]> <emph>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:</emph> 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.

 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 English North Carolina -- Social conditions. North Carolina -- Economic conditions. Agriculture -- Economic aspects -- North Carolina. Farms -- North Carolina. Farms -- North Carolina -- Statistics. Farm tenancy -- North Carolina. Farm tenancy -- Economic aspects -- North Carolina. Farmers -- North Carolina -- Economic conditions. Farmers -- North Carolina -- Social conditions. Farmers -- North Carolina -- Statistics. Tenant farmers -- North Carolina. Sharecroppers -- North Carolina. Social surveys -- North Carolina. 2002-11-06, Celine Noel and Wanda Gunther revised TEIHeader and created catalog record for the electronic edition. 2002-02-08, Jill Kuhn Sexton finished TEI-conformant encoding and final proofing. 2001-08-22, Melissa Graham Meeks finished TEI/SGML encoding 2001-08-17, Apex Data Services, Inc. finished transcribing the text.

[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 TABLE OF CONTENTS THE AREA SURVEYED: The People . . . . . 8 The Land Farmed . . . . . 9 Farm Crop Practices . . . . . 11 Livestock Practices . . . . . 15 FAMILY FOOD SUPPLIES . . . . . 17 Milk and Butter . . . . . 19-20 Pork and Lard . . . . . 20-21 Eggs and Poultry . . . . . 22-23 Flour, Potatoes, Meal, and Molasses . . . . . 23-25 Garden and Orchard Products . . . . . 26 CASH INCOME . . . . . 27 CREDIT . . . . . 28 WEALTH AND EQUITY . . . . . 32 TENURE HISTORY . . . . . 35 THE HOMES: Houses . . . . . 39 Home Conveniences . . . . . 43 HEALTH AND SANITATION . . . . . 50 Contacts with Doctors . . . . . 51-52 Expenditures for Drugs and Doctor Bills . . . . . 53-54 Attendance at Births . . . . . 55-58 Water Supply . . . . . 59-62 Disposal of Waste and Garbage . . . . . 63-64 EDUCATION . . . . . 64 PAPERS AND MAGAZINES TAKEN . . . . . 67-71 BOOKS . . . . . 72-73 RELIGION . . . . . 74 RECREATION . . . . . 76 CHANGE OF RESIDENCE . . . . . 82 PER CENT HAVE AUTOS, BUGGIES, ETC . . . . . 83-84 EXCHANGE OF WORK . . . . . 84 OPINIONS ON COMMUNITY PROBLEMS . . . . . 86-87 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.

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. 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.

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 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.

 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

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

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.

 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 PLAIN Exhaustive 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 PIEDMONT Exhaustive 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 —— MOUNTAIN Exhaustive 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:

Improvement Crops Alfalfa Soy beans Cow peas Rye Hay Cultivated Pasture Exhaustive Crops Cotton Tobacco Corn Wheat Oats Peanuts Sorghum Potatoes Truck

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    

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 @

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.

 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

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.

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

TABLE XIX— Living Raised and Bought Per Family (Piedmont County)   Operator Landlords <