families as well

48.

as the shOpping ability of the two groups. Quite often a number of items,
such as shoes, have to be replaced by fanners rather frequently due to the
low quality of the goods purchased.

A larger prOportion of the owners purchased clothing than tenants. In
most instances there was a relative increase in the anount eansumed for
clothing as the amount of cash income rather than the size of the flwnily
increased. more money was Spent for men's than women's clothing.

Fuel EXpenditures. The total eXpenditure for fuel was $14.54 per farm.

 

This average included the one farm Which used electricity amounting to
3126. (Table 31).

The type of heating and sources of fuel kept fuel expenditures at a
very low level as all of the farms included in the study used either fire-
places or stoves for heating purposes, and used firewood for heating, which
was procured from the woodlands of these farms.

Kerosene was the heaviest expense item for fuel representing 78.5 per-
cent of the cost of fuel, but it was less than one percent of the total cash
expenditures. Expenditures for kerosene are usually kept at a low figure as
most families use only one or two kerosene lamps for the entire house. The
early retiring habit also makes it unnecessary to consume any large anount

of kerosene.

Table 31.-Distribution of Fuel Expenditures

 

 

 

 

No. of Percent Total Ave. amt. Ave. Percent
farms of fanns amt. for farms spent of fuel
purchasing purchasing spent purchasing for all costs
farms
Dollars Dollars Dollars
Kerosene 88 100.0 1,004 11.41 11.41 78.5
Electricity 1 1.1 126 126.00 1.43" 9.8
Other (1) 21 23.9 150 7.14 1.70 11.7
Total - --- 1,280 ---- 14.54 100.0

 

(1) Fuel for gas lamps.

49.

On a few farms, gasoline was used in gas lwups,as in recent years a number
of fwnilies have purchased such lamps in order that their homes might have
brighter light fbr their children to study their lessons, without affecting
their eyes seriously.

There was very little difference between the average amount spent for
fuel other than electricity by owners and tenants (Table 32}.

Table 32.--Distribution of Fuel Expenditures of Owner
and Tenant Farms

 

 

 

Owners ' Tenants
No. of Percent Ave. No. of Percent Ave;—
farms of farms spent farms of farms spent
purchasing purchasing purchasing Apurchasing
Dollars Dollars
Kerosene 64 100.0 11.71 24 100.0 10.58
fileCtriCity l 106 126000 — “.m -m-
Other 15 23.4 8.00 6 25.0 4.00

 

Ceneral Expenditures. General expenses as classified in this study include
expenses for education, recreation, reading, church and sabbath school,
societies, donations, fishing licenses, dog licenses, hunting licenses,
hunting supplies, legal fees, postage and confectionaries.

Of the $5,500 consumed for general expenses, education accounted for
32,220 or 40.4 percent. This amount was spent by 69 families or 78.4 per-
cent of the funilies included in this study. Even though this sum is small,
it is an indication of the fact that Negro farm fwnilies are awakening to
the need of assisting their children in securing at least a secondary school
education. 0f the sixty-nine fanilies utilizing money for eduCational
purposes, five or 5.7 percent of them had children attending college.

The second highest anount Spent for general expenditures went for

church and sabbath school funds, or an average of $12.55 per fann for the

eighty-four contributing to these religious agencies. This amount was

509

19.2 percent of the general expenditures. Funds contribited for church
and sabbath school reveal the general attitude of Negro farmers toward
religious activities as being favorable, as only four failed to make

contributions for these activities.

Table 33.--Distribution of General Expenditures

 

 

 

No. of Percent Total Ave. amt. Ave. amt. Percent
Items farms of fanus amount of farms for all of
spending spending spent spending farms general
expenses
Dollars Dollars Dollars

Education (1) 69 78.4 2,220 32.17 25.23 40.4
Recreation (2) 28 31.8 596 21.28 6.77 10.8
Reading 63 71.6 336 5.33 3.81 6.0
Church (3) 84 95.5 1,054 12.55 11.98 19.2
Societies 19 21.6 98 5.16 1.11 1.8
Donations 5 60.2 405 7.64 4.60 7.4
Fishing licenses 9 10.2 25 2.78 0.28 0.4
Dog licenses 19 21.6 44 2.32 0.50 0.8
Hunting supplies 31 35.2 226 7.29 2.57 4.4
Hunting licenses 35 33.8 71 2.03 0.81 1.3
Legal fees 5 5.7 62 12.40 0.70 1.0
Postage 33 37.5 129 3.90 1.46 2.3
Confectionaries 42 47.7 254 5.57 2.66 4.2
Total -- ---- 5,500 ----- 62.48 100.0

 

(1) Includes books and tuition.
(2) Includes travel.
(3) Includes sabbath school.

Recreation was next in importance amounting to an average of $21.28
for the 28 families who reported expenditures for this purpose, or to an
average of g6.76 for all farms. 0n the whole, Opportunities for wholesome
pleasures among Negroes included in this study are exceedingly limited.
However, for about five years, there has been a growing interest in recrea-
tional trips for both adults and younger persons due largely to the influence
of state camps, field days, and annual tours being Sponsored by the local

and state workers in a riculutral eduCation.

The average anwunt consuned fir recreation per filmily in this study

was Q3 less than for the 46 rural families in South Carolina.’

Education, churches, and recreation accounted for 70.4 percent of the
general expenditures and 3 percent of all cash income which indicate that
the social aspects of rural life amongst nearly two-thirds of the families
are nut being entirely overlooked.

General expenditures for most items on farms being Operated by owners
were twice as great as those Operated by tenants with the exception of
church and society funds. In both of these instances the average was a few
cents greater (Table 34).

Table 34.-Distribution of General Expenditures of Owner
and Tenant Farms

 

 

 

 

 

Omens 358114131

No. of Percent Ave. amt. No. of’ Percent .Ave. amt.

families of per families of per

spending families family spending families family

Spending
Dollars Dollars

.Bducation 52 81.2 36.62 17 70.8 18.59
Recreation 21 32.8 22.81 7 29.2 16.71
Reading 46 71.9 5.67 17 70.8 1.12
Church 61 95.3 12.39 23 95.8 12.96
Societies 17 26.6 5.12 2 8.3 5.50
Donations 42 65.6 7.86 11 45.8 4.09
Fishing licenses 8 12.5 3.00 l 4.2 1.00
Dog licenses 17 26.6 2.41 2 8.3 1.50
Hunting supplies 22 34.4 8.23- 9 37.5 5.00
Hunting licenses 27 42.2 1.96 8 33.3 2.25
Legal fees 4 6.2 15.00 2 8.3 6.00
Postage 27 42.2 4.07 6 25.0 3.17
Confectionaries 30 46.9 5.93 12 50.0 4.67

 

Investments. Expenditures for investments as used in this study include money

 

spent for taxes on other property, life insurance and new homes (Table 35).
A total of only $7,238 was invested for these purposes, or an average of
§82.25 for all farms, with more than four-fifths of this sum being used for

building new farm homes. These homes were built for seven owners for an

 

'Frayser, nary 3., "A Study of Expenditures For Fanily Living by 46 Rural
Families in South Carolina.", South Caroling Experiment Station, Bulletin
229, September 1934, p. 26.

 

52.

average amount of g864.26 per farm (Table 36).

Table 35.--Distribution of Investments

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No. of Percent Amt. Ave. for Ave. Percent
families of invested families for of
fanilies investing all investment
Dollars Dollars
Taxes on
other property 6 6.8 270 45.00 3.06 3.7
Insurance 12 13.6 918 76.50 10.43 12.7
Homes (new) 7 10.9 6,050 864.26 68.75 83.6
Total - --- 7,238 ---- 82.24 100.0
Table 36.--Distribution of Investments of
Owner and Tenant Farms
Owners Tenants
Ho. of’ Percent” ave. amt. 3N0. of’ ’Percenf' Eve. amt?
Items fandlies of per fanily families of per
families inveSting families family
investing
Dollars Dollars
Taxes on
other property 6 9.4 45.00 - --- ----
Insurance 10 15.6 85.30 2 8.3 32.50

Homes (MN!) 7 10.9 864.26 - --.. --...-

 

This was exceptionally low, but the cost of building material was kept at a
low level due to the use of fann grown timber which Was dressed by local saw
mills for a certain portion of the dressed lumber.

Taxes on other preperty and life insurance premiums used the remaining
16.4 percent of the investment costs. These facts indicate that the more
enterprising Negro fanners in Vance County are following the investment
policies of most of the leading farmers in North Carolina, that of investing

money in other farm land.‘

 

I'Anderson, W..A., "Living Conditions Among White Land Owner Operators in
wake County", North Carolina Experiment Station, Bulletin NO. 258, June,
1928, p. 250

However, it is to be noted that none of the farmers included in this study

made investments in stocks and bonds, urban real estate, and other business
shares which.show that all investments were made almost entirely in farming
enterprises.

Apparent Savings. As previously indiCated, the apparent cash available

 

after all expenditures had been recorded was ;33,586, or an average of
$381.66 per family (Table 20). This sum included $10,230 held by approx-
imately one-fourth of the farmers in the form of saving accounts. host of
these accounts were possessed by farm owners, as only five tenants had
saving accounts Which amounted to only $1,135 as compared with $9,095 held
by sixteen owners. Only small proportions of the cash earnings of either
owners or tenants were placed in saving accounts, primarily because most
of the farmers in the area of this study are more or less reluctant about
having other individuals know about their profits, or accumulations of
funds. Thus, as shown in this study, many fiarmers failed to deposit any
money in banks, while others deposited very little of their net cash income.
This fact, may account in part for the large anount of apparent savings
beyond that held in bank accounts. Doubtless some of the apparent savings

were used to pay off previously incurred debts.

 

V. FACTORS AFFECTING CASH INCOME

Cash income from farming is prObably affected by as many factors as
any type of business enterprise. In general, farming is affected by at
least four important groups of factors, namely; economic, physical,
biological and personal. However, this study includes only some of the
economic factors which affect the amount of cash.income received by the
88 farms. Such factors as the size of fanns, size of fanilies, number
Of adult workers and the education of farm operators are analyzed in their
relation to cash farm expenditures and to net cash income available for

family living, investments and apparent savings.

Size of Farms. The size of farms in total acres is one of the primary

 

factors in determining the volume of fanm business, largely because it
usually affects the area, shape and location of fields; factors which
aid in determining the profitableness of the farm business due to their
effect on labor efficiency. As the size of the farm increased the amount
of net cash income also tended to increase (Table 37). The farm Operators
who lived on the larger farms were able to utilize more effectively their
resources of labor, equipment, supplies and land. It is also probably that
the better farm Operators tend to be located on the larger farms.

About two-fifths of the farms were capable of maintaining a standard
Of living far above the average in the area due primarily to the fact that
these Operators had fanns of sufficient size to Obtain a net cash income

over three times as large as that received by the other three-fifths of

the farmers.

rd
Pu

r.

.mmdflamm pnmammms was mesmepmm>qfl .m:H>HH hafieam pom magsawsss esooqw ammu «an

 

 

egooaH ease pmz ens upmfiooom ease 0» manna no oanm mo eonpsammru.an wanes

auuunaun emm.aa uuuunnua mme.aa nuauus.. eam.nea 0.00” we Hence
oo.mmH.m ma¢.¢a om.amm.a emm.a om.emm.e mme.mH w.¢ e com am>o
oo.oeH.H omH.m «H.aa~.H meo.m em.mme.m mmH.aH m.a a oomsflon
ma.nmfl.a Ham.mm mm.mam nan.nm oo.amo.m eem.me n.5m em coauan
m¢.nmm mmn.a me.Omm mam.m mn.emm.fl moe.ea e.sH an omuflm
aa.ome som.OH mm.aen Has.na me.HHo.H mam.em n.5m em onnnm
oa.~me aflm.e om.mmm na~.m o~.moo.H moo.oa m.HH OH omuaa
an.mem has.” an.moa mom.¢ om.mmm nea.m «.0 m oano
nudaaon mudaaon undaaon unmaaon unsaaon onsaaon
nmmnOmNo
esooca momnogxm sash upmamomu
Ammo RH. mecca“ Sham Ammo upmamomu Ammo asamm mo mshmm sham
pen .o>4 Ammo pmz nude .mp4 Hdpoe Ammo .o>4 Hmpoa pcoouom no .02 a“ moped

Ln
C 3
0

Size of Fandlies. The size of families is often a factor affecting cash

 

labor costs but the cash income per capita may not be sufficient for
providing the living necessities in case of a large flmnily, especially if
on a small farm. The family labor may be inefficient as well as too young
or old to contribute much actual fanm labor, so that the amount of cash
income may be low on a per Capita basis. In this study, the 35 families
having from 6 to 8 members per family received the best returns, with an
average of 9150.82 per capita (Table 58). It is doubtful whether or not
such an income per person is sufficient to provide satisfactory living
conditions. However, the cash income Was greatly augmented by the pro-
duction of home supplies which made it possible for these fwnilies to
provide for their living expenses and also create savings. The fanilies
with nine or more members, which constituted about one-fourth of the

entire group had a very low income per capita.

Adult Workers. The number of adult workers affects the net cash receipts

 

from farming for if the number is either too large or too small for the
volume of farm business, it is probable that the amount of net cash income
per capita will be materially reduced. Therefore, it is necessary to keep
workers employed a maximum amount of time on productive wprk in order to
provide a satisfactory inccme per worker and per family under normal economic
and physical conditions. More productive work per adult worker may be
provided in this area by securing additional farm land, increasing the crOp
acreage, improving soil fertility and by expanding the livestock enterprises.
About two-thirds of the owner fanns and practically all Of the tenant
farms were Operated by one full-time family adult worker. The average net
cash income on the two-man farms was twice as large as that on the one-man
farms and about one-third larger than that received by the three-man farms.

(Table 39).

57.

 

 

 

:3}: 3.3.3 mum. 2. mini: 8m. H a 3!!!! 3m. 93 o. ooa mm Hence
om.nn oo.mmd owe oo.oom 0mm oo.mmb mma m.a a Na nope
em.ma om.mmm mmm.nH mm.moo.H and.om aH.mnH.H mafl.em a.mm om Hana
ma.oma Hfi.meo.a mam.an mo.mme maa.am Ha.mmm.a amo.me a.mn on mum
om.mna ma.mmm mmH.mH 0m.mms oen.nm dw.nan.a mmm.~¢ m.mn an min
oo.amm oo.mmm «mm 00.nnH and oo.mmm 0mm N.H H «to
updaaon unmaaon undaaon unmaaon ondaaon mudaaon undaaom

. mmmnmmxo momammxm .
nonuom mom oeoona bacon“ and“ sham upmaoomn numwmomu nmfiaaeam
mEooaH Ammo ammo ammo ammo Ammo Ammo Ammo mo mOHHHgam Magnum
no: .mp4 pod .o>4 pmz .o>< fleece .m>4 Hence unmoumm no .02 ea .02

 

esoonm sumo pmz ens upmwooom.nmco o» hHHSflm mo osHm.mo aofipmammru.mn canoe

n0
CU

.opopm no eao munch am can one magma co mefi>fia mamxuoa mass mmesHosH AH.

 

 

 

uuua...a mum.aa ass... mee.aa u.ann-un «Hm.msa 0.00H mm Hence
om.eoo.a emo.e oo.eam one.» ne.ame.m mmm.a m.e e qaenmouae
mo.emn.a nmfl.ma mo.Haa «no.0H mm.mefl.m ama.mm m.eH an assuage
ms.mmm aan.me on.mmm www.mm em.aflm.d maa.aoa 6.0m Ha assuage
ausaaoa unsaflon masaaon useHHon musaaon masHHon
ammnomxm nonsense
sham sham upmamomu upmaooou nanny macaw
mEooda ammo mecca“ Ammo ammo Ammo Ammo Mo some
and .m>4 ammo pmz .m>¢ Hence .O>4 Hence unmoumm mo .02 macaw

 

AH. osooeH ammo pmz ens mpaaoomm emao op mamnaoa pages no soaesammru.mm mflpea

This difference was partly due to the size Of the farms, since the average
for all farms of 34.2 crOp acres was too large for one adult and too small
for three adults to Operate successfully on account of the intensiveness
of tobacco production. Furthermore, such a difference indiCates that the
two-man farms are probably better adapted to the size of farms and type

of agriculture followed in the area. Although the cash income per adult
worker was practiCally the Same on both the One-man and two-man farms,
there was more net cash income per family member, in case of the two-man
farms. Thus, it is apparent that the family could enjoy a higher standard

of living on the farms Operated by two adult workers.

Education of Farm Operators. The education of farm Operators had negligible

 

effects upon the amount of cash income, except for those farm Operators who
had completed the tenth grade and the one who had attended college (Table 40).
”This fact is contrary to the results of a study made in Grayson County,
Virginia‘ which found that on both full-time and part-time farms, the farm
income increased with the number of years the farm Operators had attended
school. However, this difference in effect of formal education on cash
income may have been due in part to the difference in the type of agriculture
in the two areas, as practically nine-tenths of the cash receipts on the
Virginia farms were derived from livestock and supplementary occupations of
farm Operators as compared with four-fifths from tobacco and cotton on the
farms in Vance County. In case of the type of agriculture followed in the
area of this study, it is probable that long experience has as much effect on

cash receipts as does formal education, as experience in producing tobacco

 

iVernon, J. J., ”A Study of the Organization and nanagement of Farms in

Grayson County, Virginia", Virginia agricultural Experiment Station,
Bulletin 504, June 1936, p. 65.

60.

 

 

uuuuu-sn man.fla anuuusca mam.aa uuu-u-un «Hm.n¢H 0.00” ma deuce
ununuuuu Ham.n oo.mmm.m mam.m oo.aaa.m mam.n m.H H mamaaoo
emeawaaa
ma.eam.H mam.m oo.nmm.H «Ho.m ma.aom.m Ham.HH m.e s OH
oo.aae ame.a oo.anm eam.m oo.aee.H Hen.e e.a n a
ae.mno.a mac.» om.ann.H «Ho.e ae.oan.n «Ha.a e.n n m
Ha.aem mea.a eH.oam Hae.e aa.nao.a aa¢.m m.a a a
eH.maa mam.~a mH.mom mam.oa on.aoa.H mae.mm m.eH ad a
aH.man.H men.m an.oom.a mom.a om.emm.m aam.ma m.m m m
mm.eae mam.afl oH.mee oom.mH ma.mm~.a aaw.am m.am ma e
mm.mmo mam.a Ha.naa moa.oa Ha.aee.H mem.om a.aa ed a
Ho.emo oma.m ma.eem «ao.a aa.maa.a eafi.ma m.ea an m
oo.Hem «NH.H oo.n~o.a emo.m oo.eam.H aeH.n m.m m a
oo.mma.a mme.a am.mmo.H mac.» ae.naa.m Hmm.m e.n a o
mhdaaonfl deHHOQ mHmHHOD. deHHoQ mudHHOQ deHHOQ
mmmnmmxm nonsense
Shem Shem mpmwmomu mpqflmomn mufipmameoo

ascend nmso esoonfi gmso nmco gmso sane mefipmHQEOO mnmEnsm cmpmHQEOO

pom .mp4 ammo pom .o>d fleece .m>4 Hepom ammonem mo .02 compo

 

oEOUCH ammo pen can mumfimoem Amen on macpdummo gush mo nprsosuu mo cowpsammrl.o¢ manna

usually means higher prices on account of the superior quality of leaf
tobacco, generally marketed by the experienced grower. However, the con-
tact Of faruers in VOOational and agricultural extension classes may have

aided in overcoming the handicap of limited formal school training.

SIXJJARY AND COITCLU’SI 0H3

This study presents the findings Of a survey of the anount, sources
and utilization of cash incOme during 1936, muong 88 Negro farm families
in Vance County, North Carolina. Sixty-four or 72.7 percent Of these

gin“
farmers were owners, while the remaining; were tenants.

In general, the type of farming conducted by these 88 farmers was a
two-crOp system, consisting of the production of tobacco and cotton, from
which all farms secured at least four-fifths of their cash income. This
type of farming is primarily due to a favorable climate as\nell as
markets for tobacco and cotton. The low acreage of pasture land, the small
size of farms and the lack of proper markets make it uneconomic to attempt
livestock production as a major source of cash income, even though the
tOpography of the soil in most areas of the county is satisfactory for
livestock fanning.

Farm prices received for tobacco and cotton were rising during the
period Of this study, and were at levels above any year since 1929. This
condition made it possible for farmers to secure cash incomes above those
expected and higher than incomes in other years.

The prevailing type of tenancy is that of straight-crOppers where
thetenant receives two-thirds of the cash income from the cash crops with
the privilege of a limited incmne from other sources. This fonn of
tenancy favors the tenant in that he is largely responsible for the anmunt
of additional cash income which.he may Obtain fran sources other than
tobacco and cotton.

On the whole, farms were relatively small, averaging 65.1 acres per

farm. However, they were only 31, acres smaller than the average size farm

63.

‘
-

in North Carolina, while they were 7.6 acres larger than the average for
the county. The size of most farms was in accord with the type of agri-
culture, inasmuch as tobacco farmers in the area depend heavily upon family
labor and therefbre, since tobacco requires intensive cultiVation, only a
few acres are neceSSary to consume available family labor on most farms.

Approximately nine-tenths of the cash income obtained by the 88 farms
was derived from the sale of crepe. Cash income from sources other than
farm enterprises accounted for less than four percent of the total cash
receipts. Thus, it is evident that Negro farmers in Vance County depend
almost completely upon farming as their mode of living.

The average gross cash income was gl,814 on farms Operated by owners,
while the average was $1,131 on tenant farms, a difference of $683. This
difference largely accounts for the apparent wide variations in the stan-
dard of living maintained by most of the farmers in these two groups.
Nearly 32 percent of the owners and 83 percent of the tenants received gross
cash inc0mes of less than Vl,OOO. However, most of the farmers in this
cash income group were able to maintain a decent standard of living,
primarily because of the fact that especiallythe owners and the enterprising
tenants produced large supplies of food which not only reduced family-
expenditures but enabled them to make investments and create savings.

The average net cash income was about $813 per farm or an average of
p120 per capita, which indicates that many families were unable to provide
most of the comforts of life.

These 88 families Spent 50.0 percent of their cash income for the
farm business and 21.5 percent for family living, while the remainder or

28. percent was invested within the fann or home, or held as apparent

(:3

savings. The average utilization of cash income on all farms was $814

for the farm business, $536 for family living, 982 for investments while

04.

the remainder or p381 was classified as apparent savings.

Eertilizers constituted nearly 35 percent of the farm expenditures
or p280 per farm, which indicates the heavy application of fertilizers
for tobacco and cotton as well as the low fertility of most soils in the
area.

Clothing and food which consumed more than three-fifths of the cash
spent for family living purposes averaged §225 per farm. These expend-
itures were greatly reduced primarily because of home produced farm pro-
ducts, while most of the clothing used by many of the families was rela-
tively inexpensive.

The construction of new homes among 10.9 percent of the farm owners
accounted for 83.6 percent of the investments made by farmers in this study.
This fact indicates that the more enterprising Negro farmers in Vance
County are keeping in line with the general improvenents in farm housing
conditions throughout North Carolina.

Apparent savings amounted to a total of $33,585 or an average of
$381.66 per flamily. This sum included $10,230 held by approximately one-
fourth of the farmers in the form of savings accounts. Doubtless some of
the apparent savings were used to pay off previously incurred debts or were
a part of the expenses which were not obtained in the questionnaires.

Cash income increased as the size of the farms increased, which was
probably on account of the fact that on the larger farms the operators were
able to utilize more effectively their resources of labor, equipment, supplies
and land.

Those families having from 6 to 8 members received the largest cash
incomes, averaging glbo per capita, which was low for maintaining comfortable
living standards as well as creating savings.

Those families who had two male adult members working on the farms

65.

secured incanes twice as large as those with only one and one-third larger
than those families with three hale adult workers, which indiCates that
the average crop acreage of 34.2 acres per farm is better suited for the
two-man farms than either the one-man or three-man farms.

Education of the farm Operators in this study showed negligible effects
upon the amount of cash income, except those who had completed the tenth
grade and the one who had attended college. This fact seemingly indicates
that probably long experience has as much effect on cash receipts as does

formal eduCation in this area of tobacco farming.

Recommendations. The findings during the course of this study seemingly

 

Warrant the following recommendations:

1. The production of more soil improving crOps such as legumes is
necessary to maintain and improve the fertility of the soils as a
means of increasing the potential cash income.

2. The using of land for its best purpose would tend to increase the
cash income of farmers and in removing submarginal or high cost
lands from farm use. a state zoning law and a county zoning

ordinance would aid in obtaining this end.

‘
d

. The participation in the present Agricultural Adjustment Program
of Soil Conservation will serve to inprove soil fertility.
4. If owners and tenants would engage in the production of more horti-
cultural products, eSpecially small fruits, the risks involved in
the present two-crop system of fanning would be reduced.
9. Many farmers should increase the number of dairy cows per farm as a
means of providing an adequate supply of dairy products for the family

and some might secure an additional source of cash income from the

sale of dairy products.

10.

ll.

12.

Ca
Ca
0

Farmers whose records indiCate a parent savings mi Lt make invest-
ments in farm land, bonds, life insurances, and otherprufitable
investments as a means of securing greater economic security.

The mixing of fertilizers by groups of farmers will aid in reducing
expenditures for commercial fertilizers.

Farmers should be encouraged to urganize their own c00perative
association to buy supplies for the fann and he home, and to
participate in the selling f tobacco and cotton, c00peratively.

A thorough educational program may be necessary to show the advan-
tages and limitations of c00peratives and to explain the failure

of a local Negro marketing association some ten or more years ago.
The production and marketing of high quality farm products should
be encouraged in order to secure prenium prices.

Those farmers who have failed to keep farm and household records
should establish a system of farm record keeping as a means of
detennining more accurately the returns from the farm business.

The system of tenancy needs sanexnodifications on many farms which
will result in maintaining the fertility of the soil and in keep-
ing the tenants on the farm for a longer period.

The continued and further participation of the fans fwnilies in the
agricultural eduCation programs will result in a steady improvement
of the economic position of the farm people.

An expansion of the educational work in home economics and consumer
education will improve the dietary habits, the standards of dress

and other phases of farm living.

OLEIAILG T0

Q’ASTI

67.

neuron
:zcnsir or maximums.

OBTAIN CASH Inconn nun EKPEJJLS OF NEGRO LARKERS IN

VAHCJ C'UHTY, NOfifH CAROLINE, r03 1955.

Name

General Information

 

Township Adress

 

 

 

Number in family on farm

girls 9

 

Number children 0-6 years

, adults (21 or older) , boys ,

 

’ 7-14 , 15-20 0

 

 

Acres operated , owned , rented (Operated by others

).
Acres in crops , in pasture , woods , idle ,
farmstead .
Number mules , horses , cows , calves , hogs ,
chickens , turkeys , ducks , guineas , other .
System of farming, ownership , share , cash .

Describe

 

Craps

Corn, bu.

Cotton, bales
Tobacco, lbs.
Wheat , bu.

W. Potatoes, bu.
Sw. Potatoes, bu.
Cantaloupes, crates
watermelon, loads
Vegetables,

Seeds

Molasses, gal.
Meal , 1h 0

Other

Total

Cash Income

 

(Record only products sold)

Tree and small fruits

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

$ Apples, bu. _¥$
$ Peaches, bu. $
$ Pears, bu. $
$5 PILUHS , bu 0 $53
_r*'§ Cherries, gal. $
$ Quinces, bu. $
$ Grapes, bu. ‘$
$ Dewberdes,crates $
$_fi' Strawberries, "‘ $
$ Canned fruit §
$ Other $
§
$ Total $

 

if}

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-2-
Livesggflg Other cash incomes

Hogs, No. lbs. , é Firewood 3
Pigs, No. lbs. , $ Logs p
Cattle, No. lbs. , $ Fair premiums p
Calves, No. lbs. , $ Land rental, gov't. $
Mules, No. lbs. , $ Land rental, farmers $
Eggs, doz. p Rent, tobacco barn O
Milk, gal. p Rent, other bldgs. $
Sour milk, gal. p Rent, team $
Butter, lb. p Rent, truck $
Honey, lb. :9 , Labor elsewhere $5
Hens, No. lbs. p Boarders $
Fries, No. lbs. , O Pensions $
Turkey, No. ' lbs. , p Relief $
Ducks, No. lbs. , g Gifts $
Guineas, No. lbs. , ; Policies $
Dogs, No. p Other Q
Others, g

Total ; Total p

Farm Cash Expenses
Crop expenses Livestoc“ expenses Farm machinery and truck
expenses

Fertilizers $ Breeding fees Q
Nitrate of soda 9 medicine e machinery repair $
Lime p Veterinary fees $ New machinery $
Seeds p Fuel for breader Q Truck repairs p
CrOp Insurance 9 Hay p License truck y
Twine p Dairy feed Q Auto repairs 9
Threshing ; Poultry feed p License, auto \
Containers Q mule feed 9 Trailer, repairs ;
Spray p Other feed ; License, trailer ;

 

.

 

Other ; Other ; Gas and oil, truckp

Gas and oil, auto h

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total 3 Total § Other ;
Total $
Farm improvements' expenses Other farm expenses
House repairs $ Hired labor $
Barn repairs ; Cash rent $
Fence repairs p Taxes (Personal) $
Insurance p Taxes (PrOperty) T

 

Total p Total 3 .

 

Household and Personal Expenses

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Foods Clothing
Flour $ shoes g
Sugar * Socks y
Coffee 9 Suits Q
Lard ; Coats §
.meat Y Dresses $
Beans n Undergarments?
Canned goods 9 Hats and caps;
Pastries w Shirts p
Candies g Ties é
Fruits ; Spreads 9
Vegetables §
Other g Total a
Total 9
Fue l and l 1 Edit
Kerosene Q
Electricity;
Other Q
Total y
3111111th I‘y
Total InCOme §
Total Expense fi
Balance a
Savings
Life insurance premiums $
Farm investment §

 

Other savin63(i“°1udin5 bank) T

 

Other exp

811863

 

Church

Lodges and

Travel
School
Papers
Telepho

Postage and stationery

and Sunday school;

expenses

and mega z ine s

nes

Legal fees

Interest on loans
Fishing license
Hunting license

Dog license

Hunting supplies

Donatio

Total

ns

societies
(other than car)

z: .

le'<‘<'\

' 5-? ..-("
q

5' . \ _ .

r-rrrnrrur

(a

2.

3.

4.

7.

70.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Reports

United L’tates Census of.Agriculture, 1955.
United States Census of POpulation, 1950.
Farm Census-Survey, North Carolina, 1956.

Annual Report of Agricultural Extension Work in North Carolina, 1956,
North Carolina Extension Service, p. 15.

North Carolina CrOp and Livestock Report, No. 68, February 1956, p. 5.

Annual Program-Report of Negro Agricultural Extension Work in Vance
County, North Carolina, 1956.

Annual Reports of Vocational Agriculture, Henderson Institute, Vance
County, North Carolina, 1952-1956.

Booklets and Bulletins

 

Buck, John 3., "Vance County, 1881-1951", Henderson Printing Company,
Henderson, H. C., 1951, pp. 7-12.

Anderson, W..A., "Living Conditions Among White Land-Owner Operators in
wake County, North Carolina, North Carolina Agricultural Sxperiment
Station, Bulletin 258, June 1928.

Cyler, Merton, "Cost of Living and Population Trends in Laurel County,
Kentucky., Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station, Bulletin 501,
March 19:30 0

Jensen, W. C., "An Economic Study of Sumter County Agriculture", South
Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station, Bulletin 288, January 1955.

Vernon, J. J., "A Study of the Organization and Management of Farms
in Grayson County, Virginia", Virginia Agricultural Experiment Station,
Bulletin 504, June 1956.

Frayser, Mary E., "A Study of Expenditures for Family Living by 46
South Carolina Rural Fanilies.", South Carolina Agricultural Experiment
Station, Bulletin 299, September 1954. '

Forster, G. W., "Farm Income and Taxation in North Carolina", Nerth
Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station, Bulletin 267, June 1929,
pp. 47-75 0

8.

10.

11.

12.

71.

Alford, Ben F., "Economic Status of Tenure Groups in Tallapoosa and
Chambers Counties, Alabama", Alabama Agriculture Experiment Station,
(Reprint from Journal of Farm Economics, Vol. XVIII, No. 5, August
1956).

Taylor, Clifford., "Renting Finns in Virginia", Virginia Agricultural
Experiment Station, Bulletin 249, may 1926, pp. 10-26.

Beattie, J. B., "Farm Garden", United States Department of Agriculture,
Farmers' Bulletin 1675, p. 15. '

Davis, W. A., and Perkins, S. 0., "Soil Survey of Vance County, North
Carolina", North Carolina .Agricultural Experiment Station, 1921.

Agricultural Extension Staff, "Agricultural Program for North Carolina",
North Carolina Experiment Station, Extension Circular No. 208,
February 1956, pp. 71-72.

Williams, C. B., "Soil Types in North Carolina", Soils Department,
North Carolina State College, Raleigh, Nerth Carolina. (mimeographed)

University of North Carolina, "News Letter", University of NOrth
Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, Vol. XVIII, No. 16, August
5 1952.

9

3

 

 

I

3