August 1967
AGRICULTURE AND
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
in a Six- County Area
of Alabama
)F AUBURN UNIVERSITY
ar,
Aqr _.!It
I_--------------

Contents
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . **** 1
EMPLOYMENT AND POPULATION CHANGES DURING 1950-59 . . . . . . a 2
EFFECTS OF AGRICULTURAL AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
UPON SERVICE EMPY YMENT. 
.... .. 0. . .. ... .
4
CAPITAL INVESTMENT PER WORKER AND TYPE OF INDUSTRY . . " . . . 5
SOME PROSPECTS FOR THE FUTURE .. a . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10
SUMMARY . . . . e . . , *.*.*.. . . . . .. 
. . 12
APPENDIX . . 0. . . . . . . . 0. *. . . *.*0*.*.*.*0*.*0*s*0*.* 15
Preface
Many individuals and organizations are becoming interested in plan-
ning for economic development. The first step in such an undertaking is
a review of the .present problems and opportunities. Fortunately, there
is a wealth of statistical information available for such a study.
The purpose of this report is to emphasize a framework of analysis
that can be applied to the available information. Sources of information
that are likely to prove useful are: publications of the Bureau of Busi-
ness Research, University of Alabama, the Alabama Agricultural Extension
Service, Auburn University; the Census of Manufacturing for Alabama, he
Census of Business for Alabama, the Census of Agriculture for Alabama;
the Census of Population; the Statistical 
abstract of the United States;
and the Alabama Department of Industrial Relations. The State Planning
and Industrial Development Board, the Alabama Power Co., the Alabama
State Chamber of Commerce and local chambers of Commerce also have ma-
terial on file that can be of interest and use to local planners.
Data from several of the sources listed were compiled 
for this re-
port by John Elliot, Jr., as part of the requirement for the Master of
Agriculture degree (1). Additional data and framework applicable for
resource inventory may be found in the Inventory of Human and Physical
Resources Cherokee, Dekalb, Jackson, and Marshall Counties, Alabama,
Agricultural Economics Series 10, Agricultural Experiment Station,
Auburn University.
Agriculture and Industrial Development
in a Six-County Area of Alabama.
John R. Elliot and Bill R. Miller*
Community leaders in many counties of Alabama are actively engaged
in promoting employment opportunities and attempting to make more adequate
use of resources leading to improved standards of living.
People in counties that have predominately rural and agriculturally
based economies face problems of development that are unique from those
of an urban-industrial economy. Rural areas that face problems of growth
must also face the problem of declining job opportunities in their major
industry, agriculture. But paradoxically, this problem is a measure of
the success of agriculture. As concluded in a recent report, "the hall-
mark of modern economic development is the capacity of a nation to meet
its food and fiber needs, while at the same time releasing its human and
physical resources for the production of other goods and services. The
more rapidly agriculture declines in relative importance within an ex-
panding economy the greater is its contribution to the growth process."(2)
This report describes how some of the key economic variables (employ-
ment, population, investment, and income) have been involved in growth and
contrasts growth in an urban county with that in nearby rural areas. Six
Alabama counties, Fayette, Lamar, Marion, Winston, Pickens (all rural), and
Tuscaloosa (urban) were studied.
The approach was essentially that of studying the economic base of an
area and its relation to economic growth, Briefly, products of the economic
*Specialist in Pesticide Education, Cooperative Extension Service,
and Assistant Professor in Agricultural Economics, Agricultural Experiment
Station; Auburn University.
base were defined as: (1) products produced at the primary level and ex-
ported, such as lumber, paper, and clays; and (2) finished products for
export produced at a secondary level using raw materials of the area plus
larger amounts of imports. This important secondary group of basic in*
dustries includes textile, apparel, furniture, rubber, chemical, steel
and electrical goods. An additional group of industries were either ser-
vice or market oriented and their presence was partly dependent on the
presence of the growth generating basic industries. Examples of these
are wholesalers, retailers, doctors, lawyers, teachers, and other service
groups. A more complete discussion of the concept, economic base, is
given by Andrews (3). Extensive use of the concept of basic and service
industry is used in the following sections. Agriculture is a basic in-
dustry treated separately in the report to emphasize its role in the de-
velopment process.
Employment and Population Changes during 1950-1959
Significant economic changes have occurred in rural and urban coun-
ties of the six-county area. Industrial growth has taken place, farms
have declined in number, and the traditional agricultural economy has
been supplemented by many types of nonagricultural activities. Employ-
ment and population data in Table I1 indicate the interaction of agricul-
tural and other basic industrial activities during a period of rapid
change. During the 10-year period 1950-59, agricultural employment de-
clined by 70 per cent in the rural counties and 64 per cent in Tdsca-
loosa County. Nonagricultural employment increased by 44 per cent in
the rural counties and 32 per cent in Tuscaloosa County. The rural
counties had a population decline of 16,696 people during the decade.
Tuscaloosa, the urban county, gained 14,955 in population.
TABLE 1. Employment and Population Changes in Tuscaloosa County and the
Surrounding Five-County Rural Area, 1950-1959
Item 
Tuscaloosa 
Five-County
County Rural Area
Total agricultural employment, 1950 ......... 4320 16,280
Total agricultural employment, 1959 ......... 1,567 4,848
Per cent change from 1950 ., ........... -64 O70
Change in total agricultural employment,
1950-1959 0.0........ -2,753 -11,432
Total nonagricultural employment, 1950 ...... 
25,631 16,287
Total nonagricultural employment, 1959 .". . 33,714 23s518
Per cent change from 1950 ...... . 32 44
Total increase in nonagricultural
employment, 1950-1959 .......... 8,083 
7,231
New employment in basic industry,
1950-1959 ........... 2,907 8,105
Change in total employment, 1950-1959 . ". .. . 5,330 49,201
Change in service employment2/ ... ,.........., 5,176 -874
Change in population, 1950-1959 ...... a...... 14,955 -46,696
Source: Elliot, John Jr., Unpublished 
Master of Agriculture Paper,
Agr. Econ. Dept., Auburn University, June, 1964,
1/ Increase in nonagricultural employment minus new employment in
basic industry.
'4
A loss of 11,L32 agricultural workers and a gain of 7,231 nonagricul-
tural workers resulted in a net decline of 4,201 workers in the rural area.
A corresponding population decline during the period of 16,696 people in-
dicated that for each net loss of 100 workers a population decline of 394
people occurred. Based on this ratio, which does not take into considera-
tion differences in family size of in-migrants and out-migrants, the 
new
nonagricultural jobs prevented a further population decline of approximate-
ly 28,000 people from the rural 
area.
Tuscaloosa County experienced a different situation. Agricultural em-
ployment declined by 2,753 workers, but nonagricultural employment increased
by 8,083 workers, resulting in a net increase of 5,330. A corresponding
population increase of 14,955 people during the 10-year period means that
each 100 net increase in workers in Tuscaloosa County resulted in a popu-
lation increase of 280 people.
Effects of Agricultural and Industrial Development
Upon Service Employment
Data in Table 1 also illustrate the effects of development upon service
employment in the rural and urban counties. An unusual situation existed 
in
the rural counties during the period of 1950-1959. Although new 
or expanded
basic industry had a reported increase of 8,105 new 
workers, the net reported
increase in nonagricultural employment was only 7,231. The 
hypothesis sug-
gested here is that service or market-related employment 
actually declined
because of the decline in agricultural employment. 
As a result of 11,432
workers leaving agriculture, total employment 
in the rural area declined by
4,201. Therefore, new basic industrial employment 
did not have the multi-
plier effect upon service employment that 
it might have had if agricultural
employment had remained stationary rather than declining. Service employ-
ment was estimated to have declined by more than 800 jobs, Table 1. This
is in direct contrast to what might have been hoped for by planners in-
terested in development.
The effects of basic industrial development on service industry in
Tuscaloosa County were much more positive than in the aural area. An es-
timated 2,907 new jobs were created by basic industry between 1950-1959.
During the same 10-year period, total nonbasic and nonagricultural em-
ployment increased by an estimated 5,176 jobs. On this basis, each 100
new basic industry jobs resulted in 178 new jobs in service employment.
This estimate is, however, biased upwards because of institutions in
the county, principally the University of Alabama, which have grown with-
out regard to growth in basic industry and which probably exerted a strong
influence on the growth of service employment.
Capital Investment per Worker-and Type of Industry
The amount of capital investment required per worker employed is an
important guide for groups planning economic development programs. The
information provides a basis for determining capital needs and expected
employment as an outgrowth of investment. As in the case of employment,
there were significant differences in capital investment between the ru-
ral and urban counties, Table 2. During the period 1940 through 1962,
capital investment per new worker in the rural area ranged from $909 in
the apparel industry to $12,499 in the chemical industry. The average
investment for all industry in the area was $2,282 per new worker. The
apparel industry provided a major part of rural new employment through-
out the period.
TABLE 2. Capital Investment in Basic Industry Per New Worker in Tuscaloosa, Fayette, Lamar, Winston, Pick
and Marion Counties from 1940 to 1962
New firms Total new Avera
Name of industrial group 
or New 
capital 
inve
expansions employees investment per
empl
1940 to 1962 1940 to 1962 1940 to 1962(Dol.) 1940 to
Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural
Five Tusca- Five Tusca- Five Tusca- Five
County loosa County loosa County loosa County
Agricultural processing ................ 15 6 506 65 1,037,500 430,000 2,050
Textile mill products .................. 1 1 50 50 500,000 250,000 10,000
Apparel and related products ........... 30 4 6,135 105 5,574,000 100,000 909
Lumber and wood products ................ 24 12 942 264 1,634,000 523,500 1,735
Furniture and fixtures ................ 3 5 177 115 180,000 330,000 1,017
Paper and allied products .............. 1 3 300 1,750 3,500,000 20,275,000 11,667
Chemical and allied products ........... 6 10 245 560 3,050,000 12,535,000 12,449
Rubber and plastic ..................... 2 5 175 1,050 225,000 17,345,000 1,286
Concrete, plaster and bric, products ... 7 6 175 100 455,000 172,500 2,600
Structural and fabricated metal ......... 4 5 435 695 1,293,000 5,715,000 2,972
Electircal products ..................... 3 8 780 255 5,150,000 590,000 6,603
Petroleum, coal, and mineral ............ 4 6 150 298 380,000 1,900,000 2,533
Total 100 71 10,070 5,307 22,978,500 60,166,000 2,282-
Source: Elliot, John, Jr. Unpublished Master of Agriculture Paper, Agr. Econ. Dept., Auburn Univ., June, 1964
1/ Investments in factory expansions are not separated from investments in entirely new plants.
2/ Average new investment per worker.
ens
ge new
stment
new
oyee
1962(Dol.)
Urban
Tusca-
loosa
6,615
5,000
952
1,983
2,870
11,586
22,384
16,519
1,725
8,223
2,314
6,376
11,337
o0'
3/ Average new investment 
per worker.
Average investment per new worker in the rural five 
counties tended
to increase during the periods studied. Between 
1940-1944 an average in-
vestment of $807 per new worker was made. Amounts changed 
as follows:
For successive 5-year periods, the investment per new worker was $1,557
(1945-49); $3,061 (1950-54); $1,339 (1955-59). But, during the 3-year
period 1960-62, the amount invested appeared to be approaching the 1950-
1954 level. The average rate of increase in new investment was 
about
$120 per new worker each year.
1
/ The period of highest investment per
new worker, 1950-1955, was a time of expansion in the paper, chemical,
and electrical industries. During the next period, 1955-1959, 
low in-
vestment per new man in the apparel industry accounted 
for most of the
new development which explains the sharp drop in investment 
per worker
during that period.
2
Investment per new worker in Tuscaloosa County was not analyzed by
5-year time periods because of the confidential nature of information 
on
number of employees in certain industries. The following inferences, how-
ever, were made: Investment per new worker was observed at $8,380 in the
period 1940-1945 and from 1960 through 1962 the amount was $43,820 per
new worker. This would represent a large increase through time in Tusca-
loosa County if the 1960-1965 average per new worker remains anywhere near
$40,000. Average investment per new worker was $11,337 for the 23-year
period and 5 times greater than the same long-term average in the rural
area,
1/Regression estimate.
2/ The data were not deflated and therefore included the effects of
inflation and increased automation.
Investment per new worker in apparel manufacturing has been quite
stable through time, whereas industries in the urban county, such as chemi-
cal, paper, electridal machinery, and rubber, have steadily increased in-
vestment per new worker, As investment per new worker has increased in
Tuscaloosa County, the number of new workers in basic industry has shown
a tendency to decine at an average rate of approximately 130 new workers
per year.1/ This does not mean that 
total number of new workers was 
de-
clining but the yearly increase was smaller each year. This is in direct
contrast to the rural area where, although investment per new worker in-
creased on a small scale, the yearly increase of new workers in basic in-
dustry other than agriculture has been larger each year. New jobs have
increased in the rural counties at an average rate of about 188 per year.
2
'
The difference in the way new jobs are increasing is also shown in
off-farm employment opportunities for farmers. Although the number of
farms in both areas declined by 49 per cent during 1950-1959, opportuni-
ties for off-farm employment appeared more favorable in the rural counties.
The number of farmers employed off the farm more than 100 days decreased
by 31 per cent in Tuscaloosa and by only 17 per cent in the rural counties,
Table 3.
Under some conditions of development, off-farm employment would be
expected to increase as shown in a study of Indiana development by Stevens
and Wallace (4). Rural counties in that state have had absolute increases
in number of off-farm workers as well as small increases in the percentage
1/Regression estimate,
2/Regression estimate.
9.
TABLE 3. "Off-Farm" Employment Characteristics of Farm Operators in Tus-
caloosa County and the Five-County Area 
of Lamar, Marion, Pickens,
Winston, and Fayette Counties
Farmers reporting 100 or more days
County and year Total farms2/ 
of "off-farm" employment
Tuscaloosa No. 
No. Pct. of all farms
1949 .. _ ...... ... 3,806631
1959 ................ 
1,907 808 
12
Net Change ....... ,... - 1,899 (-49/) 
-358 (-31%) 11
Five-County Area
194+9 . ............... 13,813 
3,005 22
1959 ........ f......... 7,-.914.2,502 
35
Net Change ..... .... . -6,719 (_49/) -503 (-17%) 
13
Source:
part 32,
culitur e,
1/ Adjusted for change in definition of 
a "farm."
U. S. Bureau of Census, U. S. Census 
of Agriculture, 1959, Vol. I,
County Tables 
1 and 4 ; 
U. S. Bureau 
of Census, 
U. S. Census 
of Agri-
1950, Vol. 1, part 21, County. Table 
1.
10
of farmers working off the farm. The situation in that state seems to be
that urban development offers more part-time work to farmers who intend
to stay in farming. Perhaps one of the most significant differences 
bet-
ween Indiana and Alabama conditions was the far greater number of Alabama
farms in 1950. The counties studied by Wallace and Stevens were approxi-
mately the same size as the Alabama counties discussed in this report and
under present conditions counties in both states appear to be approaching
approximately the same number of farms per county. However, during the
1950-1959 decade, farms in Alabama declined in number at least two and
one-half times as fast as in Indiana.
Apparently, the combination of industrialization and farm size in
Alabama has meant that many part-time farmers have been willing to aban-
don farming in response to urban development and non-farm employment op-
portunities. There are some indications this will continue to be true
(See the appendix.) In the counties of this study, 
the rate of farmers
working off the farm 100 days or more, 35-42 per cent, Table 3, indicates
a level of underemployment in farming that is high in relation to Indiana
conditions. Another indication of underemployment is given by Bishop.
In 1960 there were 17 farm males between the ages of 10-19 for each re-
tirement age farmer in the South who was operating a farm with $10,000
or more of marketings (5). This relationship holds to a similar degree
in Alabama.
Some Prospects for the Future
Many of the elements of change noted in this report have been cata-
loged previously. The decline in number of farms and farm workers, in-
creased industrialization, and increased investment per worker have become
11
almost commonplace facts. However, data shown here with respect to new
workers employed is slightly at variance with the accepted concept of
nodal economic growth. According to the nodal concept, growth at a cen-
tral place builds at a faster rate than the surrounding areas because of
complementarity among industries and because future investment and employ-
ment decisions are likely to be dependent on the extension of existing
plant and equipment. Although new jobs have been increasing in both 
the
rural and urban areas, large increases in investment per worker in the
urban area have been associated with new jobs increasing at a decreasing
rate, whereas jobs in the rural area have been increasing at an increas-
ing rate. This is probably one indication of the strong resistance many
farmers have against moving from their home community. Also, it probably
reflects the increased employment of rural women in the labor force.
Decentralized growth in employment activity in the rural area may
receive added stimulus in the future from increased growth in the service
industries. As shown by this study, the effect of basic industry on ser-
vice employment (the multiplier effect) has been essentially zero in the
past because of the rapid exodus of agricultural workers from farms. This
decline may not continue at the same pace in the future if we accept the
Indiana conditions as representative of a more advanced relationship bet-
ween industry and agriculture. However, with a high rate of underemploy-
ment still indicated among farm operators and farm youth, Table 3 and the
Appendix, there will be continuing attractions in the rural area for la-
bor oriented basic industry. The added stimulus of multiplier effects
on sales and employment in rural county service industries is expected
on the premise that basic industry other than agriculture is becoming the
major determinant of population.
12
One of the more interesting factors 
within the entire overall struc-
ture of change has been the relation 
of agricultural incomes to those in
the rest of the area economy. In 1939 
and 1957, personal income per farm
operator in the rural area was related 
to per capita personal incomes of
non-farmers in the rural counties in 
essentially the same proportions.
Relative shares of personal income 
between the farm and nonfarm 
segments
of Tuscaloosa County were also 
about the same in the two time 
periods
(6) (7). These facts lead to 
a hypothesis that regardless 
of the extreme-
ly different types of general development 
in rural and urban areas the
relative position of farm incomes 
has been unaffected. For those 
interested
in agricultural development this hypothesis raises a serious question. 
Many
observers have felt that rapid migration 
of "surplus" farmers into a ra-
pidly growing economy is the 
solution to many of our "farm 
problems."
Farm income has increased, but relative 
farm income improvement has
not yet taken place in the presence of urban 
development. There is little
evidence that the labor market is working differently than it did in 1939.
Summary
The implications of this report are several:
(1) Service employment and service industry growth has been lower
than might have been expected in rural counties 
because of greater off-
farm migration that has not been absorbed by local 
basic industry. De-
mand for services in rural counties will increase rapidly 
as basic indus-
try other than agriculture is at this time becoming the basis of population.
(2) Geographically, the growth pattern in employment has been decen-
tralized. Employment increase apparently has been as good or better in
the rural counties as in the nodal urban county.
13
(3) Data on off-farm employment indicate 
that a considerable pool
of potential industrial labor still 
exists on the farm. Counties 
with
high rates of off-farm 
employment are indicated in 
the appendix to the
report.
(4) The issue is still 
in doubt whether urban 
development has af-
fected the returns to labor in 
agriculture relative to non-farm 
labor.
The very close relationship 
between industrial growth 
and agricul-
ture has been shown throughout 
the study. The conclusion that 
much of
the growth in recent years 
has resulted from mobility of 
farm labor to
new occupations will not be questioned 
by many, although the capital-
labor ratio has increased significantly 
in the urban area. Mobility of
labor into new occupations has been 
a mainspring of growth. Furthermore,
the costs of retraining for new jobs 
has probably been small as witnessed
by the type of industrial development.
We must expect that mobility of 
labor into new occupations can 
con-
tinue to be an important source 
of economic growth. This source 
will be
denied, however, if proper attention 
is not given to the ever increasing
difficulty of job mobility 
in a developing society. As an 
example, 5,000
computer programmers will be 
much more difficult to obtain 
from the ranks
of industry than were 5,000 
pulp and paper mill employees 
obtained from
agriculture. The implications 
are that adult education and on-the-job
training are rapidly becoming more 
important if we are to effectively
employ the development of new technology requiring 
new skills, and by
doing so avoid technological unemployment.
14
LIST OF REFERENCES
(1) Elliot, John, Jr. 196k. The 
Economic Impact of Aricultural 
and In-
dustrial Development in a Six-County 
Area of Alabama from 1940 
throu
1960. Unpublished Master of Agr., 
Econ. and Rur. Soc. Dept.,.Auburn
Univ., Auburn, Alabama.
(2) Economic Research Service, 
1964. Aqriculture and Economic 
Growth.
Agr. Econ. Rept. No. 28, U. S. 
Dept. Agr., Washington, 0. C.
(3) Andrews, Richard B. 1963. 
Economic Planning for Small Areas 
an
Ana 1 ti cl System, Land Economics, Vol. 39, No. 2, (143-155).
(4) Stevens, J. B. and L. T. Wallace.l1964. 
Impact of Industrial Develop-
ment on Howard County, Indiana. 
Bull. No. 784, Agr. Exp. Sta., Purdue
Univ., Lafayette, Ind.
(5) Bishop, C. E. 1964. Aric 
ueadEooi v et 
Bull. 556,
Agr. Exp. Sta., Virginia Polytechnic 
Inst., Blacksburg, Va.
(6) U. S. Census of Agriculture, 
1945, Vol. 1, part 21, Statistics 
for
Counties, U. S. Census of Agriculture, 1959, 
Vol. 1, Part 35,
Statistics for Counties.
(7) Personal Income in Alabama Counties 
Since 1939. Marion Hawley,
Bur. of Bus. Res.,, Univ. of Alabama.
15
Appendix
This appendix contains a table comparing the number of farmers working
off the farm 100 days or more in a census year and the 
decrease in number
of farms in the following census year. Census data for the period 1954-
1964 is listed by county in Table 1.
A statistical analysis of the data in the Appendix Table 
indicates that
for 3 additional "off-farm" workers at least 1 farmer will abandon farming.
This estimate takes trend into account since it can be seen in the 1954-59
data that in many cases a 1 to 1 ratio appears to have existed. Number of
farms, however, is affected by more forces than the availability of off-
farm work and this is an area for future work.
16
Appendix Table. Changes in Number of Off-Farm Workers and
Net Decreases in Farms for 67 Counties in
Alabama
Off-Farm Decrease Off-Farm Decrease Off-Farm
Counties workersil/ in farms2/ workers in farms workers
1954 1954-59 1959 1959-64 1964
Autauga ........ , 591 335 438 219 400
Baldwin ..,,,.....l,098 739 802 
+25/' 859
Barbour ,...,,,,..* 458 715 417 484 320
Bib..~q.... 442 452 318 
110 293
Blount ... .... ,lOO 1,479 760 209 826
Bullock *..,.1..... 353 503 311 
167 297
Butler .... , 828 597 533 247 490
Calhoun ... ~.,O 830 590 218 484
Chambers .*........ 840 870 430 347 
378
Cherokee .......,. 591 550 461 
478 375
Chilton .........1,097 878 
897 388 699
Choctaw ,........ 945 842 583 333 520
Clarke ..... ~... .. 876 1,000 557 408 431
Clay ...... 942 961 429 116 
418
Cleburne ,.,,...,. 601 638 306 110 
298
Coffee .,. ....., 454 891 470 484 
451
Colbert .. , ., , 822 690 585 241 
495
Conecuh ........ 735 872 
477 364 390
Coosa .. .... 765 697 
327 83 330
Covington ,...... 737 928 619 487 
600
Crenshaw .,,. 370 526 
353 435 294
Cullman .,........1l,357 1,927 1,274 659 1,240
Dale d...., ... 384 473 335 188 332
Dallas .... ,...,... 963 1, 327 720 
751 556
Dekalb ...... ,1 1,584 1,344 1,036 1,143
Elmore .,.........1,126 920 799 434+ 611
Escambia ..,.....M 603 651 440 176 392
Etowah ...... , 1, 501221 886 
237 877
Fayette .. + "...i. 535 764 421 283 441
Franklin*..,. 870 733 676 
239 633
Geneva .,.., 244 604 374 436 362
Greene ... ,.1,... 399 604 
435 233 360
Hale ......,.,. 5414 791 460 408 431
Continued
17-
Appendix rable 1. Continued
Off-Farm Decrease Off-Farm Decrease Off-Farm
Counties workersi! in farms2/ workers 'in farms workers
1954 1954-59 1959 1959-64 1964
Limestone ........ 874 1,512 814 648 727
Lowndes *..,..s.. 559 649 482 121 474
Macon ... ,.,i...i 523 306 553 376 377
Madison .........1,017 1,510 966 1,272 631
Marengo .......... 857 1,284 539 218 570
Marion ..... ?.... 733 931 570 322 566
Marshall .... "... 968 1,558 io68 533 1,049
Mobile ......... 1,561 922 1,058 246 827
Monroe "........, 847 984 564 392 508
Montgomery .,.... 707 722 641 336 519
Morgan ......... ",1,125 1,217 1,112 456 1,052
Perry ,.,,....,... 601 762 326 276 317
Pickens ......... 631 1,054 664 273 519
Pike a...*....,?.. 309 752 358 392 370
Randolph ....... 735 872 624 353 548
Russell ...... 626 496 433 339 275
St. Clair ....... 842 938 512 247 308
Shelby ........... 831 625 468 70 457
Sumter .. ,........ 614 878 471 311 442
Talladega ".......1,152 1,025 661 217 561
Tallapoosa ..d.... 976 951 617 281 505
Tuscaloosa "......1,430 1,632 808 596 567
Walker .*.....+...1,266 1,419 852 473 577
Washington .,..... 761 484 557 247 464
Wilcox .......... , 626 1,004 512 287 456
Winston ......,.e.. 647 687 452 37 450
Total *,,*..53,316 60$459 39,723 23, 283 34,841
Av./peg- ccunty. 808 916 603 353 528
1/ The number of farm workers working off the farm 100 days or more.
2/ The net decrease in number of farms in the 5-year census
ing the observed number of of f.f arm workers.
period f oll1ow-
Baldwin County was the only county in Alabama that has shown an increase
in number of f arms.
SOURCE: U. S. Census of Agriculture, 1959, Statistics for Counties, Table 5
and Preliminary U. S.. Census of Agriculture, 1964.