(9' (Y BULLETIN No. 288 DECEMBER 1953 PRODUCTION ALABAMA'S PIEDMONT AREA a4 ~d SALE 4j i MILK MANUFACTURE ADVANCEMENT 0 f~OF $ 4 r SCIENCE tCCZ ti H N 4' 4 AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT ST AT ION Mhe ALABAMA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE Auburn, Alabama E. V. Smith, Director CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION THE PIEDMONT AREA THE SAMPLE ------------ 4-------------5 Sele ction - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - 5 Representativeness ------------------ --- --- - 7 DIFFERENCES ASSOCIATED WITH PATRON STATUS OF FARMERS-8 9 -Production, sale and use of milk-10 Livestock and poultry--------------- ---Land use, size of farms, and crop yields-11 Farm practices-12--- -13 Feed purchased for dairy cows-----14 Machinery and equipment-------------14 Lahor supply and personnel---------15 ----- ---- - -----Tenure and color----- ----VOLUME OF SALES AND SELLERS ------- -15 -18 Total sales, patrons, and sales per patron-15 --Seasonality of sales and patrons-PRICES RECEIVED FOR MANUFACTURING FACTORS RELATED TO SALES OF MILK-MILK-23 24 Number of cows and production per cow-24 Factors associated with number of cows-28 Factors associated with production per cow-31 Size of farm-31 Lab or supp ly -- - ---- ----- --- --- --- --- --- - - -- -- ----- 32 W ork off the farm ---------------------------------- 33 Tractor ownership ----------------- 33 A ge of farm operator-------------------------------34 C olor and tenure-----------------------------------35 COMPARISONS AND FUTURE SALES------------------------36 1951 compared to 1950, and 1952 compared to 1951-----37 Reasons for differences in sales-----------------------37 F utu re sales -- - -- - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -40 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS----------------------------42 S um mnary -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4 2 Con clu sion s-- - - -- - - - - -- - --- - - - - - - - - -- - -- - - - -- - - - - -4 5 A P PE N DIX - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4 7 FIRST PRINTING 3M PRODUCTION and SALE o MILK j" MANUFACTURE i ALABAMA'S PIEDMONT AREA J. H. YEAGER, Associate Agricultural EconomisLt ° PRODUCTION of milk for manufacturing purposes is an important phase of agriculture in Alabama and throughout the South. Chief among the products manufactured are cheese, condensed whole milk, butter, and ice-cream mix. In 1943, a milk plant was established in the Piedmont Area of Alabama. Milk routes for this plant center largely in the Piedmont but branch out into portions of the Upper Coastal Plains Area. Cotton has long been the principal cash crop produced in this area. This plant, however, provides a market for an additional product from farms in the area. As a result, many farmers have had and continue to have an opportunity to further diversify their farming operations. It is recognized that dairying is a farm enterprise well-adapted to certain farms in the Piedmont while on other farms different enterprises prove more profitable. In general, high quality roughages can be produced on most farms in the area. Grain production is limited. Much of the land must be kept in grasses and legumes for erosion control. The dairy cow is an efficient utilizer of roughages and other types of feed. Under reasonably good management, returns for feed fed 0 This study was supported mainly from funds made available by the Agricultural Research and Marketing Act of 1946. Interest on the part of farmers, agricultural workers, and the milk manufacturing industry in the area was responsible for initiation and execution of this research. * Acknowledgment is due S. W. Williams, former staff member of the Agricultural Experiment Station, and workers of the Agricultural Extension Service of the Alabama Polytechnic Institute who helped organize and carry out the study. Cooperation of farmers and others who contributed information is also appreciated. 4 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION to dairy cows are high compared with returns for feed fed to other kinds of livestock. Labor requirements are high and regular for dairying, and records have shown returns per hour of labor to be low as compared with other farm enterprises. However, dairying provides an opportunity to sell farm labor, even though at a low price, which might not otherwise be sold. In addition, probably as much labor can be sold per dollar invested in dairying as in any other enterprise. Farm labor in the Piedmont, in general, has been fairly plentiful, although in recent years strong competition from opportunities for off-farm work has made inroads into the farm labor supply. In view of these considerations, it appears that dairying might well be a very important farm enterprise in the Piedmont. Progress in this direction, however, has been rather slow in some respects. This study was initiated to see how farmers on milk routes in the area have woven the production of manufacturing milk in with the rest of their farm business. It attempts to point up some of the important factors affecting the sale of milk as well as to explore some of the factors that may influence future production and sale of milk for manufacture in this area. The PIEDMONT AREA 1 In general the Piedmont is hilly. Soils are sandy or clay loams with red or dark brownish-red subsoils. Numerous streams provide ample water for livestock farming. Although early settlers recognized the Piedmont as a potential livestock area, cotton became the major income producer. Serious erosion has occurred in most of the area. Hillsides are steep, often broken by bench terraces, and frequently spotted with numerous rocks. Fields are irregular in shape. The use of tractor-drawn machinery is difficult and costly in much of the area. Most farms have few good fences. However, during the period 1940-50, significant changes occurred in the area. Number of farms decreased 14 per cent from 1940 to 1950 (Ap1 Data for this study were obtained from rural residents along milk routes in 10 counties: Chambers, Chilton, Clay, Cleburne, Coosa, Elmore, Lee, Macon, Randolph, and Tallapoosa. Although from a physiographic standpoint, parts of these counties are not in the Piedmont Area, figures for these counties are included because of the location of milk routes. MANUFACTURE MILK PRODUCTION in ALABAMA'S PIEDMONT 5 pendix Table 1). Farms operated by nonwhite farmers decreased more in total and percentagewise than did the number of farms operated by white farmers. Size of farms increased an average of 12 acres, while acres in cropland harvested decreased 40 per cent. Total land pastured increased 11 per cent. A tremendous decrease occurred in percentage of tenants. A large part of this decline was accounted for by the decrease in number of share tenants and croppers. Acreages of cotton, corn, and all hay showed a decrease. The proportion of farms producing cotton declined from 92 to 60 per cent. Numbers of cattle and calves as well as hogs increased. Little change occurred in number of milk cows. These figures show that types of agriculture in the Piedmont have changed rather drastically in the past 10 years. They also suggest that certain changes must have occurred in population and in the ways in which people gain their livelihood. From 1940 to 1950, rural farm population in the area declined 35 per cent. However, total population remained fairly constant. Rural farm persons per farm and the number of workers employed in agriculture showed substantial decreases during this 10-year period. The increase in industrialization of the area has brought with it non-farm job opportunities. Many, taking advantage of these opportunities, have given up farming. Others continue to farm although additional work is found in non-farm industries. An increasing proportion of the total population has chosen to live in rural areas as shown by an increase of 84 per cent in rural non-farm population from 1940 to 1950, while total population changed very little. Rural farm population made up 62 per cent of the total population in 1940 and only 41 per cent in 1950. On the other hand, rural non-farm population amounted to 28 per cent in 1940 and 82 per cent of the total population in 1950. The SAMPLE Selection Representatives of the milk company and others helped in plotting all milk routes in the area on large county maps. Then, each route was divided into segments of approximately seven houses. Counties were divided into rather broad general areas and a certain number of segments were drawn at random in each of these areas. Enumerators visited each house included in the randomly 6 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Legend Area of " 0 Past Patrons study *Non-patrons patrons a Non-farm rural residents FIGURE 1. Sample of farm and nan-farm rural residents on milk routes, Piedmont Area of Alabama, 1952. drawn segments. The sample was composed of farm and nonf arm residents along milk routes. If the rural resident did not operate or rent out more than 3 acres, if the family head was a hired man or non-farm worker, and if no cattle were kept in 1951. MANUFACTURE MILK PRODUCTION in ALABAMA'S PIEDMONT 7 very brief non-farm information was recorded on the survey schedule. Otherwise, rather complete information on farming, in particular as it pertained to dairying, was recorded. Figure 1 shows, by counties, the number of farm and non-farm respondents included in the survey. Representativeness Records were obtained from 230 farmers and 153 non-farm rural resident. In some respects, farms included in the sample were fairly representative of all farms in the area (Table 1). However, they were selected to represent farms on milk routes. Both groups had the same average acreage of corn and cotton. But farms in the sample were, on the average, 22 acres smaller than all farms. Farms on milk routes reported an average of 3.0 dairy cows as compared with 1.8 for all farms. Also, a larger proportion of farms on routes had dairy cows. A smaller proportion of farmers on milk routes were tenants and a larger proportion were white operators. A much larger percentage of farms on milk routes had tractors than of all farms in these counties. Based on the sample, 2 residents out of 5 along the milk routes were non-farm. This group had an average of 2.1 acres of land. TABLE 1. COMPARISON OF FARMS INCLUDED IN SAMPLE PIEDMONT AREA OF ALABAMA, 1952 WITH ALL FARMS, Unit ---- -----------. Farms --------------------- --Average size of farms.................... Tenants of all farm operators White operators of all operators Farms reporting dairy cows Dairy cows per farm Proportion of farms with dairy cows reporting milk sold Milk sales per year per farm Farm reporting open permanent pasture----Open permanent pasture per farm Farms reporting corn Corn per farm Farms reporting cotton Cotton per farm Farm operators working off farm 100 days or more---------------------Farms with tractors SBased 230 farms in sample 230 85 28 82 85 3.0 28 581 79 17 83 10 57 6 35 28 All farms 24,891 107 86 71 70 1.8 11 160 33 8 79 10 60 6 31 11 Number Acres Per cent Per cent Per cent Number Per cent Gallons Per cent Acres Per cent Acres Per cent Acres Per cent Per cent on 1950 Census data. 8 TABLE 2. ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION OCCUPATIONS OF NON-FARM RURAL RESIDENTS PIEDMONT AREA OF ALABAMA, 1952 ON MILK ROUTES, OccuptionProportion OccupationWhite of total Colored All Per cent Per cent Per cent Textile mill w orker--------------------------------------------None (retired, pensioned, or disabled)------------Wood or lumber industry worker--------------------Laborer (including farm worker)-----------------------Merchant or store operator------------------------F arm er- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- -- - - -- - -Carpenter, painter, or construction worker------------- - -T ruck driver------- ----Other or combination of occupations listed---TOTAL --------------------------------------- 22 17 7 2 8 5 4 303 8-------21 32 100 00 3 6 34 30 0 6 0 19 14 13 8 6 5 3 29 100 There was little difference in the proportion of white residents - 82 per cent for farmers and 76 per cent for non-farmers. Occupations of non-farm residents were varied as shown in Table 2. Work in textile mills and wood or lumber industries occupied a third of the heads of families. An additional eighth were retired or disabled, hence, unoccupied. In addition, many heads and members of families reported off-farm work in fields similar to those listed. Only 72 per cent of the farmers considered ing as their major occupation. farm- DIFFERENCES ASSOCIATED w h PATRON STATUS cjFARMERS The 230 farmers on milk routes were classified as patrons, past patrons, and non-patrons of the milk plant (Table 8). Patrons were those selling manufacturing milk to the plant at the time of interview.2 TABLE 3. CLASSIFICATION OF 230 FARMS ON MILK ROUTES, PIEDMONT AREA OF ALABAMA, 1952 Patron status Farms Propotion Popotion ofttl Farmers selling milk for manufacture in 1951 Number Patrons Past patrons Non-patrons TOTAL Per cent 20 16 64 Number 45 8 0 53 46 37 147 230 100 2 All except one patron, who had just started selling, sold manufacturing milk in 1951. Also in 1951, only two patrons reported sales of milk on a local basis in addition to that sold for manufacturing purposes. MANUFACTURE MILK PRODUCTION in ALABAMA'S PIEDMONT 9 Only 1 out of 5 farmers on milk routes sold milk for manufacture. Considering all residents on milk routes in rural areas, only 1 out of slightly more than 8 was a patron in 1952. Sixteen per cent of the farmers interviewed had sold manufacturing milk at some time in the past. Thirty per cent of the past patrons sold milk in 1951; three-fourths of these sold manufacturing milk and one-fourth sold fluid milk. Non-patrons were those who were not selling and never had sold manufacturing milk. Less than 2 per cent of the farmers in this group sold fluid milk in 1951. Production, Sale, aiu Use oa Milk Milk sold amounted to almost 80 per cent of that produced on patron farms, 50 per cent on past patron, and 14 per cent on nonpatron farms (Table 4). Almost all the milk sold by patrons went to the milk plant. Of the past patrons selling milk in 1951, almost 50 per cent of the quantity sold went to the milk plant. TABLE 4. PRODUCTION AND DISPOSITION OF MILK BY PATRON STATUS, 230 FARMS ON MILK ROUTES, PIEDMONT AREA OF ALABAMA, 1951 Item Unit patronstpast patrons patrons 46 7.1 4 11 1.8 9 1.0 36 1.5 8.8 14 .9 22,483 5,735 28,218 46 5.7 5,171 6,380 6,293 12,673 35 2.4 4,933 .9 46 7 147 nonpatrons 2 Whole milk sold: Sellers Average amound sold per day Butter sold: Sellers Average amount sold per week Milk used in home: Farmers reporting Average amount per day Average amount per person per day Milk fed to calves: Farmers reporting Average amount per day Summary (per farm, all farms): Milk sold annually' Milk used in home and/or fed Total produced Dairy cows (mainly to be milked): Farmers reporting Average per farm Annual production per cow' Number Gallons Number Pounds Number .2 16 .7 Gallons Pints Number Gallons Pounds Pounds Pounds Number Number Pounds 45 1.3 2.6 20 119 1.1 2.4 42 .3 565 3,462 4,027 112 1.0 3.841 'Less than 0.1 gallon. 2 Includes milk equivalent of butter sold. production per dairy cow (kept mainly to be milked) on a per farm reporting basis. 'Average 10 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION No sales of cream were reported for 1951. In total, only 29 or less than 13 per cent of all farmers on milk routes reported the sale of butter. Past patrons averaged selling the largest quantity per week. Almost 90 per cent of the farmers reported the use of milk in their homes, the largest average amount per day being reported by past patrons. On a per person basis, past patrons used 3.8 pints per day as compared with 2.4 for non-patrons. These amounts were well above the 0.6 pint per capita average daily sales of all bottled milk products for Alabama in 1949.3 White families used an average of 2.9 pints per person per day as compared with 1.9 for negro families. Owners also used more milk per person per day than tenants - 2.9 against 2.1 pints. Forty-three per cent of the patrons, 38 per cent of the past patrons, and 28 per cent of the non-patrons reported milk fed to calves. For all farms, the average amount fed daily was 0.5 gallon. Livestock aLd Poultry A significant difference existed in the number of dairy cows on farms of patrons, past patrons, and non-patrons (Table 4 and Appendix Table 2). The number of dairy cows kept mainly to be milked varied from 2 to 28 with an average of 5.7 for patrons.4 Most past patrons had only 1 or 2 cows with the exception of one farmer who had 20 and who sold fluid milk. Twenty-four per cent of the non-patrons did not have a dairy cow and more than half had only one dairy cow which was kept primarily for production of milk for the household. Farmers who were patrons also had, on the average, more dairy heifers 1 year old and over and, in addition, raised more dairy heifer calves than did the other groups. Patrons had 2.6 dairy cows for each heifer 1 year old and over, past patrons 2.4, and non-patrons 3.8. The greatest average number of beef cows was on farms of past patrons even though only one-third of this group reported beef cows. Past patrons also vealed or raised more calves for beef SWilliam, S. W. "Supplies and Use of Milk in Alabama." A.P.I. Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin No. 282. June 1952. SIn 1948, a study was made of production and sale of milk for manufacture on one milk route in parts of Russell, Lee, and Chambers counties. The average number of all dairy cows per patron farm was found to be 5.8 and for non-patrons, 1.0. See Cox, C. B. "Factors Related to Production and Sale of Milk for Manufacture." A.P.I. Agricultural Experiment Station Circular No. 96. May 1950. MANUFACTURE MILK PRODUCTION in ALABAMA'S PIEDMONT 11 than did other groups. Apparently beef cattle were not numerous on farms in the area due to farms being rather small and farmers having limited capital with which to get into the beef business. Poultry production, including broilers, was most important on farms of patrons. In general, livestock numbers were greater on farms of patrons and past patrons. A total of 32 farms or about 14 per cent in all groups did not have cattle of any kind in 1951. Most of these were non-patrons. Land Use, Size oj Farms, aiad Crop Yields A slightly larger percentage of patrons than of others produced cotton in 1951 (Appendix Table 3). However, past patrons and non-patrons had considerably more acreage in cotton, on the average, than did patrons. There was not a great difference in corn acreage between groups. Grazing and hay crops were most prominent, as expected, on farms of patrons. Sericea and winter grazing crops occupied the greatest acreages, and the largest proportion of farmers reported having these crops. Twenty-two per cent of the patrons reported alfalfa as compared with 10 per cent reporting along one milk route in Russell, Lee, and Chambers counties in 1948. In total, patrons had a 35 per cent greater acreage of hay and grazing crops than did past patrons and 169 per cent greater acreage than did non-patrons. The acreage of open permanent pasture was greatest on farms of patrons and past patrons. Furthermore, almost all patrons had permanent pastures. Woods pasture differed little in acreage between groups. Past patrons had more than three times as much idle cropland as did patrons, although there was little difference in average size of farms for these two groups. This suggests that patrons may have gone further in utilizing their land for crops or developing pastures. The percentage of all land used for crops differed little among groups even though the proportion in hay and grazing crops was greatest on farms of patrons and past patrons (Table 5). Patrons and past patrons used a slightly larger percentage of their land for open permanent pasture than did non-patrons. Also, the proportions of the farm idle, in woods not pastured, and in farmstead area were least on farms of patrons. 12 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION TABLE 5. PROPORTION OF LAND IN CROPS, PERMANENT PASTURE, IDLE, AND OTHER USES, ACCORDING TO PATRON STATUS, 280 FARMS ON MILK ROUTES, PIEDMONT AREA OF ALABAMA, 1951 Land use Proportion of total acreage 46 patrons Per cent 18 16 1 35 22 26 48 13 4 100 37 past patrons Per cent 19 12 1 32 21 25 46 9 13 147 non-patrons Per cent 24 9 1 34 17 29 46 9 11 100 Row crops Hay or grazing crops Other crops (as reported) All crops Open permanent pasture Woods pasture Total permanent pasture All other Idle cropland TOTAL 1Includes farmstead 1 100 area, woods not pastured, and idle land other than idle cropland. TABLE 6. CROP YIELDS ACCORDING TO PATRON STATUS, 230 FARMS ON MILK ROUTES, PIEDMONT AREA OF ALABAMA, 1951 Crop Cotton (lint) Corn Alfalfa hay Sericea hay Unit 46 patrons Pounds Bushels Tons Tons 383 27 2.1 1.2 Average yield per acre 147 non-patrons 37 past patrons 360 21 1.5 .8 355 18 1.9 .7 Crop yields were greatest on farms of patrons (Table 6). Patrons made almost 0.5 ton per acre more alfalfa hay than the average for past and non-patrons. The same relationship in yields existed for sericea hay. Patrons' corn yields were 29 per cent greater than those of past patrons and 50 per cent greater than those of non-patrons. Farm Practices Fifty-seven per cent of all farmers stated they were breeding their dairy cows to beef-type bulls. This practice was most prevalent for past patrons and non-patrons (Appendix Table 4). However, 2 out of every 5 farmers selling milk to the milk plant followed this practice. Only 10 per cent of all farmers with dairy cows used artificial breeding. In no group of farms did as many as 3 out of 4 farmers put up hay in 1950. However, 72 per cent of the patrons said they put MANUFACTURE MILK PRODUCTION in ALABAMA'S PIEDMONT 13 up an average of 4.9 tons per farm. Eighty-eight per cent of this group compared to 76 per cent for all groups said the quantity put up was sufficient. The unusual winter of 1951 may have resulted in more than the usual proportion of farmers reporting "not enough" hay. The quantity of hay reported amounted to approximately 0.5 ton per hay-consuming animal unit on each of the three groups of farms. Except for non-patrons, the proportion of farmers planting winter grazing crops in 1950-51 compared to 1951-52 did not differ greatly. Also, there was little difference in the average acreage planted and the proportion of total crop acres used for winter grazing crops in each group of farms. Farmers who sold milk to the milk plant, in general, had applied lime, fertilized, seeded, and mowed a larger acreage of open permanent pasture than had others. On the other hand, the proportion of their total open permanent pasture on which these practices were carried out did not differ greatly from that for non-patrons in most cases. Proportionally, past patrons seemed to do less fertilizing, seeding, and mowing permanent pastures than patrons. However, no group used these treatments on as much as 40 per cent of the pastures. Feed Purchased ja Dairy Cows One hundred thirty-nine or 60 per cent of the farmers purchased some feed for dairy cows. Per farm, past patrons purchased more feed than did patrons or non-patrons (Appendix Table 5); however, there was little difference in purchases per dairy cow between past and non-patrons. Patrons purchased approximately half as much feed per dairy cow as did others. On a T.D.N. 5 basis, 17 per cent of the patron purchases were hay, compared with 33 per cent for past patrons, and 28 per cent for non-patrons. For all farms, 26 per cent of the T.D.N. purchased was hay (Appendix Table 6). Since farmers in the Piedmont Area of Alabama have a greater advantage in growing grazing and hay crops than grains, it is usually to their advantage to produce as much of their hay requirement as possible. In addition, hay is bulky relative to value; therefore, costs of transporting hay are high as compared with the cost of transporting more concentrated products. 6 Total digestible nutrients. Pounds of feed purchased were converted to a T.D.N. basis by assuming concentrates to be 70 per cent T.D.N. and hay and cottonseed hulls 45 per cent T.D.N. 14 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION A larger proportion of patrons than others purchased concentrates for dairy cows. However, there was little difference between patron status groups in percentage of farmers purchasing hay. As an average, 15 per cent of all farmers purchased hay and 56 per cent purchased concentrates for dairy cows in 1951. A majority of farmers said their purchases of feed in 1951 were about the same as usual. Only 9 per cent reported purchases less than usual. Fourteen per cent said their purchases of concentrates were greater than usual and 30 per cent said their purchases of hay were greater than usual. Those buying more feed than usual gave as their reason the severe winter of 1950-51. Machinery and Equipment Approximately one-third of the patrons and one-third of the past patrons owned a tractor, tractor plow, and disk harrow (Appendix Table 7). Only 17 per cent of the non-patrons owned these items. Except for mowing machines and hay rakes, other pieces of tractor machinery and equipment were owned by a very small proportion of farmers. Several farmers rented or hired the use of various pieces or items of machinery and equipment, the most common being tractors and tractor-drawn plows and harrows. Labor Supply a d Personnel Total number of persons per family averaged 4.1 for patrons, 3.8 for past patrons, and 4.2 for non-patrons (Appendix Table 8). There was very little difference between groups in the average number of persons over 12 years of age who could milk and who were regularly available for such work. In all three groups, about 75 per cent of the persons over 12 years of age could milk and were regularly available. Work off the farm by heads and members of the family took a considerable portion of time. In total, patrons reported an average of 3.9 months work off the farm in 1951, past patrons 7.0, and non-patrons 5.6. (See Appendix Table 9 for a breakdown by number of months.) Types of work in which these farmers engaged were similar to those shown in Table 2 for non-farm rural residents. A much smaller proportion of patrons and members of their families worked off the farm than did past and non-patrons. Despite work off the farm, there was left an average of more than two full-time men per farm on a man-equivalent basis, for each group of farms. This number appears sufficient considering MANUFACTURE MILK PRODUCTION in ALABAMA'S PIEDMONT 15 the size and type of farming carried on and assuming a reasonable degree of labor efficiency. Tenure and Color Seventy-two per cent of all farmers in the sample were owner operators. Patrons and past patrons included a considerably higher percentage of owners than non-patrons (Appendix Table 10). Thirty-five per cent of the non-patrons were cash, standing rent, or share tenants. Only three croppers appeared in the sample; all were non-patrons. Only 40 out of 230 farmers on milk routes were colored (Appendix Table 11). Fifty-three per cent of the tenants and only 4 per cent of the owners were colored. Eighty-four per cent of the tenants were non-patrons. Colored farmers comprised a larger part of the non-patron group than of the past patron or patron group. VOLUME SALES and SELLERS It has been pointed out that agriculture in the Piedmont has changed during the past several years. Development of dairying as a major farm enterprise on certain farms has been significant. In total, what changes have occurred in number of farmers producing manufacturing milk and in the quantity produced? Data in this section are presented for the purpose of showing the development and status of manufacturing milk production in the Piedmont Area. Total Sales, Patrons, anc Sales p" Patron Total volume of manufacturing milk sold annually from 1946 through 1952 increased in all years except 1951 (Figure 2). No doubt this exception was due largely to the unfavorable winter of 1950-51. After the decline in 1951, an increase in sales during 1952 brought the total for the year up to the 1950 level. Over this 7-year period, sales by farmers to the milk plant increased an average of 10 per cent per year. Sales in 1952 were more than twice as great as sales in 1946. Future changes in production and sales of milk for manufacture will depend to a large extent upon farmers' alternative uses of land, capital, and labor, including opportunities for off-farm employment. Number of farmers selling milk to the milk plant increased 57 per cent from 1946 to 1950 (Figure 3). A decline of 11 per cent 16 16 Per cent of 1946-52 overage 120 16 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL ALABAMA AGRICUL' EXPERIMENT STATION Volume of manufacturing milk sold annually 110 I ° 10 I / 100 / I T r eTrn d /volume in sold 90 I I 80 1 I I 70I I f 60L 50 1946 1947 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 FIGURE 2. Volume of manufacturing milk sold annually to the milk plant in the Piedmont Area of Alabama as a percentage of average for the period, 1946-52. occurred in 1951; however, in 1952, number of patrons increased 15 per cent. Thus, the average number of farmers selling milk in 1952 was slightly less than the number selling in 1950. Pounds of milk sold per patron per year followed a simiilar pat- MANUFACTURE a MILK PRODUCTION in ALABAMA'S PIEDMONT 17 v1 1946 1947 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 FIGURE 3. Number of patrons and volume of manufacturing milk sold per patron to the milk plant in the Piedmont Area of Alabama as a percentage of average for the period, 1946-52. tern to that of sales and number of patrons. Number of patrons and sales per patron increased approximately 7 per cent per year over the 7-year period. In 1952, the amount sold per patron was 146 per cent of the amount sold per patron in 1946... 18 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Seasonality 4 Sales a zd Patrons From 1946 through 1952, a regular seasonal pattern of sales existed (Figure 4). The same was true for number of patrons and sales per patron (Figure 5). Low months of sales were usually January and February, and high months were May, June, July, and August. By 2-week periods, either December 1-15, February 1-15, or February 16-28 was usually the low period in sales (Table 7). The highest periods of sales most often came during the last 2 weeks in May or in July. Sales during the peak 2-week periods were from 21/ to 31/ times as great as were sales during the low periods from 1946 to 1952. Based on monthly averages for the 7 years, 1946-52, sales for the months of May, June, July, and August made up 47 per cent of total sales. Sales during November, December, January, and February comprised only 22 per cent of total sales. Over the years, May has been the month of highest sales; January and February have been the lowest months in sales (Figure 6). June and July have been the months for the greatest number of patrons; January and February have been the months with fewest patrons. Sales per patron did not differ greatly from November through February, as an average, over the 7-year period. Just as with total sales, the peak in sales per patron occurred in May which, on the average, was 1.8 times the sales per patron for the months of November through February. During the 7 years, the low 2-week period in number of patrons always occurred between the first of December and last of February (Table 8). July 16-81 most often has been the high 2-week period. Number of patrons during the high 2 weeks averTABLE 7. HIGH AND Low 2-WEEK PERIODS IN SALES TO THE MILK PLANT, PIEDMONT AREA OF ALABAMA, 1946-52 Year Low 2 weeks in pounds of milk sold Dates Dec. 1-15 Feb. 1-15 Feb. 1-15 Feb. 16-28 Dec. 1-15 Feb. 16-28 Jan. 1-15 High 2 weeks in pounds of milk sold Dates June July July May May July May 1-15 16-31 16-31 16-31 16-31 16-31 16-81 Sales during high 2-week period as a percentage of sales for low 2-week period Per cent 257 351 317 252 275 267 271 1946 1947 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 Per cent of 1946-52 overage 180 z C C 177 160h r- 140 120 'D 0 C n -i I&0o 80L 60 z r- co 40kV 20 I III III~ I I I I I Il Fr' m i 1946 1947 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 as a percentage of I o FIGURE 4. Volume of manufacturing milk sold each month to the plant in the Piedmont Area of Alabama average for the period, 1946-52. 0 Per cent of 1946-52 average 140 Amount of manufacturing milk sold A 1 1 I 1 100 I' 80 1S 1I 1 1U % 1 1I x 60 m -A]11 1947 1111 1948 i 111111 1949 1950 11111946 1951 1952 C -I 4I FIGURE 5. Number of patrons and volume of manufacturing milk sold per patron per month to the milk plant in the Piedmont Area of Alabama as a percentage of average for the period, 1946-52. 0 z z C m o c 0 C c z o I- v 0 z FIGURE 6. Average number of patrons, volume of manufacturing milk sold, and volume of sales per patron, by months, to the milk plant in the Piedmont Area of Alabama, as a percentage of average over the period 1946-52. 22 TABLE 8. HIGH AND ALABAMA Low AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION TO THE MILK PLANT, PIEDMONT AREA OF ALABAMA, 2-WEEK PERIODS IN NUMBER OF PATRONS SELLING 1946-52 Year Low 2 weeks in number High 2 weeks in number Number of patrons during high 2-week period as a percentage of patrons 1946 1947 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 Dates Dec. 1-15 Jan. 16-31 Feb. 16-29 Jan. 1-15 Dec. 16-31 Feb. 16-28 Jan. 1-15 of patrons Dates June 1-15 July 16-31 Aug. 16-31 July 16-31 June 16-30 July 16-31 July 1-15 of the number for the low 2-week period Per cent 145 183 158 140 149 133 137 aged 112 times the number prevailing during the low 2 weeks. There appears to be some evidence of less fluctuation in number of patrons during the last 2 years of the period as compared with earlier years. Apparently some progress has been made in keeping patrons who produce and sell milk on a year-round basis. The 46 patrons included in the study showed a similar pattern for number selling during various months of 1951. More than 90 per cent sold milk from May through December compared to 70 per cent who sold in January and February. Only 64 per cent of the 46 patrons sold milk during all months of 1951. Farmers who sold milk all months of 1951 averaged selling 11.0 gallons per day as compared with 4.4 gallons per day for those who sold only part of the year. Average production per cow on farms of yearround sellers was 5,183 pounds and 4,636 on farms from which milk was not sold on a 12-month basis. Low 2-week periods of sales per patron occurred January 1-15 in 3 years out of 7 (Table 9). High 2-week periods were May 16-31 in 4 out of 7 years. There has been little change in the percentage difference from low to high since 1946. TABLE 9. HIGH AND Low 2-WEEK PERIODS IN SALES PER PATRON TO THE MILK PLANT, PIEDMONT AREA OF ALABAMA, 1946-52 Year Low 2 weeks High 2 weeks in pounds in pounds sold per patron sold per patron Dates Dates Jan. 1-15 Feb. 1-15 Feb. 1-15 Nov. 16-30 Nov. 16-30 Jan. 1-15 Jan. 1-15 Sales per patron during high 2 weeks as a percentage of sales per patron during low 2 weeks Per cent 195 203 209 192 209 205 211 1946 1947 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 July 16-31 May 16-31 July 16-81 May 16-31 May 16-31 July 16-31 May ~ ~-nl\nTY\ 16-81 AYI Y\~nl~ 'I MANUFACTURE MILK PRODUCTION in ALABAMA'S PIEDMONT 23 PRICES RECEIVED jon MANUFACTURING MILK The trend in prices received by producers for manufacturing milk, 4 per cent butterfat basis, was upward for the period 1950 through 1952 (Figure 7). The average price received during 1951 was 24 per cent above the 1950 price, and in 1952 was 5 per cent above the 1951 average. Months of highest prices received were usually September through May. Prices received for milk should be considered in light of prices received for alternative products which might be produced. If the price of manufacturing milk increased enough relative to prices received for beef cattle, at some point in the increase certain farmers would change from producing beef to milk. The same is true for certain other products. As shown in Figure 7, since 1950, prices received for manufacturing milk increased rela- Per cent of 1950 -52 aver age ~I II v 120 I / I/! 100 - Fluid milk k1 1 l 90 Beef cattle milk 80 - 1 I ISt Ij 'Al \2,~ 70 JFMAMJJASONDJ FMAMJ JASOND JFMAMJ JASOND 1952 1951 1950 FIGURE 7. Prices received for manufacturing milk, fluid milk, and beef cattle as a percentage of average for the period, 1950-52. (Prices used were those paid for 4 per cent milk by the milk plant in the Piedmont Area of Alabama, for fluid milk with base fat content in Birmingham, Alabama, and average prices received by Alabama farmers for beef cattle.) 24 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION tive to prices paid for fluid milk.6 Manufacturing milk prices also increased relative to beef cattle prices. A decided change occurred after February 1952 when beef cattle prices started dropping. The future relationship of prices received for manufacturing milk to prices received by farmers for other products will be the resultant of many economic forces. FACTORS RELATED to SALES a' MILK Based on an analysis of the information obtained from farmers on milk routes, a number of factors appeared to be related to sales of milk for manufacture. However, only the most important are discussed in this section. Five variables, (1) number of dairy cows kept primarily for milk, (2) production per cow, (3) acres of forage crops (including open permanent pasture), (4) acres of winter grazing, and (5) age of the operator, were found to be important in explaining the variation in sales of milk for manufacture.7 The most important of these factors were the first two. 8 Sales of milk tended to increase as all variables increased except age of the operator. Older farm operators generally sold less milk per day. These findings are based on analyses of records for 55 sellers who reported the quantity of milk sold in 1951. Number ea Cows and Production Per Cow Considering only number of dairy cows kept primarily for milk as a factor associated with sales, on the average, sales increased 1.17 gallons per day per farm for each additional cow (Figure 8). Therefore, if a farmer added only one cow, of the quality presently in herds, sales for the year would be increased by more than 3,000 pounds of milk per farm. This quantity is 18 per cent of the average amount sold by 46 patrons in 1951. Production per cow was studied alone to determine its degree of relationship to sales (Figure 9). For each 1,000 pounds in6 Prices used in the comparison were those paid for 4 per cent milk by the milk plant in the Piedmont Area, those paid for fluid milk with base fat content in Birmingham, Alabama, and average prices received by Alabama farmers for beef cattle. SNinety-six per cent of the variation in sales was explained by these factors; therefore, the multiple correlation coefficient was .98 which is highly significant. 8 Standard partial regression coefficients for the factors listed in the order above were (1) .7658, (2) .4906, (3) .1746, (4) .0727, and (5) -.3525. MANUFACTURE .~a;~al~FacTuRE MILK PRODUCTlOtd iPr AL~b~BA)J MILK PRODUCTION in ALABAMA'S PIEDMONT 25 2 Gallons of milk sold per farm per day 50 f. 40 301 20 "A 10 n. ,i."55 I" r= .7098 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 0f 0 Number of dairy cows kept primarily to be milked FIGURE 8. Relationship of number of dairy cows kept primarily for milk to volume of milk sold per day per farm, 55 farmers reporting sales in the Piedmont Area of Alabama, 1951. crease in production per cow, sales per f arm increased an average of 1.3 gallons per day. This points up the importance of a 26 26 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL ALABAMA AGWICUL~ Gallons, milk sold per farm per day 50 EXPERIMENT STATION 40 - 30 - 0 20 - 0 0. I0 - 0 * M 0 * 0 *. *0 **.1 0 0 00 * 0 r = .3136 I Ii 0 I I ! |I 0 I" 6 Production per cow (1,000 pounds) I 10 FIGURE 9. Relationship of production per cow to soles of milk, 55 farmers reporting sales in the Piedmont Area of Alabama, 1951. MANUFACTURE MILK PRODUCTION in ALABAMA'S PIEDMONT 27 high level of production per cow. For example, suppose a farmer has 10 cows producing 6,000 pounds of milk per cow per year. By wise management, possibly he is able to increase production per cow from 6,000 to 7,000 pounds. Also, assume the increase in production came partly from careful culling, so the herd was reduced from 10 to 9 cows. 9 Now the farmer produces a total of 63,000 pounds of milk compared to 60,000 pounds previously, or an annual increase of 3,000 pounds. If all this quantity were sold, this would amount to an increase in sales of approximately 1 gallon per day. Furthermore, certain costs would be less per unit TABLE 10. RELATIONSHIP OF NUMBER OF DAIRY COws KEPT PRIMARILY FOR MILK PER COW TO AVERAGE DAILY SALES OF MILK, 230 AND PRODUCTION FARMS ON MILK ROUTES, PIEDMONT AREA OF ALABAMA, 1951 Average production per cow per year Pounds Total farms Number Sales Farms reporting Number Amount per day Gallons (Less than 2 dairy cows kept primarily for milk) Less than 3,500 3,500-6,499 6,500 and over Total or average 65 49 11 125 0 1 1 2 0.0 1 0.1 (2-3 dairy cows kept primarily for milk) Less than 3,500 3,500-6,499 6,500 and over Total or average 35 26 11 72 1 14 6 21 0.1 1.9 3.8 1.3 (4 or more dairy cows kept primarily for milk) Less than 3,500 3,500-6,499 6,500 and over Total or average 13 15 5 33 (All farms) Less than 3,500 3,500-6,499 6,500 and over Total or average 1 Less 12 15 5 32 6.4 10.2 22.8 10.6 118 90 27 280 13 30 12 55 0.8 2.3 5.8 1.9 than 0.1 gallon. 9Increase in size of herd was associated with a decrease in average production per cow. 28 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION of milk produced, and, in addition, there would be one less cow on which costs would be incurred. Importance of production per cow and number of cows is also evident in Table 10, based on data from 230 farms. As number of cows increased, at any given level of production per cow, average daily sales increased. Also, as production per cow increased, with a given number of cows, sales increased. Greatest average daily sales occurred on farms with the greatest number of cows and highest producing cows. Factors Associated wtd Number 4c Cows Farmers probably consider many things in reaching a decision regarding size of the dairy herd. Feed supply, quality of feed, facilities, labor supply, skill of labor, as well as prices received for the product, are more than likely taken into account when making a decision on number of cows. According to the data for 55 farms, acres of open permanent pasture was one of the most important factors associated with number of dairy cows kept primarily to be milked (Figure 10). Acres of all forage crops, including acres of permanent pasture, were also used in the analysis but were not as closely associated with number of dairy cows as acres of open permanent pasture alone. Total acres operated and percentage of land in forage crops showed some degree of relationship to number of dairy cows. However, total acres of winter grazing in 1950-51, labor supply available for farm work, and age of the operator, did not show a close relationship to number of cows kept primarily for milk. As an average, for each 10-acre increase in open permanent pasture per farm, farmers selling milk added slightly more than one dairy cow to their herd. This takes into consideration other kinds of livestock which also utilized open permanent pasture. An increase in number of dairy cows kept for milk was also associated with an increase in size of farms up to a certain level. Afterward, size did not increase proportionally with number of cows (Table 11). Farmers with the greatest number of dairy cows tended to veal or raise the most calves for beef. The amount of hay put up per farm in 1950 increased with size of herd but decreased per forage-consuming animal unit. Acres of winter grazing per farm and purchases of feed increased considerably as number of cows increased. Number of dairy cows kept primarily for milk"a zA -1 m 20 " " 0 0 c A 15 " o 10 " " = " a " " " "0z r=.4284" 60 0 10 20 Acres of open permanent pasture 30 40 50 70 80 FIGURE 10. Relationship of acres in open permanent posture to number of dairy cows kept primarily for milk, 55 sellers on milk routes in the Piedmont Area of Alabama, 1951.b 30 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION TABLE 11. RELATIONSHIP OF NUMBER OF Cows KEPT PRIMARILY FOR MILK TO VARIOUS ASPECTS OF FARM ORGANIZATION AND PRACTICES, FARMS OF 55 SELLERS ON MILK ROUTES, PIEDMONT AREA OF ALABAMA, 1951 Item Unit No. No. No. No. No. Gal. Lb. Ac. Ac. 1 M.E. No. Pct. Pct. Ac. Ac. Pct. Pct. Ac. Ac. Pct. Pct. T. T. Pct. Ac. Ac. T.D.N. T.D.N. Number of dairy cows 8 and 1-3 4-7 over 23 2.4 3.6 1.7 2.0 4.2 5,996 85 30 2.0 2.0 17 87 16 2.4 16 21 5.1 5.7 2.0 3.0 7.4 4,656 114 42 2.7 2.6 48 100 25 3.3 22 11 12.9 14.2 5.3 3.5 17.6 4,616 123 50 2.9 2.4 45 100 41 2.4 34 All farms 55 5.5 6.5 2.6 2.7 8.1 5,208 104 37 2.5 2.3 35 96 24 2.7 28 Farms Dairy cows for milk All dairy cows Dairy heifers 1 year old and over Calves vealed or raised for beef Milk sold per day Production per cow Size of farm Total crops Men for work on farm Persons over 12 years of age who could milk and were available Farmers owning tractor Open permanent pasture: Farms reporting Per farm Per forage-consuming animal 2 unit Proportion of farm land Forage crops:' Farms reporting Per farm Per forage-consuming animal unit 2 Proportion of farm land 96 36 6.4 42 100 57 7.5 50 100 89 5.2 73 98 55 6.4 51 Hay put up in 1950: Farms reporting Per farm Per forage-consuming animal unit 2 Total winter grazing, 1950-51: Farms reporting Per farm Per forage-consuming animal unit 2 All feed purchased for dairy cows: Per farm Per dairy cow 70 4 .8 61 4 .7 1,056 296 67 5 .6 81 9 1.2 3,130 548 64 6 .3 81 17 1.0 15,756 1,111 67 5 .6 73 9 1.0 4,788 736 1 "Man-equivalent" of all labor on the farm available for farm work. One manequivalent equals 1 man for 12 months. 2 Excludes workstock. Includes forage crops grown for hay or grazing in addition to open permanent pasture. MANUFACTURE MILK PRODUCTION in ALABAMA'S PIEDMONT 31 Factors Associated wdi Production Per Cow Of the factors measured, the most important factor associated with production per cow appeared to be the quantity of roughages purchased. Number of cows kept for milk and purchases of concentrates were not as closely associated with production per cow as were purchases of roughages. Again, the severe winter of 1950-51 probably was a factor. In most cases, purchases of roughages probably were necessary for a satisfactory level of production. Otherwise, production per cow was not maintained. Farms on which roughages were purchased in 1951 showed an average production of almost 500 pounds more milk per cow than did farms on which no roughages were purchased (Table 12). Farmers who did not purchase roughages had a slightly greater acreage of winter grazing crops and put up an average of 1.4 tons more hay per farm than did farmers who purchased roughages in 1951. Farmers who did not purchase roughages purchased somewhat less concentrates than did others. TABLE 12. THE RELATIONSHIP OF PURCHASES OF ROUGHAGES TO VARIOUS FACTORS, FARMS OF 55 SELLERS ON MILK ROUTES, PIEDMONT AREA OF ALABAMA, 1951 Item Unit Averages for farms on whichAll Roughages Roughages were not were farms purchased Farms Production per cow No. 40 5,086 purchased 15 5,534 55 5,208 Cows for milk No. Gal. Ac. Ac. Ac. Pct. Ac. Ac. T. T.D.N. T.D.N. Lb. 5.6 7.6 13.0 3.5 57 52 24.1 9.0 5.2 2,205 0 5.4 9.5 10.8 7.9 48 49 21.6 7.6 3.8 6,134 5,541 5.5 8.1 12.4 4.7 55 51 28.5 8.6 4.8 3,277 1,511 Milk sold per day Corn Cotton Forage crops Proportion of land in forage crops Open permanent pasture Winter grazing, 1950-51 Hay put up in 1950 Purchases of feed for dairy cows: Concentrates Roughages Size a? Farm One of the over-all limitations on production of milk is size of farm in terms of acres of open permanent pasture and cropland. The importance of size was evident in the previous discussions. Larger farms had more dairy cows and other kinds of livestock 32 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION (Appendix Table 12). The percentage of farmers reporting dairy and beef cattle increased as size of farm increased. Almost 90 per cent of the farmers with 101 acres or more were owner operators compared to 53 per cent for farmers with less than 50 acres. As size of farm increased the average acreage in corn, forage crops, and permanent pasture increased. Also, the proportion of land in forage crops increased as size of farm increased. Although this was true, the proportion that hay purchases were of total digestible nutrients purchased also increased. Only 10 per cent of the farmers on farms of less than 50 acres sold milk compared to 40 per cent of those with 101 acres or more. Farmers in the largest size group sold an average of 11,416 pounds of milk per year compared to only 933 pounds for farms in the smallest size group. Labor Supply Total labor available for work on the farm did not appear to be as closely related to production and sale of milk as did several other factors. However, the average number of dairy cows for milk increased somewhat as total man equivalents increased on farms selling milk. Sales of milk averaged 7.0 gallons per day for farms with less than 3 man equivalents compared to 10.5 gallons per day for farms with 3 man equivalents or more. Sellers with TABLE 18. WERE REGULARLY AVAILABLE RELATED TO SIZE OF DAIRY AND NUMBER OF PERSONS OVER 12 YEARS OF AGE WHO COULD MILK AND BEEF ENTERPRISES, 55 SELLERS ON MILK ROUTES, PIEDMONT AREA OF ALABAMA, 1951 Item Unit Number of persons over 12 years of age who could milk and were regularly available Less than 2 3 or more 9 4.2 3.2 2.3 1.3 67 1.4 26 6.3 3.0 2.9 .8 35 19 5.3 2.0 2.6 .6 32 6.5 All farms Farms Dairy cows for milk Dairy heifer calves raised Calves vealed or raised for beef Beef cows Farmers using beef bulls on dairy cows Hay put up in 1950 Milk sales per day Size of farm Number Number Number Number Number Per cent Tons Gallons Acres 541 5.5 2.7 2.7 .8 40 4.8 4.8 9.1 7.6 8.1 6.7 108 104 104 141 1Number of persons over 12 years of age who could milk and were regularly available was not reported in one case. MANUFACTURE MILK PRODUCTION in ALABAMA'S PIEDMONT 33 the equivalent of 3 or more men put up more than twice the average quantity of hay as on farms with less than 3 men in 1950. Number of persons over 12 years of age who could milk and were regularly available was not closely related to sales of milk (Table 13). However, beef cattle were apparently given more emphasis on farms with the fewest number of persons available for milking cows. Work Off the Farm Farms of sellers for which there was 0.1 man equivalent 10 or more work off the farm by the operator or members of his family sold an average of 1.9 gallons of milk per day less than did farms for which no off-farm work was reported (Table 14). Production per cow was considerably higher for the latter group. For all farms, 35 per cent of the operators worked off the farm 3 or more months during 1951. Only 1 out of every 5 farmers in this group reported sales of milk - the average was 1.2 gallons per day. About 1 out of 4 farm operators working off the farm less than 3 months reported selling milk. These farmers averaged selling 2.4 gallons of milk per day. TABLE 14. RELATIONSHIP OF WORK OFF THE FARM TO VARIOUS FACTORS, SELLERS ON MILK ROUTES, PIEDMONT AREA OF ALABAMA, 1951 55 Item Farms Work off farm by all members of family Total labor for farm work Age of head of family Cows for milk Milk sold per day Production per cow Cotton Forage crops Size of farm Farmers owning tractor Man-equivalent of work off Unit farm by all members of family 0.1 or more None No. M.E. M.E. Yr. No. Gal. Lb. Ac. Ac. Ac. Pct. 31 .0 2.7 53 5.2 8.9 5,610 3 48 101 29 24 1.0 2.2 47 6.0 7.0 4,689 7 64 108 42 All farms 55 .4 2.5 50 5.5 8.1 5,208 5 55 104 35 10.1 man-equivalent equals 1.2 months work by 1 man. Tractor Ownership Sellers who owned a tractor sold an average of 2.4 gallons of milk per day more than did those who did not own a tractor 0 oEqual to 1.2 months work off the farm by 1 man. 34 ALABAMA 34 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION TABLE 15. DIFFERENCES IN SALES OF MILK AND OTHER FACTORS BETWEEN FARMERS WHO OWNED A TRACTOR AND THOSE WHO DID NOT OWN A TRACTOR, 55 SELLERS ON MILK ROUTES, PIEDMONT AREA OF ALABAMA, 1952 Sellers of milk who Item Item UniAll Unit Owned a tractor Did not own a tractor farms Sellers Size of farm Owner operators Age of head of family Milk sold per day Production per cow Cows kept primarily for milk Beef cows Cotton Corn Total winter grazing, 1950-51 Total winter grazing, 1951-52 Total crops Forage crops Proportion of land in forage crops Hay put up in 1950 Open permanent pasture: Total Fertilized in past 5 years Seeded in past 5 years Fertilized in 1951 Number Acres Per cent Years Gallons Pounds Number Number Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres Per cent Tons Acres Acres Acres Acres 19 181 95 45 9.7 4,668 7.4 1.6 7 18 18 8 55 72 54 8.1 27 8 8 4 86 90 83 58 7.8 5,493 4.6 .4 4 9 6 7 28 46 49 8.1 22 4 4 2 55 104 87 50 8.1 5,208 5.5 .8 5 12 9 7 87 55 51 4.8 24 5 5 8 (Table 15). Larger farms with more cotton, corn, winter grazing, and other forage crops were associated with tractor ownership. Also, farmers with tractors had the greatest number of dairy and beef cows. They put up considerably more hay in 1950 and improved a larger area of permanent pasture than did farmers without tractors. Age aj Farm Operator Farmers from 45 to 55 years of age sold the greatest amount of milk daily (Appendix Table 13). Twenty-eight per cent of the farmers in this age group reported selling milk compared to 18 per cent of those who were younger and 23 per cent of those who were older. Farmers 40 to 55 years of age had almost twice as many dairy cows for milk as did other age groups, but production per cow tended to decrease as average age of the operator increased. MANUFACTURE MILK PRODUCTION in ALABAMA'S PIEDMONT 35 The percentage owner operators, size of farm, number of beef cows, and acreage of forage crops increased with age of the operator. Gallons of milk per day used in the house and the percentage owning tractors decreased, on the average, as age of the operator increased. Color ad Tenure No doubt factors associated with color and tenure are important in their effect on production and sale of milk. Although a conclusion based on a very small sample often invites error, it appears that a group of white owner operators can be expected to sell more milk than colored owners, and white tenants more than colored tenants (Table 16). Other differences existed according to color and tenure which support the above statement. Farms of white owner operators were considerably larger than those of colored owner operators (Table 17). Still smaller were farms of white tenants followed in size by those of colored tenants. Number of dairy cows, proportion of farmers owning tractors, acres of permanent pasture, amount of feed purchased for dairy cows, acres of forage crops, and proportion of land in forage crops decreased in the same order. Although smallest in size, farms of colored operators, both owners and tenants, had the largest labor force. Colored farmers also did less work off the farm than did others (Appendix Table 14). With the fewest numbers of livestock, yet a greater acreage of cotton, they failed more than did white operators in year-round utilization of labor. Relatively stable tenure is essential for almost any kind of livestock program. Owner operators reported being on their farm an average of 13 years compared to 3 years for tenants. TABLE 16. RELATIONSHIP OF COLOR AND TENURE TO SALES OF MILK, 230 FARMS ON MILK ROUTES, PIEDMONT AREA OF ALABAMA, 1951 White farm operators Tenure Colored farm operators Number of farms Total Selling milk Number of farms Total Selling milk Average amont Average amount sold per day sold per day Number Number Gallons Number Number Gallons Owners Tenants TOTAL Owners Tenants OR AVERAGE 158 29 187 46 4 50 2.6 .8 2.8 6 84 401 2 8 5 1.0 .4 .4 STenure for 1 farm operator and color for 2 were not reported. 36 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT -STATION TABLE 17. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN FARMS BY COLOR AND TENURE OF OPERATOR, 230 FARMS ON MILK ROUTES, PIEDMONT AREA OF ALABAMA, 1951 Item Farms Size Time operator on this farm Labor for farm work Persons over 12 years of age who could milk and were available Farmers owning tractor Cows for milk Farmers reporting cows for milk Dairy heifers 1 year and over Dairy heifer calves raised Beef cows Calves vealed or raised for beef Use beef bulls on dairy cows Milk sold per day Farmers reporting milk sold Milk used in house per person per day Production per cow Cotton Farmers reporting cotton Corn Winter grazing, 1950-51 Open permanent pasture Hay put up, 1950 Feed purchased for dairy cows Forage crops Proportion of land in forage crops Unit No. Ac. Yr. M.E. No. Pct. No. Pct. No. No. No. No. Pct. Gal. Pct. Pt. Lb. Ac. Pct. Ac. Ac. Ac. T. Owner operators White Colored All 158 99 ;14 2.0 1.9 32 2.6 89 1.4 1.4 2.1 2.5 50 2.6 29 17 1.0 33 6 78 12 2.5 2.8 17 2.3 83 .5 1.5 .0 .5 1641 99 13 2.1 2.0 31 2.6 88 1.4 1.4 2.0 2.4 49 2.5 29 Tenants White Colored 29 55 4 2.4 2.2 10 1.6 86 .4 .7 .3 .6 38 .8 14 9 35 .4 34 46 3 2.7 3.1 0 1.0 62 .3 .5 .1 .2 All 631 50 3 2.6 2.7 5 1.3 73 .4 .6 .2 .4 36 .6 11 2.2 2.9 2.5 1.9 2.9 2.1 4,334 2,992 4,288 4,224 4,443 4,324 5 42 10 7 21 3.4 6 83 6 2 13 2.6 1,124 30 43 5 44 10 6 21 3.4 2,818 49 46 5 76 11 1 9 3.3 968 17 25 14 100 12 1 5 .9 185 11 14 10 89 12 1 7 2.0 546 14 19 T.D.N.2,882 Ac. 49 Pct. 46 1 Tenure of 1 farm operator and color of 2 were not reported. Similar differences associated with tenure as discussed above, though in some cases not as pronounced, existed between owners and tenants who sold milk in 1951 (Appendix Table 15). COMPARISONS atd FUTURE SALES Those selling milk for manufacturing purposes in the spring of 1952 in addition to those not selling were asked several questions related to sales and possibilities for increased sales. Farmers' opinions or estimates were recorded and are presented in this section. MANUFACTURE MILK PRODUCTION in ALABAMA'S PIEDMONT 37 1951 Compared Ia 1950, az 1952 Compared a 1951 Only 42 per cent of the 46 patrons stated that the amount of milk they sold in 1951 was greater than the amount sold in 1950 (Table 18). Fifty-eight per cent said that they would sell more in 1952 than 1951. Probably one reason for less than half the patrons reporting increases in 1951 was due to the severe winter in 1950-51. Also, much of the anticipated increase in 1952 may not have materialized due to an extremely dry summer and fall. According to a record of sales by farmers to the milk plant, sales in 1951 were 15 per cent less than in 1950. In 1952, sales increased 17 per cent over the amount sold in 1951 and were approximately the same as those in 1950. TABLE 18. PATRONS' ESTIMATE OF AMOUNT OF MILK SOLD IN 1951 COMPARED TO 1950 AND 1952 COMPARED TO 1951, 46 SELLERS OF MANUFACTURING MILK, PIEDMONT AREA OF ALABAMA Patrons' estimate of amount sold Much more Some more About same Some less Proportion reporting 1951 compared 1952 compared to 1950 Per cent 26 16 26 29 to 1951 Per cent 20 88 38 2 Much less 3 2 Most of the patrons who reported increased sales in 1951 and 1952 added cows to their herds or were able to increase feed production. A number of farmers said that they had better cows than previously. Those reporting decreased sales mentioned weather with its resulting feed shortages. In addition, several patrons reported that the shortage of labor and increased opportunities for work off the farm were causes contributing to decreased sales. Reasons 04 Differences in Sales Reasons reported for patrons not selling more milk and for non-patrons not selling milk for manufacture were similar. Both groups said that too few cows, low producers, lack of feed and facilities, or a combination of these things, were responsible for their not selling milk or not increasing sales (Table 19). Financial problems of acquiring good cows were mentioned in several cases. Lack of labor was the second most important reason given by patrons for not having greater sales. Apparently lack 38 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION TABLE 19. REASONS REPORTED FOR PATRONS NOT SELLING MORE MILK AND NONPATRONS NOT SELLING MILK FOR MANUFACTURE, 193 FARMS ON MILK ROUTES, PIEDMONT AREA OF ALABAMA, 1952 Reason reported Proportion reporting 46 patrons 147 non-patrons Per cent Too few cows, low producing cows, or lack of land, pasture, feed, and facilities Lack of labor Price received for milk too low Age, disability, or bad health Work off farm more profitable 1 Other farm enterprises more profitable Not interested Combination of reasons listed Other Not reported 37 13 11 4 2 2 0 0 0 31 Per cent 39 3 7 7 8 7 8 9 1 11 1 Only 1 patron and 10 non-patrons reported beef cattle production or selling of veal calves as reasons for not selling more or not selling milk. of labor was not as important with non-patrons. A fairly small proportion of each group specifically mentioned prices received for milk as a reason for not selling or increasing sales. However, there is considerable evidence that farmers considered the production of milk for manufacture as a low profit enterprise. Fifteen per cent of the patrons and 22 per cent of the non-patrons gave reasons concerning profitableness (price too low, work off farm more profitable, and other farm enterprises more profitable). In addition, many famers probably did not acquire good cows and develop pastures because they felt that resulting profits would be low. The major reason given by past patrons for not continuing to sell milk was that they did not have milk in excess of that required for home use: REASON REPORTED PROPORTION REPORTING Per cent Not enough milk to sellP Lack of labor or labor difficulties Price of milk too low Beef cattle production more profitable Milk route discontinued or moved Quit to sell Grade A milk Combination of reasons above Reason not reported 25 19 17 8 6 3 14 8 1 Due to dry cows, low producers, lack of feed and pasture, and in one case, due to cows eating objectionable weeds and mushrooms. MANUFACTURE MILK PRODUCTION in ALABAMA'S PIEDMONT 39 Only 6 out of 22 owners" with tenants or croppers encouraged the sale of milk. A total of 61 tenants and 8 croppers were included in the study. Twenty-six per cent of the tenants and croppers reported that their landlord encouraged them to sell milk. Reasons why owners encouraged their tenants or croppers to sell milk were primarily "to increase income," "labor and knowhow are available to supervise and assist tenants," and "helps make for more stable tenure." The chief reasons given for not encouraging the sale of milk were "other enterprises more profitable," "no interest by the tenant," and "landlord not able to finance." Twenty-one out of 49 tenants and croppers stated that they wanted to sell manufacturing milk in order to acquire additional income. Eight of these were encouraged by their landlord to sell milk. About half the tenants and croppers said that they did not want to sell manufacturing milk for these reasons: REASON REPORTED PROPORTION REPORTING Per cent No cows, too few cows, or lack of feed Short on labor and work off farm more attractive Poor health, age, or disability Not interested in selling milk Other farm enterprises more profitable Plan to move off milk route 47 21 12 12 4 4 These reasons were very similar to those reported by past patrons for not continuing to sell milk; however, the number one reason is more pronounced with tenants and croppers. Also, a somewhat larger proportion of tenants and croppers were not interested in selling milk. Tenants and landlords face numerous problems in the production and sale of milk. One of the biggest problems centers in financing the dairy enterprise together with an ample acreage of forage crops and pasture. Sixty per cent of the tenants and croppers compared to 18 per cent of the owners stated that their chief problems concerned "no cows, too few cows, low producers, cows too high in price, or not financially able to buy cows or improve pasture" (Table 20). A much larger proportion of owners than tenants or croppers did not report a problem or stated that they had no problems in connection with selling manufacturing milk. n In total, 165 out of 2.30 farmers included in the study were owner operators. 40 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION TABLE 20. PROBLEMS IN SELLING MANUFACTURING MILK AS REPORTED BY 22 OWNERS WITH TENANTS OR CROPPERS AND 49 TENANTS OR CROPPERS ON MILK ROUTES, PIEDMONT AREA OF ALABAMA, 1952 Proportion reporting Problem Owners Per cent No cows, too few cows, low producers, cows too high in price, or not financially able to buy cows or improve pasture No problems or not reported Short on labor and work off farm more attractive Poor health, age, or disability Not interested in selling milk Other farm enterprises more profitable Unstable tenure Not enough land Milk too cheap Combination of problems listed Tenants or croppers Per cent 18 58 0 5 9 5 5 0 0 0 60 22 2 2 0 2 2 2 2 6 Almost all of the tenants and croppers who wanted to sell milk gave as their problem the first item in Table 20. Future Sales Out of 37 past patrons, 18 said that they would consider selling milk for manufacture in the future. Forty-four of 147 non-patrons indicated their willingness to sell manufacturing milk. In total, 34 per cent of the farmers not selling milk for manufacture in the spring of 1952 said that they would consider selling.' 2 This would amount to a 135 per cent increase over 1951 in number of patrons. A comparable increase in quantity of milk sold might be expected if new sellers averaged selling about the same amount per year as present patrons. However, all those who said that they would consider selling did not give a definite date as to when they could start (Table 21). Half of the potential sellers said that the date was indefinite or did not report when they could start selling. Fifteen 3 of the 62 potential sellers said that they would start in 1952. Based on the sample, this would amount to a 33 per cent increase in number of patrons over 1951. Actually, the average number of patrons increased only 6 per cent 12 In 1948, a study of farms along a milk route in the Piedmont and Upper Coastal Plains areas of Alabama indicated that 22 per cent of the non-patrons planned to sell milk in the near future. 13None of the 15 were past patrons. MANUFACTURE MILK PRODUCTION in ALABAMA'S PIEDMONT 41 TABLE 21. TIME REPORTED WHEN 62 POTENTIAL SELLERS COULD START SELLING MILK FOR MANUFACTURE, PIEDMONT AREA OF ALABAMA, 1952 When could start selling milk 1952 1953 As soon as pasture developed, get cows, or additional help As soon as price of milk increases Indefinite or not reported Proportion reporting Per cent 24 16 8 2 50 from 1951 to 1952 while volume of milk sold increased 12 per cent. No doubt, the actual increase in number of patrons was less than that reported due to the extremely dry summer of 1952. During January and February, 1953, number of patrons increased an average of 13 per cent over the same months in 1952. Sales for January and February, 1953, were 14 per cent above those of January and February, 1952. As for the long-time increase in number of patrons and sales, reasonable growth may be expected. From 1946 through 1950 a steady upward trend prevailed in total sales (Figure 2). In the future, increases in sales probably will not be as great proportionally as those which have occurred in the past. A number of things that could be done to help sellers sell more milk and to help non-sellers start selling were reported (Table 22). The chief measure suggested was assistance, usually financial, in getting more cows or better cows, facilities, machinery, equipment, labor, and feed, including pastures. This points up the need for bankers and others in the finance field to work closely with farmers interested in dairying. TABLE 22. THINGS REPORTED WHICH CAN BE DONE TO HELP SELLERS SELL MORE MILK AND NON-SELLERS GET STARTED SELLING MILK, 230 FARMS ON MILK ROUTES, PIEDMONT AREA OF ALABAMA, 1952 Item reported Proportion reporting Sellers Non-sellers Per cent Assistance in getting more or better cows, facilities, machinery, ' equipment, labor and feed, including Per cent 21 20 2 pasture 30 17 11 Nothing or don't know what can be done Raise price of milk Provide additional "know how" or stimulation Combination of items listed Not reported Usually reported as financial assistance. 0 4 38 1 3 53 42 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION TABLE 23. ADVANTAGES OF SELLING MILK FOR MANUFACTURE AS REPORTED 46 PATRONS ON MILK ROUTES, PIEDMONT AREA OF ALABAMA, 1952 BY Advantage reported Proportion of patrons reporting Per cent Means of increasing income 47 Source of regular income Way of marketing surplus milk Not reported 32 9 12 Of second importance was the fact many farmers did not know what could be done to increase sales. Apparently this group, in addition to those not reporting, were not interested in greater sales of milk. A smaller precentage of patrons than non-patrons indicated that nothing could be done, they did not know what could be done, or they did not report what could be done to increase sales or to get non-sellers started selling. Apparently, most patrons 14 realize the advantages (Table 23) of selling manufacturing milk. The most important advantages were that selling manufacturing milk afforded a means of increasing income and provided a source of regular income. SUMMARY and CONCLUSIONS Summary This study is mainly an analysis of farm organization as it relates to the production and sale of milk for manufacture in Alabama's Piedmont Area. Data were obtained from 230 farmers and 153 non-farm rural residents on milk routes. Also, information on trends and growth of the manufacturing milk industry in the area, prices received for manufacturing milk, farmer's attitudes and opinions regarding the sale of milk, and future plans are included. During the past several years many changes have taken place in the Piedmont's agriculture. Number of tenants decreased 47 per cent from 1940 to 1950. Most of this decrease was accounted for in the decline of share tenants and croppers. The proportion of farms producing cotton decreased from 92 per cent in 1940 to 60 per cent in 1950. Acreages of both cotton and corn declined during this period while total land pastured increased 11 per cent. Little change occurred in number of milk cows on farms. Rural 1 Only 6 out of 46 patrons failed to report an advantage in selling manufacturing milk. MANUFACTURE MILK PRODUCTION in ALABAMA'S PIEDMONT 43 farm population dropped 35 per cent while rural non-farm population increased 34 per cent from 1940 to 1950. According to the sample of farms studied, 2 residents out of 5 along milk routes in the Piedmont were non-farm. These people worked in textile mills, wood or lumber industries, and various other kinds of industries. Fourteen per cent were retired, disabled, or pensioned. Only 1 out of 5 farmers on milk routes sold manufacturing milk in the spring of 1952. Therefore, out of all residents on milk routes only 1 out of slightly more than 8 sold milk. Sixteen per cent of the farmers had sold milk for manufacture prior to 1952, and 64 per cent had never sold milk for manufacture. Patrons of the milk plant in the Piedmont Area sold an average of 7.1 gallons of whole milk per day in 1951. This was 80 per cent of total production. Very little butter and no cream were reported sold by patrons, past patrons, or non-patrons. An average of 2.7 pints of milk per person per day was used in the home. Patrons reported an average of almost 6 cows kept primarily for milk, past patrons 2, and non-patrons 1, in 1951. Average annual production per cow for the three groups was 5,171, 4,933, and 3,841 pounds of milk, respectively. In general, livestock numbers were greatest on farms of patrons and past patrons. The greatest average number of beef cows was on farms of past patrons even though only one-third of this group reported beef cows. Patrons had the greatest proportion of their land in hay or grazing crops. Past patrons and non-patrons had an average of almost 3.5 acres more cotton than patrons. Sericea lespedeza and winter grazing crops, including oats, accounted for the greatest average acreage of forage crops on all farms. Only 22 per cent of the patrons reported alfalfa. Crop yields were highest on farms of patrons. Fifty-seven per cent of the farmers reported breeding their dairy cows to beef-type bulls. Only 44 per cent of the patrons reported this practice compared to 70 per cent of the past patrons and 58 per cent of the non-patrons. Only 10 per cent of all farmers with dairy cows were using artificial breeding. There was little difference between groups of farms in amount of hay put up in 1950 per forage-consuming animal unit; the over-all average was 0.5 ton. Sixty per cent of the farmers purchased feed for dairy cows. One-fourth of the digestible nutrients purchased was hay. In 44 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION total, patrons purchased about half as much feed per dairy cow as past or non-patrons. There was little difference between groups in average number of persons over 12 years of age who could milk and who were regularly available. However, work off the farm by members of patron families averaged 3.9 months compared to 7.0 months for past patrons and 5.6 months for non-patrons in 1951. A considerably larger proportion of patrons and past patrons were owner operators than were non-patrons. In all, 72 per cent of all farmers in the sample were owner operators. Only 40 out of 230 farmers in the sample were colored. Three-fourths of the colored farm operators were tenants and non-patrons. Only 12 per cent of the colored farmers sold milk in 1951. Total sales of manufacturing milk, number of patrons, and sales per patron to the milk plant in the area increased in all years from 1946 to 1952 except in 1951. Over this 7-year period, a 10 per cent average annual increase in sales prevailed. Number of patrons increased 48 per cent and pounds of milk sold per patron increased 46 per cent from 1946 to 1952. As an average, sales for the months of May through August made up 47 per cent of total sales as compared with 22 per cent for November through February. May has been the month of highest total sales; January and February have been the lowest months in sales. June and July have been months of greatest number of patrons; January and February have had the fewest patrons. Sales per patron did not differ greatly from November through February. As an average for 7 years, the peak in sales per patron occurred in May which was 1.8 times the sales per patron for the months of November through February. The trend in prices which Piedmont farmers received for manufacturing milk was upward from 1950 through 1952. These prices also increased relative to prices paid for beef cattle and prices paid for fluid milk. Number of cows kept primarily for milk and average production per cow were the two most important variables associated with sales of manufacturing milk. Acres in open permanent pasture was the most important factor associated with number of dairy cows, whereas quantity of roughages purchased was most closely associated with average production per cow in 1951. As size of farms increased, livestock numbers, including dairy cows, increased. The average acreage of corn, forage crops, and MANUFACTURE MILK PRODUCTION in ALABAMA'S PIEDMONT 45 open permanent pasture as well as the percentage of land in forage crops increased with size of farm. Total labor available for work on the farm did not appear to be as closely related to the sale of milk as did several other factors. Thirty-five per cent of the farm operators worked off the farm 3 or more months in 1951. These sold an average of 1.2 gallons of milk per day compared to an average of 2.4 gallons per day sold by operators who worked off the farm less than 3 months. The most important reasons reported for patrons not selling more milk, non-patrons not selling, and for past patrons not continuing to sell milk were lack of cows, low producing cows, and lack of land, pasture, feed, and facilities. In total, 34 per cent of the farmers not selling milk for manufacture in the spring of 1952 said that they would consider selling. Half of these did not report a date on which they would try to start selling milk. Twenty-four per cent said they would start in 1952 and 16 per cent stated that they would start in 1953. Conclusions 1. Although rather drastic adjustments in types of farming have taken place in the Piedmont Area during the past several years, still further changes appear probable and desirable. Production of milk for manufacture is an important farm enterprise on many farms in the area. Increasing importance of this enterprise will depend, to a large extent, on alternative uses of roughages produced and opportunities for off-farm employment. 2. Farms in the area from which manufacturing milk is being sold are above average in size. These farms have a larger acreage of crops and pasture, a greater number of livestock, and make higher yields than most farms in the area. A larger than average percentage of these farms have tractors. However, livestock farming is relatively new to many farmers in this group. Better organization of farms and more efficient operators are possible in many cases. In order to produce and sell milk at prices comparable with those received for manufacturing milk by farmers in such surplus milk-producing states as Wisconsin and Minnesota, Alabama's Piedmont farmers must become low-cost producers. The greatest opportunities for becoming more efficient appear to be from (1) increasing size of the dairy herd, (2) keeping only cows with a high level of production, (3) providing increased 46 46 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION ALABAMA AGRICULTUA XEIMN TTO quantities of forage and roughages, and (4) improving work methods and use of labor. 3. Over the 7-year period during which sales of manufacturing milk were studied, there is evidence that fluctuations in number of farmers selling milk to the milk plant have decreased. Opportunity exists for further progress in achieving more nearly yearround, uniform production per patron selling milk. Field representatives of the milk plant and others working with farmers in the area can assist and encourage dairymen to adopt good practices and, in general, make their dairy enterprises more profitable. 4. For most profitable operation of a milk plant, a relatively large volume of milk must be produced and sold in a given area. Farmers producing and selling milk must be fairly concentrated on milk routes.: At present, this is not the case in the Piedmont Area as indicated by the survey - 1 seller of manufacturing milk out of 8 resides on the milk routes, as an average. Therefore, considerable effort seems justified toward achieving more concentrated production. 5. Potential producers as well as present producers of manufacturing milk face numerous problems. Assistance, usually financial, in getting additional cows or better cows, facilities, machinery, labor, and feed, including pastures, was most often reported by farmers as necessary on their part for production or for greater production of milk. This points up the need for bankers and various representatives of credit agencies to work closely with farmers who have farms adapted to dairying and who have the managerial ability and desire to make dairying one of their major farm enterprises. MANUFACTURE MILK PRODUCTION in ALABAMA'S PIEDMONT 47 4 APPENDIX APPENDIX TABLE 1. IMPORTANT CHANGES IN PIEDMONT AREA OF ALABAMA FROM 1940 TO 19501 Item Farm s----------------------------------------Nonwhite farm operators----------------------Tenants----------------------------------------Tenants of all farm operators---------------Share tenants and croppers-------------------Cropland harvested------------------------------Total land pastured Cotton----------------------------------------Farms reporting cotton-------------------------Corn-----------------------------------All hay (excluding sorghum hay) Farms with tractors -------------------------------All cattle and calves Farms reporting cattle and Milk cows Unit Num ber Number Number Per cent Number Acres Acres Acres Percent Acres Acres Per cent 1940 29,025 9,770 16,934 58 9,188 895,981 856.2132 255,685 92 464,560 55,631 1 94,672 82 44,944 1950 Percentage change 24,891 7,340 8,988 36 -14 -25 -47 -47 -40 -37 -44 -12 4,885 536,560 161,644 60 259,867 48,714 ------------------------------954.201 11 --------Number Per cent Number ------------------------ calves----- 11 134,098 76 43,764 42 -3 Farms reporting milk cows---------Hogs ---------------------------Total population -----------------Rural farm population-------------Rural non-farm population---------Rural farm persons per farm--------- Per cent Number Persons Persons Persons Persons 80 70 61,778 69,649 273,538 268,919 168,355 110,200 64,087 86,135 5.8 4.4 -2 -35 13 34 -24 Employed workers in agriculture----Proportion of total employed, employed in agriculture----------Proportion of rural 1 Census Persons Per cent Per cent 44,794 48 81 25,704 27 61 -43 employed, employed in agriculture farm population data for 1940 and 1950. Counties included were Chambers, Chilton, Clay, Cleburne, Coosa, Elmore, Lee, Macon, Randolph, and Tallapoosa. 2 For 1945. Comparable figures to those reported in 1950 could not, be obtained from the 1940 Census. 48 APPENDIX TABLE 2. ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT' STATION LIVESTOCK ORGANIZATION ACCORDING TO PATRON STATUS, 230 FARMS ON MILK ROUTES, PIEDMONT AREA OF ALABAMA, 1951 46 patrons Proportion Average 37 past patrons 147 non-patrons AverProportion age Proportion Average of numof farms farms ber report- per reporting farm ing Pct. Pct. No. All dairy cows 100 6.5 97 Dairy cows mainly for milk 100 5.7 95 Dairy cows mainly to nurse calves 24 .8 41 Dairy hefiers 1 year old and over 72 2.5 57 Dairy heifer calves 76 2.6 59 Raised from own cows 76 2.5 59 Purchased 49 .1 5 Beef cows 28 .9 32 Calves vealed or raised for beef 61 2.5 57 From own cows 59 2.0 57 Purchased 13 .5 8 Weaned beef feeders bought 2 .1 8 Brood sows 30 .4 22 Pigs raised 54 8.6 54 Laying hens 93 57 92 Chickens raised 52 53 57 Broilers raised 26 1,154 19 Less than 0.1. Kind of livestock or poultry numof ber farms per reportfarm ing Pct No. 4.6 77 2.4 76 2.2 15 1.9 31 1.8 36 1.6 34 .2 5 2.6 12 3.2 27 2.9 27 .3 1 .4 0 .5 15 5.2 54 24 87 38 53 115 10 number per farm No. 1.5 1.0 .5 .4 .6 .5 .1 1.4 1.2 1.2 .0 .2 2.3 26 22 33 APPENDIX TABLE 3. LAND USE ACCORDING TO PATRON STATUS, 230 FARMS MILK ROUTES, PIEDMONT AREA OF ALABAMA, 1951 ON 46 patrons Crop or land use Proportion of farms reporting Pct. 59 89 20 22 41 67 48 65 93 28 98 39 98 28 98 93 50 100 37 past patrons 147 non-patrons Cotton Corn Grain sorghum Alfalfa Kudzu Sericea Oats (1950-51) Other winter grazi ng (1950-51) Truck crops (garde n) Other crops Total crops Double cropped Acres in crops Idle cropland Open perman ent pasture Woods pastur e All other ACRES OPER SATED SLess than 0.1 a cre. AverProAverProAverage portion age portion age area of farms area of farms area per reportper reportper farm ing farm ing farm Acres Pct. Acres Pct. Acres 7.8 57 7.0 4.0 51 12.9 70 11.4 83 9.5 1 5 .2 5 .6 .7 11 .2 2 1 2.8 22 1.6 19 1.2 5.0 59 5.8 24 2.0 3.0 38 2.1 23 1.6 6.0 38 3.3 18 1.7 2.5 89 1.6 74 1.3 1.2 14 1.6 18 .6 38.7 92 35.6 97 24.9 4.2 11 1.6 11 2.0 34.5 92 34.0 97 22.9 54 14.8 52 8.5 4.4 24.0 89 23.9 71 12.6 28.9 84 27.1 64 21.6 14.6 46 10.3 47 6.7 106.4 100 110.1 100 72.3 MANUFACTURE MILK PRODUCTION in ALABAMA'S PIEDMONT 49 APPENDIX TABLE 4. COMPARISON OF BREEDING, HAY, AND GRAZING CROP PRACTICES BY PATRON STATUS, 230 FARMS ON MILK ROUTES, PIEDMONT AREA OF ALABAMA, 1952 Practice Farmers using beef bulls on dairy cows Farms using artificial breeding Unit 46 patrons 44 13 72 4.9 .6 88 147 37 past patrons non-patrons 70 14 58 6 34 2.0 .6 70 Per cent Per cent Per cent Tons Tons Per cent Hay put up in 1950: Farmers reporting Average per farm Average per forage-consuming animal unit Farmers reporting this amount "enough" Winter grazing crops planted, 1950-51: Farmers reporting Average per farm Average per forage-consuming animal unit Proportion of total crop acres Winter grazing crops planted, 1951-52: Farmers reporting 57 4.2 .5 71 Per cent Acres Acres Per cent 76 9.0 1.0 26 59 5.4 .6 16 9 3.3 1.0 14 Average per farm Average per forage-consuming animal unit Proportion of total crop acres Applying lime, slag, or phosphate on permanent pasture in past 5 years: Farmers reporting Average area covered per farm Part covered Fertilizing permanent pasture in 1951: Farmers reporting Average area per farm Part fertilized Per cent Acres Acres Per cent 74 7.8 .9 62 5.9 .7 24 3.7 1.2 16 23 18 Per cent Acres Per cent 41 5.7 24 43 4.0 17 19 4.2 33 Per cent Acres Per cent 33 3.1 13 22 2.9 12 12 1.7 13 Seeding permanent pasture in past 5 years: Farmers reporting Percent Average area per farm Acres Part seeded Per cent Mowing permanent pasture in 1951: Farmers reporting 52 6.0 25 46 3.6 15 18 3.4 27 Average area per farm Part mowed Per cent Acres Per cent 26 4.7 20 8 .9 4 6 2.7 21 50 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION APPENDIX TABLE 5. FEED PURCHASES FOR DAIRY Cows ACCORDING TO PATRON STATUS, 280 FARMS ON MILK ROUTES, PIEDMONT AREA OF ALABAMA, 1951 Feed purchased Dairy ration: Unit 46 patrons 147 37 past patrons non-patrons Farmers reporting Average per farm Average per dairy cow Cottonseed Farmers Average Average meal or soybean meal: reporting per farm per dairy cow Per cent Pounds Pounds Per cent Pounds Pounds Per cent Pounds Pounds Per cent Bushels Bushels 24 737 114 61 1,341 208 183 465 72 15 16 2.5 78 2,737 579 17 1,141 177 22 1,668 359 43 1,351 291 14 435 94 11 10 2.2 59 4,204 904 14 3,054 657 22 288 191 33 478 816 14 312 207 9 6 3.9 48 1,517 1,005 15 869 576 Cottonseed hulls: Farmers reporting Average per farm Average per dairy cow Corn: Farmers reporting Average per farm Average per dairy cow Total concentrates purchased: Farmers reporting Per cent Average per farm Pounds Average per dairy cow Pounds Hay purchased: Farmers reporting Average per farm Average per dairy cow Per cent Pounds Pounds All feed purchased: Farmers reporting Per cent 80 68 52 Average per farm T.D.N.' 3,013 4,208 1,375 Average per dairy cow T.D.N. 467 905 911 1 Total digestible nutrients. Pounds of feed were converted to a T.D.N. basis by assuming concentrates to be 70 per cent T.D.N. and hay and cottonseed hulls 45 per cent T.D.N. MANUFACTURE MILK PRODUCTION in ALABAMA'S PIEDMONT 51 ,APPENDIX TABLE 6. AMOUNT OF FEED PURCHASED FOR DAIRY COWS BY KIND OF FEED, ALL FARMS AND PATRONS ON MILK ROUTES, PIEDMONT AREA OF ALABAMA, 1951 46 patrons 230 farms ProporPropor- Kind of feed Total amount tion of total Total amount tion of total Pounds Cottonseed meal or soybean meal Hay Corn Dairy ration T.D.N. 43,190 23,625 38,430 23,738 T.D.N. Per cent 31 17 28 17 7 100 Pounds 181,900 293,300 147,300 187,912 83,400 T.D.N. T.D.N. Per cent 26 26 21 19 8 100 Cottonseed hulls Total Average per farm Average per dairy cow Concentrates Average per farm Average per dairy cow Hay and cottonseed hulls Average per farm Average per dairy cow 61,700 52,500 54,900 33,912 21,400 224,412 4,879 756 150,512 8,272 507 73,900 1,607 249 9,630 138,613 3,013 467 105,358 2,290 355 33,255 723 112 127,330 131,985 103,110 96,538 37,530 843,812 496,493 3,669 1,221 76 __ 24 __ 2,159 719 66 467,112 326,978 2,031 1,422 473 S676 376,700 1,638 545 169,515 737 246 34 APPENDIX TABLE 7. PROPORTION OF FARMERS REPORTING MACHINERY AND EQUIPMENT AVAILABLE ACCORDING TO PATRON STATUS, 230 FARMS ON MILK ROUTES, PIEDMONT AREA OF ALABAMA, 1952 Machinery and euierented equipment 46 patrons 37 past patrons 147 non-patrons Owned Hired or Pct. 35 Pct. 28 28 26 7 17 17 2 4 4 2 Owned Hred or rented Pct. 35 35 35 6 43 43 11 5 3 5 Pct. 27 24 27 16 8 8 0 3 0 0 Owned Hired or rented Pct. 17 17 16 9 19 18 5 4 1 0 Pct. 26 25 25 11 16 13 1 3 3 0 Tractor Tractor plow Tractor disk harrow Fertilizer spreader Mowing machine Hay rake Roller or cultipacker Grain drill Combine Milking machine 35 35 13 52 44 7 2 2 4 52 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION APPENDIX TABLE 8. LABOR SUPPLY AND PERSONNEL ACCORDING TO PATRON STATUS, 280 FARMS ON MILK ROUTES, PIEDMONT AREA OF ALABAMA, 1951 Item Average size of family Persons over 12 years of age in family: Average per farm Who could milk and were regularly available: Farms reporting Average per farm Work off farm by head of family: Farms reporting Average time per year Work off farm by any member of family: Farms reporting Average time per year Labor available for work on farm Average age of farm operator Unit No. No. Pct. No. Pct. Mo. 46 patrons 4.1 3.2 91 2.83 30 2.5 37 147 past patrons non-patrons 8.8 2.9 89 2.83 43 3.8 4.2 2.9 86 2.1 44 3.8 48 5.6 2.1 50 Pct. Mo. M.E. Yr. 1 37 3.9 2.5 49 57 7.0 2.1 48 AverageI.-r .Irllllived on this farm time 24 Yr. 16 10 n r 1 Man-equivalent-all labor available in terms of work 1 man can do on a fulltime basis. MANUFACTURE MILK PRODUCTION in ALABAMA'S PIEDMONT 53 APPENDIX TABLE 9. NUMBER OF MONTHS' WORK OFF THE FARM ACCORDING TO PATRON STATUS, 230 FARMS ON MILK ROUTES, PIEDMONT AREA OF ALABAMA, 1951 Patron status and range in total months' work off farm Other members Total of family Average Average Number Average Numbenumber Number Average number of of farms of farms number ofoffarms reporting months reporting months reporting months Number Number Number Number Number Number Head of family Patrons: Less than 2 2-8 9 and over Total or average Average for 46 farms 3 0 11 14 1.0 .0 10.3 8.3 2.5 0.0 6.2 9.8 8.9 3.8 1.3 4.6 10.5 8.7 3.8 0 1 5 6 0.0 2.0 12.61 10.8 1.4 0.0 3.0 11.3 10.5 3.2 0.0 3.5 12.3' 11.5 1.8 3 1 13 17 1.0 2.0 13.51 10.6 3.9 0.0 5.6 14.41 12.3 7.0 1.3 4.7 14.51 11.6 5.6 Past patrons: Less than 22-8 9 and over Total or average Average for 37 farms Non-patrons: Less than 2 0 4 12 16 0 1 10 11 0 5 16 21 2-8 9 and over Total or average Average for 147 farms 3 16 45 64 0 2 21 23 3 17 51 71 All farms: Less than 2 2-8 9 and over Total or average Average for 230 6 20 68 94 1.2 4.9 10.5 8.7 3.6 0 4 36 40 0.0 3.0 10.6 11.2 1.9 6 23 80 109 1.2 4.8 14.3 11.6 5.5 farms 1More than 1 member of family working off the farm and number of months worked were such that averages were greater than 12 months. 54 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION APPENDIX TABLE 10. TENURE OF FARMERS ACCORDING TO PATRON STATUS, FARMS ON MILK ROUTES, PIEDMONT AREA OF ALABAMA, 1952 230 46 patrons 37 past patrons 147 non-patrons Tenure Number Proportion Number Proportion Number Proportion Owner Cash or standing rent tenant Share tenant Cropper TOTAL 1 Number Per cent Number Per cent Number Per cent 63 92 87 32 89 41 4 1 0 46 9 2 0 100 8 2 0 37 8 5 0 100 21 30 3 1461 14 21 2 100 Tenure for 1 non-patron was not reported. APPENDIX TABLE 11. TENURE AND COLOR OF FARM OPERATORS ACCORDING TO PATRON STATUS, 230 FARMS ON MILK ROUTES, PIEDMONT AREA OF ALABAMA, 1952 Tenure and color Owners: White Colored Total Tenants: White Colored Total 46 patrons Number 39 2 41 3 2 5 37 past patrons 147 non-patrons Number Number 31 1 32 3 2 5 All Number 158 6 1641 29 34 631 88 3 911 23 30 531 Owners and tenants: White Colored TOTAL 1 42 4 46 34 3 37 112 33 1451 188 40 2281 Tenure not reported for 1 non-patron and color not reported for 1 owner and for 1 tenant who were non-patrons. MANUFACTURE MILK PRODUCTION in ALABAMA'S PIEDMONT 55 APPENDIX TABLE 12. RELATIONSHIP OF ACRES OPERATED TO FARM ORGANIZATION AND PRACTICES, 230 FARMS ON MILK ROUTES, PIEDMONT AREA OF ALABAMA, 1951 Acres operated Item Unit No. Pct. Ac. Pct. Yr. Pct. M.E. M.E. No. Ac. Pct. Ac. Ac. Pct. Ac. Ac. Ac. Pct. Ac. Pct. No. Pct. No. No. No. No. Pct. Pct. No. No. No. T. Pct. Ac. Pct. Ac. Pct. Less than 50 50100 101 or more All farms 230 100 85 72 14 23 2.2 .5 2.2 6 57 10 89 46 27 32 17 20 9 10 3.0 85 2.2 1.1 1.2 1.5 18 45 1.8 .3 82 3.0 45 5 45 5 41 Farms Proportion of all farms Average size Owner operators Time operator on this farm Farmers owning tractor 83 86 28 53 11 7 2.0 .5 2.2 5 59 7 9 31 16 56 5 16 3 9 1.4 70 1.0 .5 .6 .1 2 36 .5 .2 20 .6 24 1 23 1 17 87 38 71 78 11 24 2.1 .4 2.1 5 60 10 30 42 24 34 14 19 8 12 2.7 91 2.3 1.1 1.4 1.0 25 48 1.5 .3 31 2.7 52 4 53 15 49 60 26 184 88 21 45 2.5 .4 2.2 10 48 15 94 51 46 25 37 20 18 10 5.6 97 3.7 2.0 1.6 4.3 30 52 4.1 .4 49 6.6 65 11 63 12 62 Men to work on farm Work off farm Persons over 12 years of age who could milk and were available Cotton Farms producing cotton Corn Forage crops' Land in forage crops Land in crops Proportion of land in crops Open permanent pasture Proportion of land in open perm. pasture Idle cropland Proportion idle cropland is of total Dairy cows Farms reporting dairy cows Dairy cows mainly for milk Dairy heifers 1 year old and over Dairy heifer calves raised Beef cows Farms reporting beef cows Farmers using beef bulls on dairy cows Calves vealed or raised for beef Brood sows Hens Hay put up in 1950 Farms reporting hay put up in 1950 Winter grazing crops, 1950-51 Farms reporting winter grazing crops, 1950-51 Winter grazing crops, 1951-52 Farms reporting winter grazing crops, 1951-52 (Continued) 56 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION APPENDIX TABLE 12 (Continued). RELATIONSHIP OF ACRES OPERATED TO FARM ORGANIZATION AND PRACTICES, 230 FARMS ON MILK ROUTES, PIEDMONT AREA OF ALABAMA, 1951 Item Feed purchased for dairy cows: Concentrates-Amount Farmers reporting Roughages-Amount Farmers reporting Concentrates and roughages-Amount Farmers reporting Proportion hay is of total T.D.N. purchased Farms reporting milk sold Milk sold per day Production per cow Unit Acres operated Less 50-100 101 or than 50 more 1,847 60 675 29 2,022 67 33 2,907 68 1,681 25 4,588 70 37 All farms T.D.N. 426 Pct. 42 T.D.N. 120 Pct. 23 T.D.N. 546 Pct. 47 Pct. 22 1,422 56 737 26 2,159 60 34 Pct. 10 26 40 24 Gal. .4 1.7 4.4 1.9 Lb. 3.888 4.354 4.627 4 296 1 Includes forage crops grown as a crop for hay or grazing in addition to open permanent pasture. APPENDIX TABLE 13. AGE OF FARM OPERATORS RELATED TO VARIOUS FACTORS, 230 FARMS ON MILK ROUTES, PIEDMONT AREA OF ALABAMA, 1951 Age of operators Item Farm operators Average age Time on this farm Owner operators Farmers owning tractor Size of farm Unit Number Years Years Per cent Per cent Acres Less than 40 All farms 228' 50 14 72 23 85 6 10 39 27 32 17 9 10 2.2 1.5 .8 3.0 31 1.9 2.7 4,296 40-55 90 46 11 69 26 86 10 12 36 30 35 16 7 8 2.7 1.5 .4 3.4 37 2.8 2.4 4,410 56 and over 57 33 6 65 30 73 6 10 35 28 88 14 6 8 1.9 1.1 .4 3.8 24 81 65 22 79 15 98 3 8 44 22 24 20 13 14 1.7 1.8 .2 1.8 30 1.2 3.0 3,970 Cotton Acres Corn Acres Forage crops' Acres All crops Acres Proportion of land in crops Per cent Open permanent pasture Acres Idle cropland Acres Proportion idle cropland is of total Per cent Dairy cows kept for milk Beef cows Brood stows Pigs raised Hens Milk sold per day Milk used per person per day Milk production per cow Number Number Number Number Number Gallons 1.6 Pints 2.8 Pounds 4,606 STwo farmers did not report their ages. forage crops grown as a crop for hay or grazing in addition to open permanent pasture. 2Includes MANUFACTURE MILK PRODUCTION in ALABAMA'S PIEDMONT 57 APPENDIX TABLE 14. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN FARMS BY COLOR OF OPERATOR, 230 FARMS ON MILK ROUTES, PIEDMONT AREA OF ALABAMA, 1951 Item Farms Size Proportion tenants Time on this farm Labor for work on farm Work off farm Proportion operators reporting work off farm Dairy cows for milk Farms reporting dairy cows Dairy heifers 1 year old and over Beef cows Calves vealed or raised for beef Farmers using beef bulls on dairy cows Milk sold per day Farms reporting milk sold Milk used in house per person per day Production per cow Unit No. Ac. Pct. Yr. M.E. M.E. Pct. No. Pct. No. No. No. Pct. Gal. Pct. Pt. Lb. Averages for farms of White Colored operators operators 188 92 15 15 2.2 .5 44 2.4 89 1.3 1.8 2.2 48 2.3 27 2.9 4,317 5 47 6 44 48 3.4 48 183 20 2,572 66 28 40 51 85 6 2.6 .3 28 1.2 65 .3 .0 .3 32 .4 12 1.9 4,164 12 98 1 14 27 1.2 80 0 5 326 85 2 All farms 2281 85 28 14 2.2 .5 41 2.2 85 1.1 1.5 1.8 45 1.9 24 2.7 4,296 6 57 5 89 46 3.0 45 11 18 2,159 60 23 Cotton Ac. Farms reporting cotton Pct. Winter grazing, 21950-51 Ac. All forage crops Ac. Proportion of land in forage crops Pct. Hay put up in 1950 T. Farms reporting hay put up in 1950 Pct. Proportion of farmers who: Mowed permanent pasture Pct. Fertilized permanent pasture Pct. Feed purchased for dairy cows T.D.N. Proportion of farmers reporting feed purchased for dairy cows Pet. Proportion of farmers with tractor Pct. 1 2 Color of 2 farm operators was not reported. Includes forage crops grown as a crop for hay or grazing in addition to open permanent pasture. 58 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION APPENDIX TABLE 15. DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FARMS OF OWNER OPERATORS TENANTS SELLING MILK, PIEDMONT AREA OF ALABAMA, 1951 FFERENenantsW AND Averages for Tenants Item Unit operatorsenants 48 106 4.1 2.4 8.1 2.4 14 38 5.8 2.8 2.8 3.0 40 8.5 2.8 5,240 5 389 13 26 10 8 57 53 5 6 6 5 5,379 7 87 Owner All farms 55 104 4.1 2.3 8.0 2.5 18 35 5.5 2.6 2.6 2.7 40 8.1 2.7 5,208 5 877 12 25 9 7 55 51 5 5 5 4 4,788 Farms Size of farm No. Ac. No. Persons in family Persons over 12 years of age who could milk and were regularly available 4.6 1.9 2.6 2.8 3 14 4.0 1.3 1.7 .6 43 5.1 1.8 4,988 5 326 11 20 2 3 40 35 3 0 1 0 738 Work off farm by operator Labor for farm work Time operator on this farm Farmers owning tractor Cows for milk Cows to nurse calves No. No. M.E. Yr. Pct. No. No. No. No. Pct. Gal. Pt. Lb. Ac. Dairy heifer calves raised Calves vealed or raised for beef Farmers using beef bulls on dairy cows Milk sold per day Milk used in house per person per day Production per cow Cotton Cotton yield, lint Corn Corn yield Winter grazing crops, 1950-51 Winter grazing crops, 1951-52 Forage crops Land in forage crops Hay put up in 1950 Permanent pasture: Fertilized in past 5 years Seeded in past 5 years Mowed in 1951 Feed purchased for dairy cows 1 Lb./A Ac. Bu./A Ac. Ac. Ac. Pct. T. Ac. Ac. Ac. T.D.N. 1 Includes forage crops grown as a crop for hay or grazing in addition to open permanent pasture.