Documenting the American South Logo
powered by google
  Highlights   |   About   |   Collections   |   Authors   |   Titles   |   Subjects   |   Geographic   |   Classroom   |   New Additions  

Economic and Social Conditions of North Carolina Farmers. Based on a Survey of 1000 North Carolina Farmers in Three Typical Counties of the State. Prepared under the Direction of a Committee Appointed by the State Board of Agriculture Consisting of Representatives from the North Carolina College for Women, the North Carolina State College of Agriculture and Engineering, the University of North Carolina and the State Department of Agriculture in Co-operation with the U.S. Bureau of Agricultural Economics:
Electronic Edition.

North Carolina. Tenancy Commission.

Ed. by Taylor, Carl C. (Carl Cleveland), b. 1884, Zimmerman, Carle Clark, 1897-, Brown, B. F. (Benjamin Franklin), b. 1881

Funding from the Institute for Museum and Library Services
supported the electronic publication of this title.

Text transcribed by Apex Data Services, Inc.
Images scanned by Elizabeth S. Wright
Text encoded by Apex Data Services, Inc., Melissa Graham Meeks, and Jill Kuhn Sexton
First edition, 2002
ca. 375K
Academic Affairs Library, UNC-CH
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill,
2002.

        © This work is the property of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. It may be used freely by individuals for research, teaching and personal use as long as this statement of availability is included in the text.

Source Description:
(title page) Economic and Social Conditions of North Carolina Farmers. Based on a Survey of 1000 North Carolina Farmers in Three Typical Counties of the State. Prepared under the Direction of a Committee Appointed by the State Board of Agriculture Consisting of Representatives from the North Carolina College for Women, the North Carolina State College of Agriculture and Engineering, the University of North Carolina and the State Department of Agriculture in Co-operation with the U.S. Bureau of Agricultural Economics
North Carolina. Tenancy Commission.
Information compiled and collated by Carl C. Taylor, C.C. Zimmerman.
87 p.
[Raleigh]
s.n.
1922
Call number Cp630 T23e c.4 (North Carolina Collection, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill)

        The electronic edition is a part of the UNC-CH digitization project, Documenting the American South.
        The text has been entered using double-keying and verified against the original. The text has been encoded using the recommendations for Level 4 of the TEI in Libraries Guidelines.
        Original grammar, punctuation, and spelling have been preserved. Encountered typographical errors have been preserved, and appear in red type.
        All footnotes are inserted at the point of reference within paragraphs. When the point of reference appears within a table, the footnote is inserted at the end of the table.
        Any hyphens occurring in line breaks have been removed, and the trailing part of a word has been joined to the preceding line.
        All quotation marks, em dashes and ampersand have been transcribed as entity references.
        All double right and left quotation marks are encoded as " and " respectively.
        All single right and left quotation marks are encoded as ' and ' respectively.
        All em dashes are encoded as --
        Indentation in lines has not been preserved.
        Running titles have not been preserved.
        Spell-check and verification made against printed text using Author/Editor (SoftQuad) and Microsoft Word spell check programs.

Library of Congress Subject Headings

Languages Used:

LC Subject Headings:

Revision History:

Illustration

[Title Page Image]

ECONOMIC and SOCIAL
CONDITIONS of NORTH
CAROLINA FARMERS

BASED ON A SURVEY OF
1000 NORTH CAROLINA FARMERS
IN THREE TYPICAL COUNTIES
OF THE STATE

Prepared Under the Direction of a Committee Appointed by
the State Board of Agriculture Consisting
of Representatives from

THE NORTH CAROLINA COLLEGE FOR WOMEN
THE NORTH CAROLINA STATE COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE
AND ENGINEERING
THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA
AND
THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
IN CO-OPERATION WITH
THE U. S. BUREAU OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS

Information Compiled and Collated
by

CARL C. TAYLOR

C. C. ZIMMERMAN

Page 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page 3

PREFACE

        This bulletin grew out of a resolution passed by the State Board of Agriculture at its annual meeting in December, 1921, as follows:

        "WHEREAS, the alarming increase in tenancy presents one of the most serious problems now confronting the farmers of our State and other States. In 1880 only one American farmer in four was a tenant, whereas now practically two out of five are tenants, and the percentage is higher in North Carolina than in the country as a whole. Our public men as well as our agricultural leaders are now becoming aroused to the seriousness of this evil, and there is general demand for a thorough investigation of the whole problem, with a view to discovering precise facts and suggesting definite remedies: Therefore, be it

        "Resolved by the North Carolina Board of Agriculture, That we hereby request four men in North Carolina who have given prolonged study to the question of tenancy and land ownership in this State and other States, and in foreign countries--namely, Mr. B. F. Brown, Director of our Division of Markets and Rural Organization; Dr. Carl C. Taylor, Head of the Division of Rural Economics, State College of Agriculture and Engineering; Professor E. C. Branson, Department of Rural Economics of our State University, and Dr. E. C. Lindeman, of a similar department of our State College for Women--together with two representatives of the Board of Agriculture, to come together and make plans for a thorough-going study and investigation of the whole subject of farm tenancy and proposed remedies, proceeding immediately with such studies and investigations as they are themselves prepared to carry out, and making plans for the coöperation of all these institutions in prosecuting such additional surveys and investigations as are deemed necessary."


        The committee thus appointed consisted at first of the above-named members, with Dr. Clarence Poe and Hon. C. C. Wright acting for the Board of Agriculture.

        At a later date, the N. C. College for Women was represented by Dr. W. C. Jackson in the absence of Dr. Lindeman, and the University by Professor S. H. Hobbs, Jr., in the absence of Dr. Branson.

        At the first meeting of the committee in Greensboro in March, 1922, it was agreed that the four institutions--the North Carolina College for Women, the State University, the State College of Agriculture and Engineering, and the State Division of Markets--should coöperate and secure, if possible, the coöperation of the U. S. Bureau of Agricultural Economics. These arrangements were perfected, the survey made, and the bulletin written under them.

Page 4

        The schedules were the joint work of Dr. Branson, Dr. Taylor, C. C. Zimmerman, and C. O. Brannen; the field work was carried on by W. R. Anderson, C. H. Warren and J. A. Dickey, under the direction of C. C. Zimmerman, in charge; the schedules were compiled by C. C. Zimmerman, A. J. Honeycutt and J. A. Dickey, under the direction of Dr. Taylor; and the bulletin has been written by Dr. Taylor and C. C. Zimmerman, under the general supervision of the whole committee.

B. F. BROWN, Chairman,
The Tenancy Commission.

Page 5

INTRODUCTION

        The information gathered in this study is so detailed and is compiled in such tabular form that it demands some generalization to be usable by the average person. For that reason these few brief statements are made by way of introduction and as a suggestion of the many facts contained in the tables, if the reader cares to study them.

        Since this is chiefly a study of the causes and effects of tenancy, it may seem that only the darker side of North Carolina rural life is portrayed in these statements and the following tables. This is undoubtedly the case, but tenancy in many of its aspects creates a dark side of rural life. These conclusions, we believe, are justified from the facts as we found them, and are about the same as any one will draw who is willing to study the tabulated data in detail.

        Many people will be surprised to learn that the average amount of land being cultivated is less than eighteen acres per family. This is a small acreage upon which to make a living unless the most intensive methods of cultivation are used and exactly the right choice of crops is guaranteed.

        That a wise choice of production is not being practiced, particularly for a long-time agricultural program, is indicated by the very great amount of exhaustive crops being planted in contrast to the very few improvement crops. Furthermore, it is clear from the data presented in the following tables that tenant farming is conducive to exhaustive crop farming more than owner-operator farming. The tenants and croppers in two of the three counties surveyed had over 99 per cent of all their land planted to crops which were strictly fertility-exhausting rather than soil-improving.

        The tenants and croppers are almost wholly cotton and tobacco growers in the Piedmont and Coastal Plain counties. The landless farmers universally have fewer livestock than the landowners have. They produce less of their home food supply, and in addition to this they have a lower cash income. They thus not only are practicing a system of agriculture which is ruinous for the future but are not making even personal gain while they are doing it.

        The crop lien is the curse of North Carolina agriculture. The landlords and owner-operators are by no means universally free from the crop lien and chattel mortgage, but the landless farmers are farming under this handicap in three times as great numbers as are the landed. Furthermore, the tenants and croppers use a much greater per cent of their credit for living purposes than the landlords and owners do. Their credit is not so much for the sake of an investment as it is for the sake of a stake to tide them over from season to season. This is not a business use of credit but a makeshift one year after another.

Page 6

        The great number of tenants and croppers whose fathers were tenants and croppers and the few owners who rose to ownership unaided make it clear that it is not easy to attain the status of a farm-owner in modern agriculture, and probably indicates that our numbers of tenants will continue to increase unless some means is discovered with which to assist them to the ownership of farms.

        No matter how much disagreement there may be among persons as to the cause of tenancy, the effects are too clear to dispute. This is just as true of the social effects as it is of the economic effects. The landless families live in poorer houses, they live under worse sanitary conditions, have poorer health, lose more of their children by death than the owners do. They are more illiterate, fail to reach as high grades in school, take less papers and magazines, have fewer books in their homes, attend church and Sunday-school less, have fewer home amusements, attend community affairs less often.

        Landless men may in many cases be accounted individually responsible for these differences, but the fact remains that our rural citizenship is less adequate because it is made up of people of this kind, and would be more adequate if these people could be made more prosperous and happy.

        The following outstanding disparaging facts are set forth in bold relief, not because there are no bright spots in these peoples' lives, but that we may know these facts and if possible set about to remedy them.

        Only .4 per cent of the crops grown by the black croppers of the Coastal Plain county are improvement crops.

        There is only one cow for every 138 tilled acres among the white croppers and one cow for every 277 tilled acres among the black croppers of the Coastal Plain county.

        The black croppers produce only 32.9 gallons of milk per year per family. This is but .07 of a quart per individual per day. Only 9 per cent of them produce milk at all.

        The cash income of the white tenants and croppers of the Mountain county is less than 10 cents per day per individual.

        Over 75 per cent of all the landless farmers surveyed used short-time credit to carry on their farming operations.

        The equity holdings per family of the black croppers in the Piedmont county is $36.

        Thirteen per cent of all the farm lands included in this survey are being farmed by insolvent men.

        Seventy-five per cent of the landless farmers are sons of landless fathers.

        Two per cent of all families surveyed are living in one-room houses. If the territory covered by the survey is typical, this means that something over 6,000 rural families in this State are living in one-room houses. If we include two-room houses, then over 42,000 rural families

Page 7

of the State are found to be living in these types of houses. Almost one-fifth of all the landless families surveyed are living in one- or two- room houses.

        There is not a negro family or a white tenant or cropper family in the whole area surveyed that has an indoor toilet or bath tub.

        Over 31 per cent of the fathers and mothers in the landless families can neither write nor read.

        The average cropper had attained a school status of only third grade. The average negro had attained less than full first-grade education.

        Over sixty-five per cent of all landless families surveyed take no papers or magazines whatsoever. Less than seven per cent of them take daily papers.

        The average landless family for all surveyed attended less than two recreational events during the year of 1922.

Page 8

THE AREA SURVEYED

        This survey included 1,014 farm families. Representative areas in three typical counties in the three major geographic sections of the State were covered. The areas were in Edgecombe County, in the Coastal Plain section; Chatham County, in the Piedmont section; and, Madison County, in the Mountain section. A fifteen-page schedule was used in the survey. Each family was interviewed personally and asked more than 700 questions about farm production, farm ownership, and farm life. The items contained in the following tables are as specific and as accurate as the persons interviewed could give. Because the volume of information is great, the tables are presented with the minimum of interpretation.

THE PEOPLE

        The number of persons and the number of families surveyed is relatively unimportant in this study. Tables I to III are presented to show the scope of the survey and as basic tables from which all other data are interpreted.

        

TABLE I-- Families and Persons by Tenure
(For surveyed area)

  Coastal Plain   Piedmont   Mountain   Total   Total
  Landed Landless Landed Landless Landed Landless Landed Landless All
Number of Families 78 261 181 154 231 109 490 524 1014
Per cent of Families 23.2 76.8 54.1 45.9 68.0 32.0 48.4 51.6 ----
Number of Persons at Home 419 1316 856 834 1160 538 2435 2688 5123
Per cent of Persons at Home 24.2 75.8 50.7 49.3 68.3 31.7 47.6 54.4 ----
Average Persons at Home per Family 5.37 5.05 4.17 5.42 5.02 4.94 4.97 5.14 5.05

Page 9

        

TABLE II-- Families and Persons by Color
(For surveyed area)

  Coastal Plain   Piedmont   Mountain   Total   Total
  White Black White Black White Black White Black All
Number of Families 203 136 190 145 340 ---- 733 277 1014
Per cent of Families 59.9 40.1 56.8 43.2 ---- ---- 72.3 27.1 ----
Number of Persons at Home 1003 732 860 830 1698 ---- 3561 1562 5123
Per cent of Persons at Home 57.8 42.2 50.8 49.2 ---- ---- 69.7 30.3 ----
Average Persons at Home per Family 4.95 5.02 4.53 5.72 4.99 ---- 4.86 5.65 4.17

        

TABLE III-- Per cent of Different Tenure and Racial Classes
(For surveyed area)

  Operator Landlords   Owner Operators   Tenants   Croppers  
  White Black White Black White Black White Black
Coastal Plain 14.2 1.47 5.9 1.47 22.8 4.16 17.2 32.8
Piedmont 17.3 1.79 23.60 11.33 11.95 19.7 3.88 10.45
Mountain 20.3 ---- 42.6 ---- 20.9 ---- 11.2 ----
Total 17.25 1.08 25.72 4.28 18.78 7.98 9.94 14.97

THE LAND FARMED

        The landless families were tilling 48.5 per cent of all cultivated land under the plow. The croppers were tilling 23.1 per cent of it and the tenants were tilling 25.4 per cent of it. Tables IV to VII give the detailed information for the three counties.

        

TABLE IV-- Land in Farms by Tenure and Race
(For territory surveyed)

  Per Tenure     Per Race  
  Landed Landless Totals White Black
Acres of all land 54,281 8,439 62,720 54,731 7,989
Per cent of all land 86.53 13.47 100 87.28 12.72
Acres tilled land 8,947 8,437 17,386 12,476 4,910
Per cent of tilled land 51.45 48.55 100 717 28.3
Average tilled acres per farm 18.2 16.1 17.1 17.0 17.4

Page 10

        

TABLE V-- Land in Farms per Different Tenure Types
(For territory surveyed)

  Landlord Operators Owner Operators Tenants Croppers Total
Total acres 35,115 19,166 4,421 4,018 62,720
Total tilled acres 3,830 5,117 4,421 4,018 17,386

        

TABLE VI-- Per cent of Tilled Acres Farmed by Each Tenure and Color Class
(Per counties surveyed)

  Operator Landlords   Owner Operators   Tenants   Croppers  
  White Black White Black White Black White Black
Coastal Plain 19.80 1.63 5.84 1.840 21.54 4.74 14.87 29.74
Piedmont 22.35 1.60 23.73 11.82 9.52 19.80 3.24 7.94
Mountain 32.22 ---- 47.83 .13 12.73 .60 5.80 .69
Total 26.01 .89 29.00 3.58 14.62 6.65 7.92 11.33
  Landed Landless White Black
  59.6   40.4   77.5   22.5  

        

TABLE VII-- Per cent of Tilled Acres Farmed by Different Classes
(For territory surveyed)

  Per Tenure   Per Race  
  Landed Landless White Black
Coastal Plain 27.90 72.10 60.78 39.22
Piedmont 61.40 38.60 59.70 40.30
Mountain 67.40 32.60 98.64 1.36
All sections 51.44 48.56 77.6 22.4

        The outstanding facts apparent in Tables IV to VII are:

        1. That all tenure classes are farming about the same amount of land per family--an average of just a little more than 17 acres.

        2. Landless farmers have practically all the land under their direction in cultivation.

        3. Landless men are farming the greatest percentage of land in the Coastal Plain and least in the Mountain section.

        4. Negro farmers were farming a larger per cent of the land in the Piedmont than in either of the other counties.

Page 11

FARM CROP PRACTICES

        An attempt was made to discover what differences, if any, there were between the landed and landless farmers in their farm practices. Complete records were taken on all crops, crop yield, animals, and home supplies produced on the farms. Tables VIII to X give the detailed information.

        

TABLE VIII-- Amount of Exhaustive and Improvement Crops
(Per counties surveyed)

   Landlords   Owner Operators   Tenants   Croppers  
   White Black White Black White Black White Black
COASTAL PLAINExhaustive 1,194 105 345.5 113 1,366 309 931 1,932
 Improvement 99 ---- 35.5 7 41 ---- 39 8
 Total 1,293 105 381.0 120 1,407 309 970 1,940
 Per cent of exhaustive 92.3 100 90.7 94.0 97.0 100 96.0 99.6
 Per cent of improvement 7.7 ---- 9.3 6.0 3.0 ---- 4.0 0.4
PIEDMONTExhaustive 1,091 76 1,242 601 503 1,058 169 426
 Improvement 108 10 29 33 7 4 5 ----
 Total 1,199 86 1,271 634 510 1,062 174 426
 Per cent of exhaustive 91.05 88.4 97.7 95.0 98.6 99.2 97.4 100
 Per cent of improvement 8.95 11.6 2.3 5.0 1.4 0.8 2.6 ----
MOUNTAINExhaustive 629 ---- 2,007 6.5 866 46 440 59
 Improvement 2,456 ---- 2,555 6. 353 9 114 7
 Total 3,085 ---- 4,562 12.5 1,219 57 554 66
 Per cent of exhaustive 20.4 ---- 44.0 52 71.1 84.2 79.5 89.4
 Per cent of improvement 79.6 ---- 56.0 48 28.9 15.8 20.5 10.6

        The following lists are the crops as they were classified for constructing Table VIII:

Page 12

        

TABLE IX-- Amount and Per cent of Exhaustive Crops Per Tenure and Color Class
(By county)

  COASTAL PLAIN       PIEDMONT       MOUNTAIN      
  Landed Landless White Black Landed Landless White Black Landed Landless White Black
Total acres exhaustive crops 1757 4538 3836 2459 3010 2156 3005 2161 2642.5 1413 3942 113.5
Total crops -A- 1899 4626 4051 2474 3190 2172 3154 2208 7659.5 1896 9420 135.5
Per cent exhaustive 94.0 99.4 82.4 99.5 94.4 99.1 95.5 97.7 34.5 74.5 42.7 83.8
Total exhaustive   6295       5166       4055.5    
Total crop acres   6525       5362       9555.5    
Per cent exhaustive   96.5       94.6       42.9    

        The following facts are apparent in Tables VIII and IX:

        1. The practice of using exhaustive crops is greatest among the croppers and least among the landlord operators. It runs as high as 99.6 per cent for the black croppers in the Coastal Plains and as low as 20.4 per cent for the landlord operators in the mountains.

        2. The farmers of the Coastal Plain county are using 96.5 per cent of exhaustive crops and those of the Piedmont county are using 94.6 per cent exhaustive crops. Those of the Mountain county are using only 42.9 per cent exhaustive crops.

        3. The landless farmers are following a system of farming which exhausts the soil to considerable degree greater than are the landed farmers.

        4. The negro farmers are using a more exhaustive crop system than are the white farmers.

        

TABLE X-- Per cent of Tilled Land Planted in Cotton, Tobacco, and Corn
(By counties surveyed)

  COASTAL PLAIN       PIEDMONT       MOUNTAIN      
  Landlords Owner Operators Tenants Croppers Landlords Owner Operators Tenants Croppers Landlords Owner Operators Tenants Croppers
Cotton 7.55 2.62 10.50 20.36 4.64 6.17 6.52 2.23 ---- ---- ---- ----
Tobacco 3.34 1.46 4.97 8.57 1.45 1.61 1.64 1.18 .39 .67 .22 .12
Corn 7.24 2.75 9.60 14.64 17.75 18.56 15.05 4.59 6.93 22.50 10.68 5.74
Totals 18.13 6.83 25.07 43.57 23.84 26.34 23.21 8.00 7.32 23.11 10.90 5.86
Combined percentage by counties   93.60       81.39       47.25    

Page 13

        1. In considering crops which exhaust the soil it is generally assumed that such major crops as cotton, tobacco, and corn are the sole or only exhaustive crops. A comparison of Tables IX and X shows that the other minor exhaustive crops such as wheat, sorghum, and vegetables raise the per cent of all acres planted to exhaustive crops.

        2. From Table X it is apparent that the use of exhaustive crops is highest in the county in which the tenancy rate is highest and lowest in the county in which the tenancy is lowest.

        3. In the Coastal Plain county, where both the tenancy rate and exhaustive crops percentages are high, the landless farmers are leading in exhaustive crop farming.

        A study was made of comparative crop yields. Tables XI to XIII present the comparative data for tenure classes for the three counties surveyed.

        

TABLE XI-- Average Production Per Acre of Leading Cash Crops for Different Classes of Farms
(Coastal Plain County)

COTTON     TOBACCO     CORN    
1 Negro Tenant 415 lbs. per @ 1 White Tenant 823 lbs. per @ 1 White Cropper 18.3 bu. per @
2 Negro Cropper 383 lbs. per @ 2 White Cropper 802 lbs. per @ 2 White Tenant 16.9 bu. per @
3 White Cropper 381 lbs. per @ 3 Negro Tenant 752 lbs. per @ 3 Negro Tenant 16.7 bu. per @
4 White Owner 380 lbs. per @ 4 White Owner 751 lbs. per @ 4 Negro Cropper 14.3 bu. per @
5 Negro Owner 378 lbs. per @ 5 Negro Cropper 720 lbs. per @ 5 Negro Owner 13.3 bu. per @
6 White Tenant 367.5 lbs. per @ 6 Negro Owner 535 lbs. per @ 6 White Owner 11.1 bu. per @

Page 14

        

TABLE XII--Average Production Per Acre of Leading Cash Crops for Different Classes of Farms
(Piedmont County)

COTTON     TOBACCO     CORN    
1 White Owner 308.5 lbs. per @ 1 White Owner 585 lbs. per @ 1 White Owner 16.25 bu. per @
2 Negro Owner 290 lbs. per @ 2 White Tenant 462 lbs. per @ 2 White Tenant 14.7 bu. per @
3 White Cropper 286.5 lbs. per @ 3 Negro Tenant 439 lbs. per @ 3 Negro Owner 14.2 bu. per @
4 Negro Tenant 273.5 lbs. per @ 4 Negro Owner 411 lbs. per @ 4 White Cropper 14.1 bu. per @
5 White Tenant 270.5 lbs. per @ 5 Negro Cropper 409 lbs. per @ 5 Negro Tenant 14.02 bu. per @
6 Negro Cropper 265.5 lbs. per @ 6 White Cropper 250.5 lbs. per @ 6 Negro Cropper 13.12 bu. per @

        

TABLE XIII-- Average Production Per Acre of Leading Cash Crops for Different Classes of Farms
(For Mountain County)*

TOBACCO     CORN    
1 White Tenant 632 lbs. per @ 1 White Cropper 25.8 bu. per @
2 White Cropper 624 lbs. per @ 2 White Tenant 25.8 bu. per @
3 White Owner 517 lbs. per @ 3 White Owner 25.4 bu. per @

        *No cotton raised in this county.

        From Tables XI, XII, and XIII it is apparent that the landless men do not suffer by comparison with land-owners in crop yields. In the case of tobacco production in the Coastal Plain county it is the landless men who produce the best yield. This is true probably because of the careful supervision which they receive from the landlords and because they use their whole families to assist in producing and caring for the crop. The negro owner-operator falls below the negro tenant probably for the same reason. None of the landless classes ranks high in the Piedmont county where this careful supervision is absent.

Page 15

LIVESTOCK PRACTICES

        It is universally recognized that North Carolina needs more livestock on the farms of all sections of the State. The presence of animals indicate three significant things in farming and farm life. Work animals lessen the amount of human manual labor. Dairy stock assist in solving the home food supply problem. Stock cattle, swine, sheep, and goats furnish the basis of mixed and diversified farming and help to maintain soil fertility. It is when we measure North Carolina farming in these terms that tenant- and cropper-farming show up at their worst. Tables XIV to XVII give the ownership of livestock rather than the presence of livestock and so make cropper-farming appear worse than it is. The landlord generally furnishes the work animals for his croppers. Even so, the absence of other types of livestock is tragic and the small amount of horse power used by croppers is striking. The white tenants in the Coastal Plain county have only about two-thirds as many livestock per acre as the landlords have and about four-fifths as many as the owner-operators have.

        

TABLE XIV-- Tilled Acres Per Farm Animal
(Coastal Plain County)

  Operator Landlords   Owner Operators   Tenants   Croppers  
  White Black White Black White Black White Black
Work stock 6.75 6.55 11.2 10.0 12.9 12.88 194.0 388.0
Bulls, calves and stock cattle 92.3 52.5 4.75 ---- 117.2 15.45 485.0 970.0
Cows 38.1 35.0 38.1 40.0 74.0 12.88 138.5 277.0
Hogs 2.5 1.88 .26 5.45 3.33 4.81 2.05 4.1
Goats and sheep 46.3 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Poultry .397 .51 .04 .445 .44 .835 .33 .66

        

TABLE XV-- Tilled Acres Per Farm Animal
(Piedmont County)

  Operator Landlords   Owner Operators   Tenants   Croppers  
  White Black White Black White Black White Black
Work stock 11.1 7.15 8.54 8.8 8.5 10.74 ---- 21.3
Bulls, calves and stock cattle 9.64 14.30 17.9 17.6 18.2 23.1 34.7 6.1
Cows 11.2 10.6 9.15 12.2 10.65 12.65 21.7 19.4
Hogs 6.06 7.84 4.17 7.45 4.48 9.25 8.28 10.93
Goats and sheep 66.6 ---- 106. ---- 31.95 ---- ---- ----
Poultry .23 .27 .215 .37 .24 .27 .35 .555

Page 16

        

TABLE XVI-- Tilled Acres Per Farm Animal
(Mountain County)

  Operator Landlords   Owner Operators   Tenants   Croppers  
  White Black White Black White Black White Black
Work stock 27.05 ---- 16.5 ---- 11.18 ---- 188.5 ----
Bulls, calves and stock cattle 10.0 ---- 13.05 ---- 27.10 ---- 46.1 ----
Cows 22.8 ---- 14.6 ---- 11.71 ---- 11.6 ----
Hogs 16.95 ---- 11.98 ---- 7.65 11.8 ----
Goats and sheep 13.05 ---- 55.7 ---- 152.5 ---- ---- ----
Poultry .737 ---- .535 ---- .359 ---- .29 ----

        From Tables XIV, XV, and XVI the following facts are apparent:

        1. That the landless farmers have a poorer livestock ratio than farm owners have.

        2. That the croppers own practically no animals. This is due to the fact that practically all their work stock are furnished by the landlords from whom they rent.

        

TABLE XVII--* Total Farm Animals, Excluding Poultry, Per Crop Acre by Tenure Class
(For the area surveyed)

  Operator Landlords   Owner Operators   Tenants   Croppers  
  White Black White Black White Black White Black
Coastal Plain .61 .73 .50 .31 .41 .43 .40 .25
Piedmont .465 .429 .531 .387 .521 .323 .198 .164
Mountain 314 ---- .335 ---- .345 ---- .199 ----

        
Total Landed Landless White Black
Coastal Plain .41 .65 .341 .474 .301
Piedmont .415 .475 .329 .486 .314
Mountain .302 .300 .282 .31 ----

        *Pasture is included in crop acreage. If this were not so the Mountain county would show a much better animal ratio.
Page 17

        The order in which all classes rank in livestock production is as follows:

        
1 Landlord operator Black Coastal Plain .73
2 Landlord operator White Coastal Plain .61
3 Owner operator White Piedmont .531
4 Tenant White Piedmont .521
5 Owner operator White Coastal Plain .50
6 Landlord operator White Piedmont .465
7 Tenant Black Coastal Plain .43
8 Landlord operator Black Piedmont .429
9 Tenant White Coastal Plain .41
10 Cropper White Coastal Plain .40
11 Owner operator Black Piedmont .387
12 Tenant White Mountain .335
13 Owner operator White Mountain .335
14 Tenant Black Piedmont .323
15 Landlord operator White Mountain .314
16 Owner operator Black Coastal Plain .31
17 Cropper Black Coastal Plain .25
18 Cropper White Mountain .199
19 Cropper White Piedmont .198
20 Cropper Black Piedmont .164

HOME-PRODUCED FOOD SUPPLIES

        Farming should always be an enterprise the chief object of which is to make possible an adequate life for the families who farm. At many points in the Social Information will be found indexes to the standards of living of the families surveyed. The items of home-produced food supplies are presented here in order that they may be presented near the items of cash incomes. Farming is a combination of producing for the market and for home consumption. A detailed study was made of the chief items in the families food supplies. Only such items as sugar, salt, and spice were left out of the investigation.

        Tables XVIII to XXI present the basic and summarized information.

        

TABLE XVIII-- Living Raised and Bought Per Family
(Coastal Plain County)

  Operator Landlords   Owner Operators   Tenants   Croppers  
  White Black White Black White Black White Black
Value living--raised $ 400 $ 514 $ 386 $ 474 $ 323 $ 200 $ 194 $ 156
Value living--bought 56 82 131 134 93 113 96 110
Total value $ 456 $ 596 $ 517 $ 608 $ 416 $ 313 $ 290 $ 266
Per cent living--raised 87.7 86.2 74.7 78.0 77.6 63.8 66.9 58.6
Per cent living--bought 12.3 13.8 25.3 22.0 22.4 36.2 33.1 41.4

Page 18

        

TABLE XIX-- Living Raised and Bought Per Family
(Piedmont County)

  Operator Landlords   Owner Operators   Tenants   Croppers  
  White Black White Black White Black White Black
Value living--raised $ 517 $ 323 $ 467 $ 346 $ 328 $ 198 $ 257 $ 172
Value living--bought 71 82 154 186 62 115 98 114
Total value $ 588 $ 405 $ 621 $ 532 $ 390 $ 313 $ 355 $ 286
Per cent living--raised 87.9 79.7 75.2 65.0 84.2 63.2 72.4 60.2
Per cent living--bought 12.1 20.3 24.8 35.0 15.8 36.8 27.6 39.8

        

TABLE XX-- Living Raised and Bought Per Family
(Mountain County)

  Operator Landlords   Owner Operators   Tenants   Croppers  
  White Black White Black White Black White Black
Value living--raised $ 627 ---- $ 545 ---- $ 475 ---- $ 410 ----
Value living--bought 13 ---- 24 ---- 28 ---- 34 ----
Total value $ 640 ---- $ 569 ---- $ 503 ---- $ 444 ----
Per cent living--raised 98.0 ---- 95.8 ---- 94.44 ---- 92.35 ----
Per cent living--bought 2.0 ---- 4.2 ---- 5.56 ---- 7.65 ----

        

TABLE XXI-- Living Raised and Bought Per Family
(Total area surveyed)

  Landed Landless White Black Total
Value raised $ 481 $ 270 $ 447 $ 213 $ 382
Value bought 70 86 62 121 78
Total value $ 551 $ 356 $ 509 $ 334 $ 460
Per cent raised 87.3 75.8 87.8 63.8 83.0
Per cent bought 12.7 24.2 12.2 36.2 17.0

        1. The per cent of the total family food supply that is raised on the farm descends almost consistently from landlord to owner to tenant to cropper in all counties.

        2. The per cent of total food produced at home is universally higher for the land-owning families than it is for the landless families and higher for the white families than for the negro families.

Page 19

        3. The total value of food supplies for families averages highest in the Mountain county, next in the Coastal Plain and lowest in the Piedmont.

        Tables XXII to XLII present detailed analyses of different items of food supply.

        

TABLE XXII-- Average Number of Gallons of Milk Produced Per Year Per Family
(For area surveyed)

  Operator Landlords   Owner Operators   Tenants   Croppers  
  White Black White Black White Black White Black
Coastal Plain 180.6 353 170.6 200 92.6 83.6 78.2 32.9
Piedmont 502 283.5 519.5 369 341 327.5 278 170.5
Mountain 609.9 ---- 551.5 ---- 521.2 ---- 426.5 ----
Total 482 316 549 352 308 177 222 65.3

        

TABLE XXIII-- Per cent of Families Who Produce Milk
(For area surveyed)

  Operator Landlords   Owner Operators   Tenants   Croppers  
  White Black White Black White Black White Black
Coastal Plain 39.6 60.0 40.0 20.0 20.8 35.7 17.1 9.0
Piedmont 100. 83.3 98.7 89.5 92.5 97.0 92.4 91.0
Mountain 92.7 ---- 99.8 ---- 100. ---- 94.6 ----
Total 80.2 72.6 94.3 81.2 66.0 86.1 55.6 28.6

        

TABLE XXIV-- Quarts of Milk Per Day Per Individual
(For area surveyed)

  Operator Landlords   Owner Operators   Tenants   Croppers  
  White Black White Black White Black White Black
Coastal Plain .393 .438 .432 .33 .203 .152 .179 .0706
Piedmont .142 .691 1.17 .705 .819 .612 .586 .341
Mountain 1.5 ---- 1.14 ---- 1.12 ---- 1.03 ----

Page 20

        

TABLE XXV-- Average Number of Pounds of Butter Produced Per Family Per Year
(For area surveyed)

  Operator Landlords   Owner Operators   Tenants   Croppers  
  White Black White Black White Black White Black
Coastal Plain 55.8 73.0 30.5 52.0 24.99 16.79 18.46 10.45
Piedmont 148.6 95.8 165.9 115.6 110.6 114.4 84.7 72.5
Mountain 125.1 ---- 134.9 ---- 115.4 ---- 117.5 ----
Total 114.1 94.0 135.5 107.8 78.5 77.8 60.8 23.4

        

TABLE XXVI-- Per cent of Families that Produce Butter
(For area surveyed)

  Operator Landlords   Owner Operators   Tenants   Croppers  
  White Black White Black White Black White Black
Coastal Plain 37.5 60.0 40.0 20.0 20.8 35.7 13.8 7.1
Piedmont 94.8 66.6 92.1 100.0 87.5 92.5 75.8 74.5
Mountain 95.6 ---- 98.6 ---- 98.6 ---- 94.8 ----
Total 79.7 62.6 93.6 81.5 64.5 82.6 49.5 25.1

        

TABLE XXVII-- Average Number Pounds of Pork Raised for Home Use
(For area surveyed)

  Operator Landlords   Owner Operators   Tenants   Croppers  
  White Black White Black White Black White Black
Coastal Plain 697 1025 912 580 597 328 375 337
Piedmont 654 502 532 412 360 368 405 201
Mountain 438 ---- 438 ---- 347 ---- 282 ----
Total 582 739 504 432 452 360 346 305

Page 21

        

TABLE XXVIII-- Per cent of Families Who Produce Pork
(For area surveyed)

  Operator Landlords   Owner Operators   Tenants   Croppers  
  White Black White Black White Black White Black
Coastal Plain 64.7 100.0 85.1 60.0 79.3 57.1 50.0 67.9
Piedmont 86.2 83.4 93.7 92.1 82.5 93.9 68.3 77.2
Mountain 89.9 ---- 93.2 ---- 97.2 ---- 73.7 ----
Total 81.7 90.9 92.7 88.4 86.8 87.6 60.6 70.2

        

TABLE XXIX-- Average Number of Pounds of Lard Produced Per Family
(For area surveyed)

  Operator Landlords   Owner Operators   Tenants   Croppers  
  White Black White Black White Black White Black
Coastal Plain 150.0 350.0 176.0 160.0 121.5 66.0 73.8 59.1
Piedmont 91.0 51.7 65.5 51.8 44.9 37.6 52.0 24.6
Mountain 73.5 ---- 66.4 ---- 59.7 ---- 43.1 ----
Total 101.0 169.0 76.5 64.5 84.5 41.6 60.4 50.7

        

TABLE XXX-- Per cent of Families Who Produce Lard
(For area surveyed)

  Operator Landlords   Owner Operators   Tenants   Croppers  
  White Black White Black White Black White Black
Coastal Plain 66.6 100.0 85.0 60.0 79.2 50.0 46.5 67.7
Piedmont 86.1 83.5 91.0 89.5 72.6 81.9 61.6 68.6
Mountain 89.7 ---- 93.4 ---- 92.1 ---- 76.4 ----
Total 82.1 91.0 91.1 86.1 84.6 76.2 58.7 72.0

Page 22

        

TABLE XXXI-- Average Number of Dozens Eggs Produced Per Family Per Year
(For area surveyed)

  Operator Landlords   Owner Operators   Tenants   Croppers  
  White Black White Black White Black White Black
Coastal Plain 104.5 83.0 86.9 148.0 106.5 48.5 90.0 41.5
Piedmont 78.9 60.0 33.8 32.7 64.8 41.3 42.6 29.4
Mountain 88.6 ---- 71.4 ---- 70.0 ---- 66.6 ----
Total 89.9 70.5 61.15 46.0 83.9 41.8 76.3 23.1

        

TABLE XXXII-- Per cent of Families Who Produce Eggs
(For area surveyed)

  Operator Landlords   Owner Operators   Tenants   Croppers  
  White Black White Black White Black White Black
Coastal Plain 85.5 100.0 85.2 100.0 76.6 78.6 87.9 71.5
Piedmont 93.1 83.4 81.1 97.4 94.9 95.5 92.5 87.7
Mountain 92.8 ---- 96.4 ---- 98.5 ---- 100.0 ----
Total 91.0 91.0 90.6 96.6 85.9 92.5 92.5 74.9

        

TABLE XXXIII-- Average Number of Poultry Produced Per Family
(For area surveyed)

  Operator Landlords   Owner Operators   Tenants   Croppers  
  White Black White Black White Black White Black
Coastal Plain 72.7 54.0 48.0 54.0 62.5 23.6 53.5 27.5
Piedmont 49.1 30.0 50.9 32.9 33.2 27.2 20.4 20.3
Mountain 56.5 ---- 47.3 ---- 43.2 ---- 44.3 ----
Total 58.5 40.8 48.0 35.5 49.2 26.6 46.4 26.2

Page 23

        

TABLE XXXIV-- Per cent of Families Who Raise Poultry
(For area surveyed)

  Operator Landlords   Owner Operators   Tenants   Croppers  
  White Black White Black White Black White Black
Coastal Plain 85.5 100.0 85.2 100.0 86.0 78.9 87.9 71.9
Piedmont 93.1 83.4 92.4 97.4 94.9 97.0 89.7 94.4
Mountain 94.1 ---- 99.7 ---- 100.0 ---- 97.2 ----
Total 91.5 91.0 97.6 97.6 94.1 93.7 94.9 88.5

        

TABLE XXXV-- Average Number of Barrels of Flour Produced Per Family
(For area surveyed)

  Operator Landlords   Owner Operators   Tenants   Croppers  
  White Black White Black White Black White Black
Coastal Plain ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Piedmont 1.17 .17 1.11 .34 .35 .19 ---- ----
Mountain 8.5 ---- 2.6 ---- 1.9 ---- 2.2 ----
Total 3.74 .14 1.92 .31 .79 .13 .77 ----

        

TABLE XXXVI-- Per cent of Families Who Produce Flour
(For area surveyed)

  Operator Landlords   Owner Operators   Tenants   Croppers  
  White Black White Black White Black White Black
Coastal Plain ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Piedmont 25.8 16.6 15.2 18.4 7.5 7.6 ---- ----
Mountain 62.4 ---- 56.2 ---- 46.5 ---- 50.0 ----
Total 33.2 .92 39.5 16.5 19.3 1.63 1.75 ----

Page 24

        

TABLE XXXVII-- Average Number of Bushels of Potatoes Produced Per Family
(For area surveyed)

  Operator Landlords   Owner Operators   Tenants   Croppers  
  White Black White Black White Black White Black
Coastal Plain 40.1 28.0 40.9 49.2 30.2 25.6 6.91 19.1
Piedmont 29.2 26.5 24.2 23.5 18.8 12.1 10.6 8.96
Mountain 19.9 ---- 21.8 ---- 18.8 ---- 15.8 ----
Total 28.4 27.1 24.0 26.5 23.6 14.6 10.5 16.5

        

TABLE XXXVIII-- Per cent of Families Who Produce Potatoes (Irish and Sweet)
(For area surveyed)

  Operator Landlords   Owner Operators   Tenants   Croppers  
  White Black White Black White Black White Black
Coastal Plain 81.2 60.0 85.0 100.0 70.1 71.6 72.4 75.7
Piedmont 89.9 83.3 91.2 89.5 87.5 92.5 61.5 68.6
Mountain 92.5 ---- 100.0 ---- 100.0 ---- 94.7 ----
Total 88.5 72.6 97.6 90.6 95.1 98.9 78.9 73.5

        

TABLE XXXIX-- Average Number of Bushels of Meal Raised Per Family
(For area surveyed)

  Operator Landlords   Owner Operators   Tenants   Croppers  
  White Black White Black White Black White Black
Coastal Plain 9.15 7.2 8.15 12.0 6.75 4.92 7.11 5.6
Piedmont 8.91 5.31 9.05 8.1 4.7 8.9 1.69 3.76
Mountain 21.7 ---- 24.1 ---- 21.7 ---- 22.3 ----
Total 13.9 6.15 18.6 8.55 11.95 8.19 12.3 5.25

Page 25

        

TABLE XL-- Per cent of Families Who Produce Meal
(For area surveyed)

  Operator Landlords   Owner Operators   Tenants   Croppers  
  White Black White Black White Black White Black
Coastal Plain 73.0 60.0 65.2 60.0 62.5 42.7 63.6 46.3
Piedmont 77.6 66.6 82.5 65.7 45.0 51.5 23.0 40.0
Mountain 95.5 ---- 97.2 ---- 100.0 ---- 100.0 ----
Total 84.5 63.6 90.6 65.0 72.7 50.0 71.5 44.7

        

TABLE XLI-- Average Number Gallons of Sorghum Molasses Produced Per Family
(For area surveyed)

  Operator Landlords   Owner Operators   Tenants   Croppers  
  White Black White Black White Black White Black
Coastal Plain .104 .48 2.55 3.0 .572 1.82 .102 .625
Piedmont 3.48 2.5 1.73 7.13 3.05 7.02 ---- .315
Mountain 11.45 ---- 15.9 ---- 16.2 ---- 6.2 ----
Total 5.7 3.53 10.5 6.64 6.5 5.84 2.2 .55

        

TABLE XLI (a)-- Per cent of Families Who Produce Molasses
(For area surveyed)

  Operator Landlords   Owner Operators   Tenants   Croppers  
  White Black White Black White Black White Black
Coastal Plain 2.04 20.0 1.5 20.0 5.2 7.15 1.74 6.25
Piedmont 19.0 16.6 13.9 29.0 14.9 39.4 ---- 5.23
Mountain 5.8 ---- 62.1 ---- 79.0 ---- 34.2 ----
Total 2.97 18.3 4.41 27.9 35.0 33.7 12.8 6.1

Page 26

        

TABLE XLII-- Per cent of Families Who Raise Garden and Orchard Products
(For area surveyed)

  Operator Landlords   Owner Operators   Tenants   Croppers  
  White Black White Black White Black White Black
Coastal Plain 87.5 100.0 95.0 100.0 100.0 78.7 89.7 89.0
Piedmont 93.2 83.5 97.4 100.0 97.5 100.0 92.1 91.0
Mountain 92.6 ---- 98.1 ---- 100.0 ---- 100.0 ----
Total 91.1 91.0 98.5 100.0 99.7 96.3 97.5 89.3

        In Tables XXII to XLIII the following general facts appear:

        1. That the land-owning families are almost universally producing more home supplies than are the landless.

        2. The order of priority generally runs landlord-operator, owner-operator, tenant, cropper. Where this order is violated it is most often because the owner-operator is out-producing the owner-landlord.

        3. The Coastal Plain county is best in the production of pork, lard, poultry, eggs, and potatoes.

        4. The Piedmont county is best in flour and about the same as the Mountain county in butter.

        5. The Mountain county is best in milk, meal, and molasses, and about the same as the Piedmont county in butter.

        6. Nevertheless the Mountain county farmers are producing the most home supplies, the Coastal Plain county next and the Piedmont county least.

        7. The absence of milk is the most striking among all these items. The mountain farmers are the only ones that consistently produce more than a quart of milk per day per individual. This falls as low as .07 quart per day per individual for the negro croppers of the Coastal Plain county. This means less than three-tenths of a glass of milk per day per individual. This information is given in Table XXIV.

        8. From Table XXVI it is seen that less than 50 per cent of the farmers of the Coastal Plain county produce butter. Over 92 per cent of the black croppers of this county do not produce butter and only three per cent of them buy butter.

        9. The Coastal Plain county has an exceptionally good home production of pork and lard.

        10. There are less than 50 head of all kinds of poultry per family for all families surveyed.

        11. Home supplies should be considered in conjunction with cash income in order to gain an adequate appraisal of consumption habit.

Page 27

CASH INCOME

        The last section presented the facts concerning home supplies produced by the different tenure classes. These facts, in conjunction with cash income, give a picture of the sources from which these people must get their food and other consumption goods. An appraisal of the consumption units of products produced on the farm for home consumption shows all of these people to be cash crop farmers. Tables XLIII to XLV show the amount of cash income these people get with which to purchase additional consumption goods.

        

TABLE XLIII-- Annual Cash Income Per Family
(For area surveyed)

  Operator Landlords   Owner Operators   Tenants   Croppers  
  White Black White Black White Black White Black
Coastal Plain $2385.85 $1996.00 $1129.50 $1670.00 $ 854.15 $ 711.07 $ 700.84 $ 640.59
Piedmont 994.70 379.00 604.17 536.15 336.35 374.24 364.74 208.60
Mountain 680.16 ---- 261.84 ---- 172.84 ---- 155.89 ----

        

TABLE XLIV-- Annual Cash Income Per Individual
(For area surveyed)

  Operator Landlords   Owner Operators   Tenants   Croppers  
  White Black White Black White Black White Black
Coastal Plain $ 452.65 $ 226.81 $ 253.82 $ 253.03 $ 174.45 $ 118.51 $ 143.13 $ 125.64
Piedmont 252.55 84.33 124.27 92.19 73.92 64.40 64.74 36.87
Mountain 154.88 ---- 49.49 ---- 33.62 ---- 34.24 ----

        

TABLE XLV-- Daily Cash Income Per Individual
(For area surveyed)

  Operator Landlords   Owner Operators   Tenants   Croppers  
  White Black White Black White Black White Black
Coastal Plain $ 1.255 $ .622 $ .695 $ .694 $ .478 $ .324 $ .392 $ .344
Piedmont .705 .23 .34 .252 .201 .176 .177 .101
Mountain .424 ---- .135 ---- .092 ---- .093 ----

Page 28

        From Tables XLIII, XLIV, and XLV it is apparent:

        1. That landless farmers have a lower cash income than land-owners. This fact coupled with the fact that they almost universally produce a smaller amount of home supplies indicates the conditions under which they live.

        2. The cash income is from three to five times as high in the Coastal Plain county as in the Mountain county.

        3. The cash income per person of white tenants and white croppers of the Mountain county is less than 10 cents per day and that for the negro croppers of the Piedmont county is barely 10 cents per day.

CREDIT

        The average farmer uses credit for three chief purposes: land purchases, operating funds, and store supplies. Tables XLVI to LIV show the per cent who use credit, the amount they used, the purpose for which they use it, and the sources from which they obtain it.

        

TABLE XLVI-- Amount and Use of Short-Time and Intermediate Credit
(For Coastal Plain County)

  Operator Landlords   Owner Operators   Tenants   Croppers  
  White Black White Black White Black White Black
Per cent use credit 83.5 100.0 90.0 100.0 92.2 78.6 89.6 97.4
Average credit per family $723.00 $734.00 $422.00 $723.00 $455.00 $401.00 $360.60 $314.00
Per cent for living 50.1 52.9 62.8 51.6 55.5 62.4 68.6 66.9
Per cent for fertilizers, seed, etc. 49.9 47.1 37.2 49.4 44.5 37.6 31.4 33.1

        

TABLE XLVII-- Amount and Use of Short-Time and Intermediate Credit
(For Piedmont County)

  Operator Landlords   Owner Operators   Tenants   Croppers  
  White Black White Black White Black White Black
Per cent use credit 34.5 83.2 58.2 81.6 82.0 97.0 61.6 91.1
Average credit per family $ 46.50 $173.00 $ 43.80 $124.00 $102.00 $128.00 $123.00 $110.00
Per cent for living 25.6 28.5 42.7 43.2 43.1 51.0 56.8 49.8
Per cent for fertilizers, seed, etc. 74.4 71.5 57.3 56.8 56.9 49.0 43.2 51.2

Page 29

        

TABLE XLVIII-- Amount and Use of Short-Time and Intermediate Credit
(For Mountain County)

  Operator Landlords   Owner Operators   Tenants   Croppers  
  White Black White Black White Black White Black
Per cent use credit 2.9 ---- 8.02 ---- 5.6 ---- 15.8 ----
Average credit per family $ 15.95 ---- $ 16.04 ---- $ 5.00 ---- $ 6.21 ----
Per cent for living 54.6 ---- 13.3 ---- 100.0 ---- 95.8 ----
Per cent for fertilizers, tools, seed, etc. 45.4 ---- 86.7 ---- ---- ---- 4.2 ----

        

TABLE XLIX-- Source of Short-Time and Intermediate Credit
(For Coastal Plain County)

  Operator Landlords   Owner Operators   Tenants   Croppers  
  White Black White Black White Black White Black
Per cent from merchant 76.0 86.4 82.2 100.0 82.3 93.4 78.1 79.0
Per cent from landlord ---- ---- ---- ---- 11.6 6.5 18.1 20.5
Per cent from landlord who is merchant also ---- ---- ---- ---- 2.56 ---- 2.75 ----
Per cent from bank 21.1 13.6 16.6 ---- 3.19 ---- 1.05 ----
Per cent from other sources 2.9 ---- 1.2 ---- .35 .1 ---- .5

        

TABLE L-- Source of Short-Time and Intermediate Credit
(For Piedmont County)

  Operator Landlords   Owner Operators   Tenants   Croppers  
  White Black White Black White Black White Black
Per cent from merchant 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 95.8 62.0 62.6 25.8
Per cent from landlord ---- ---- ---- ---- 0.7 20.8 18.7 66.2
Per cent from landlord who is merchant also ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 17.0 ---- ----
Per cent from bank ---- ---- ---- ---- 2.7 ---- 18.7 8.0
Per cent from other sources ---- ---- ---- ---- .8 ---- ---- ----

Page 30

        

TABLE LI-- Source of Short-Time and Intermediate Credit
(For Mountain County)

  Operator Landlords   Owner Operators   Tenants   Croppers  
  White Black White Black White Black White Black
Per cent from merchant 100.0 ---- 29.2 ---- 100.0 ---- 89.0 ----
Per cent from landlord ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 4.2 ----
Per cent from landlord who is merchant also ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Per cent from bank ---- ---- 10.4 ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Per cent from other sources ---- ---- 60.4 ---- ---- ---- 6.8 ----

        

TABLE LII-- Source of Short-Time and Intermediate Credit
(For area surveyed)

  Land Owners Landless Whites Blacks All
Per cent from merchant 81.4 78.0 79.7 78.4 79.27
Per cent from landlord ---- 17.33 7.3 17.9 11.10
Per cent from landlord who is merchant also ---- 2.54 1.3 2.2 1.63
Per cent from bank 14.7 1.83 9.4 1.2 6.40
Per cent from other sources 3.9 .3 2.3 .3 1.60

        

TABLE LIII-- Some Aspects of Short-Time Farm Credit

  Land Owners Landless All
Per cent use credit 37.1 75.8 58.2
Average credit per family $137.50 $224.10 $182.40
*Per cent "Restrictive" credit 25.2 74.07 56.53
Per cent from bank 14.7 1.83 6.40
Per cent for living 34.75 60.0 50.9
Per cent for fertilizers, tools, etc. 65.25 40.0 49.1

        *"Restrictive Credit" is credit granted by some one who has power of restricting or controlling the activities of the ones to whom it is granted.

Page 31

        

TABLE LIV-- Per cent of Farmers Who Produce Crops Under Crop Lien or Landlord Credit
(For area surveyed)

  Operator Landlords   Owner Operators   Tenants   Croppers  
  White Black White Black White Black White Black
Coastal Plain 15.9 78.0 9.7 27.7 48.16 96.6 68.25 98.4
Piedmont 46.4 96.60 29.3 69.5 37.0 97.7 70.7 90.7
Mountain ---- ---- 5.2 ---- ---- ---- 14.4 ----

        
Land Owners Landless White Black All Surveyed
25.2 74.07 37.3 90.1 56.53

        Governor Bickett described the crop lien as "the boll weevil of North Carolina." A total of $185,000 of credit was used by the 1,014 families surveyed or an average of $182.40 per family for the year. More than a half (50.9 per cent) of this credit went for food, clothing, and home supplies. The remainder was used for fertilizer, tools, and stock feed. The landless used 62.4 per cent of their credit for living purposes as compared to 43.8 per cent used for this purpose by the land-owners. This means that a larger per cent of the credit of the tenants and croppers goes for consumption goods than for production goods.

        The Coastal Plain farmers use the vast majority of all credit--$436 to the family as compared to $93.50 for a Piedmont family and $10 for a Mountain family. In the Coastal Plain county only 7.7 per cent of all those surveyed did a cash business as compared to 25.4 per cent in the Piedmont county and 41.8 per cent in the Mountain county. Of the entire landless group surveyed 24.2 per cent do cash business as compared to 62.9 per cent of the land-owners who finance themselves.

        Four-fifths (81 per cent) of all the credit comes from merchants, 11.1 per cent from landlords, 6.4 per cent from banks and 1.6 per cent from other sources--mainly neighbors and relatives.

        Two kinds of this credit--that from merchants where a crop lien is given and that from landlords--may be called "restrictive" credit. In cases involving 56.53 per cent of all the credit of the 1,014 families surveyed the creditor may exercise "restrictive" powers over the sale of the farm product and may by indirect methods dictate the rate of interest charged. The landed classes use only 25.2 per cent of restrictive credit as compared to 74.07 per cent for the landless.

        A survey of farm credit in North Carolina has recently been made by F. R. Yoder, H. L. Beardsley, and A. J. Honeycutt, representing the North Carolina Division of Markets, the State College of Agriculture

Page 32

and The United States Department of Agriculture. This survey found that the average interest charged by banks for short-time credit amounted to a little more than 6 per cent as compared to as high as 34 per cent of crop-lien credit for the colored cropper. The average cost of short-time credit for the whole state was found to be more than 25 per cent.

        From this analysis of the short-time credit system of the farmers it can be seen that croppers and tenants as well as the landed classes are bearing an unusually high "restrictive" interest burden and this may be one of the reasons for their failure to attain farm ownership.

WEALTH AND EQUITY

        The total and itemized wealth and equity holdings of each farmer was obtained. His equity was calculated by subtracting his incumbrances and personal debts from his total wealth and capital holdings. Tables LV to LX give the facts in detail.

        

TABLE LV-- Average Wealth and Equity
(Coastal Plain County)

  Owner Landlords   Owner Operators   Tenants   Croppers  
  White Black White Black White Black White Black
Wealth per family $16,025 $11,639 $ 4,734 $4,568 $1,111 $ 440 $ 503 $ 219
Wealth per person 3,021 1,320 1,066 692.4 227.20 73.40 99.40 43.0
Equity per family 14,494 8,974 3,998 3,908 868 226 352 126
Equity per person 2,750 1,019 889 597 177.4 37.68 72.15 24.83
Per cent insolvent ---- ---- ---- ---- 6.5 28.5 24.2 18.75

        

TABLE LVI-- Average Wealth and Equity Per Family
(Piedmont County)

  Owner Landlords   Owner Operators   Tenants   Croppers  
  White Black White Black White Black White Black
Wealth per family $10,423 $3,342 $3,159 $2,054 $521 $406 $251 $108
Wealth per person 2,715 742.50 650 353 115.05 72.45 46.75 18.58
Equity per family 9,860 3,197 2,938 1,673 426 294 208 36
Equity per person 2,552 711 602 288 93.50 50.80 38.70 6.40
Per cent insolvent ---- ---- ---- 2.63 2.5 ---- 23.5 17.15

Page 33

        

TABLE LVII-- Average Wealth and Equity Per Family
(Mountain County)

  Owner Landlords   Owner Operators   Tenants   Croppers  
  White Black White Black White Black White Black
Wealth per family $9,583 ---- $3,550 ---- $468 ---- $338 ----
Wealth per person 2,220 ---- 667.20 ---- 88.40 ---- 74.30 ----
Equity per family 9,390 ---- 3,401 ---- 452 ---- 308 ----
Equity per person 2,170 ---- 664 ---- 88 ---- 67.60 ----
Per cent insolvent ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----

        

TABLE LVIII-- Percentage Wealth and Equity Held by Landed and Landless
(For area surveyed)

  Coastal Plain   Piedmont   Mountain   Total  
  Landed Landless Landed Landless Landed Landless Landed Landless
Per cent of families 23.2 76.8 54.1 45.9 68.0 32.0 48.4 51.6
Per cent of persons 24.2 75.8 50.7 49.3 68.3 31.7 47.6 52.4
Per cent of wealth 86.7 13.3 94.6 5.4 96.5 3.5 92.7 7.3
Per cent of equity 88.7 11.3 95.5 4.5 96.5 3.5 93.9 6.1

        

TABLE LIX-- Percentage Wealth and Equity Held by White and Black
(For area surveyed)

  Coastal Plain   Piedmont   Mountain   Total  
  White Black White Black White Black White Black
Per cent of families 59.9 40.1 56.8 43.2 ---- ---- 72.3 27.1
Per cent of persons 57.7 42.3 51.0 49.0 ---- ---- 69.7 30.3
Per cent of wealth 89.5 10.5 87.1 12.9 ---- ---- 92.8 7.2
Per cent of equity 91.1 8.9 88.7 11.3 ---- ---- 94.1 5.9

Page 34

        

TABLE LX-- Average Amount Equity Held by Families of Different Tenure Classes
(For area surveyed)

  Coastal Plain   Piedmont   Mountain*  
  Per Family Per Individual Per Family Per Individual Per Family Per Individual
Landed 10,770 2,008 4,900 1,036 5,270 1,050
Landless 402 79.60 263 48.50 402 81.45
Whites 4,250 860 4,330 957 ---- ----
Blacks 601 111.70 714 125 ---- ----

        There was too small a number of black farmers in the Mountain county to make percentages trustworthy.


        The following conclusions are pertinent in relation to wealth and equity holding:

        1. That while the land-owner families compose only 48.4 per cent of all the families surveyed, they own 92.7 per cent of the entire wealth of all families and 93.9 per cent of all the equity.

        2. That while the white families compose only 73.3 per cent of all the families they control 92.8 per cent of the total wealth and 94.1 per cent of all the equity.

        3. 16.4 per cent of all landless-men are insolvent; 27.4 per cent of all negro tenants, 25.6 per cent of all white croppers, 22.1 per cent of all negro croppers and 3.2 per cent of all white tenants were insolvent. Only one land-owner, a negro owner-operator in the Piedmont county, was insolvent.

        4. In the Coastal Plain county where the tenancy rate is highest, the difference between the wealth and equity holdings of the landed and landless is greatest and in the Mountain county where the tenancy rate is lowest the difference between these classes in their wealth and equity holdings is least.

        5. The equity holdings per family for the landed in the Coastal Plain county is $10,770. This is the highest for any section. The average for the landless families in the Piedmont is $263. This is the lowest for any section. The holdings for the negro croppers in the Piedmont county is only $36. This is an average of $6.40 per person for this class.

        6. 13 per cent of all the farm lands included in the survey was being farmed by insolvent men.

WHY SOME FARMERS ARE LANDLESS

        Why is it that more than 117,000 farmers in North Carolina are landless? No question is more difficult to answer. There is one answer, vague though it is, which no one can deny as correct: these men thus

Page 35

far have been unable to climb the ladder of agricultural success to ownership. The assumption is that a prospective farmer will begin as a hired laborer or cropper on his father's or some other farmer's land, that he will soon become a share or cash tenant and will ultimately become an owner of some piece of land which he can call his own. If the so-called "Agricultural Ladder" by means of which men climb to land ownership is working according to the method by which the great majority of American farmers became land proprietors in the past there should be a constant stream of farmers making the steady ascent from laborer to cropper, from cropper to tenant and from tenant to ownership.

        No one will deny that there is a great difference between men and that many a landless man has failed to climb the ladder to ownership because he was personally incompetent. Even his personal incompetency always has a history and is generally the result of some adequate causes. The Tenancy Commission could not possibly make an analysis of the personal characters of the thousand farmers it interviewed. It did attempt to ascertain something about each one's family history and especially attempted to gain a concrete knowledge of the farming history of each. Tables LXI to LXIV give the facts concerning these items.

        

TABLE LXI-- Family History of Tenure Classes
(Coastal Plain County)

  Per Cent Whose Father Was Owner   Per Cent Whose Father Was Tenant   Per Cent Whose Father Was Cropper   Per Cent Whose Father Was Landless  
  White Black White Black White Black White Black
Croppers 48.4 2.7 32.8 18.7 10.2 75.0 43.0 93.7
Tenants 40.3 ---- 51.9 69.2 7.8 30.8 59.7 100.0
Owner operators 90.0 60.0 10.0 40.0 ---- ---- 10.0 40.0
Landlords 72.9 60.0 18.8 40.0 8.3 ---- 27.1 40.0

        

TABLE LXII-- Family History of Tenure Classes
(Piedmont County)

  Per Cent Whose Father Was Owner   Per Cent Whose Father Was Tenant   Per Cent Whose Father Was Cropper   Per Cent Whose Father Was Landless  
  White Black White Black White Black White Black
Croppers 15.4 14.7 69.2 55.8 ---- 29.5 69.2 85.3
Tenants 72.5 7.6 27.5 6.1 ---- 86.3 27.5 92.4
Owner operators 84.8 18.9 15.2 78.4 ---- 2.7 15.2 81.1
Landlords 98.3 ---- 1.7 83.4 ---- 16.6 1.7 100.0

Page 36

        

TABLE LXIII-- Family History of Tenure Classes
(Mountain County)

  Per Cent Whose Father Was Owner   Per Cent Whose Father Was Tenant   Per Cent Whose Father Was Cropper   Per Cent Whose Father Was Landless  
  White Black White Black White Black White Black
Croppers 57.9 ---- 36.8 ---- 5.3 ---- 42.1 ----
Tenants 50.8 ---- 47.8 ---- 1.4 ---- 49.2 ----
Owner operators 82.7 ---- 16.7 ---- .6 ---- 17.3 ----
Landlords 94.4 ---- 2.8 ---- 2.8 ---- 5.6 ----

        From the Tables LXI to LXIII it is apparent:

        1. That the tenure status of a person's father has considerable to do with the tenure status of the person himself. The present land-owners are sons of land-owners in 81 per cent of the cases, while landless men are sons of land-owners in only 30 per cent of the cases.

        2. Only 19 per cent of the land-owners included in the territory surveyed arose to ownership out of landless families. Seventy per cent of the landless farmers are sons of landless farmers. These facts make it apparent that ownership on the part of the father is a great assistance to ownership on the part of the son and landlessness on the part of the father is a barrier difficult for the son to surmount.

        3. A smaller per cent of the negroes than of the whites, both landed and landless, have come from owner families. In fact less than 10 per cent of all the negro farmers are sons of land-owning farmers. In spite of the fact that 19.2 per cent of all the negroes are land-owners.

        A few generations ago a land-owner practically always gained ownership by climbing the agricultural ladder. The ascent was easy in those days because of the low price of land. The climb has become more and more difficult as the prices of the land have increased.

        The result is that fewer men successfully make the climb. They either remain at the bottom as croppers or get stalled in the tenant stage. Oftentimes they rise to tenancy and then slip back to cropper. Sometimes they even attain ownership and then slip back to one of the lower tenure types.

        Notwithstanding the fact that the ascent to ownership is difficult, 59 per cent of all white farmers surveyed and almost 20 per cent of all negro farmers surveyed are owners of land. An attempt was made to discover how these men obtained ownership of farms. Table LXIV gives the facts concerning the tenure history of the various tenure classes.

Page 37

        

TABLE LXIV (a)-- Per cent Who Have Attained Different Tenure Statuses
(For area surveyed)

  Coastal Plain   Piedmont   Mountain   All Surveyed   Total
  White Black White Black White Black White Black
Owners who have been Croppers 34.9 70.0 30.7 70.5 24.3 ---- 27.8 65.8 32.6
Owners who have been Tenants 46.1 50.0 50.4 75.0 29.4 ---- 38.4 65.8 41.0
Tenants who have been Croppers 59.7 85.6 47.5 72.7 56.3 ---- 56.1 75.0 61.6
Tenants who have been Owners 10.4 7.15 5.0 ---- 9.86 ---- 9.3 2.56 8.1
Croppers who have been Tenants ---- 5.38 ---- 8.57 10.5 ---- 3.67 15.0 7.82
Croppers who have been Owners ---- .89 ---- ---- 10.5 ---- 3.23 2.56 3.07

        From Table LXIV (a) the following conclusions appear:

        1. Less than 50 per cent of the present land-owners had ever been landless. The remainder started farming with ownership of land.

        2. Less than 40 per cent of the present white owners were ever land-less farmers.

        3. About two-thirds of the present negro farm owners started farming without ownership of land.

        4. Only 27.8 per cent of the present white owners started at the bottom of the agricultural ladder, i. e., as croppers; 65.8 per cent of the present negro owners started as croppers.

        5. 61.6 per cent of the present tenant farmers started as croppers. The remainder started either as tenants or started as owners and dropped into the tenant class.

        6. 8.1 per cent of the present tenants had at one time attained ownership and then slipped into tenancy. This had been the experience of a greater per cent of the whites than of the negroes.

        7. 7.8 per cent of the croppers had at one time been tenants and had dropped into the cropper class. T