LAND TENURE in the SOUTHERN REGION AS INFLUENCED BY THE PROGRAMS OF FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL AGENCIES OWNERS FARM 1945 r-----, TOTAL +270,000 .-----1930 NEGRO -223,000 PROCEEDINGS ~ PROFESSIONAL AGRICULTURAL WORKERS Tenth Annual Conference Held At ,--'"~~~ '7' EE P fE TOTAL 825 -622,000 .P7 1951 h 4-17, 1951 1.-_ _----1 1945 TENANTS FARM PROCEEDINGS PROFESSIONAL AGRICULTURAL WORKERS Tenth Annual Conference Held At I, TUSKEGEE INSTITUTE ALABAMA JANUARY 14-17, 1951 THE PARAGON PRESS MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA COPYRIGRT 1951 TUSKEGEE INSTITUTE SCHOOL OF AGRICULTURE TUSKEGEE INSTITUTE, ALABAMA Foreword Changes of the kind and the magnitude considered in this conference cannot take place without serious consequences to agriculture and to society. Many farmers have been forced to give up agricultural employment, and many farm people have had to abandon farming as a way of life. Between 1940 and 1950 the number of Negroes employed in agriculture in the South declined from 4,342,000 to 3,408,000 or 22.9 percent. Of the 622,000 farm tenants who were eliminated from agriculture between 1930 and 1945, 223,000 or 35 percent were Negroes. Of the increase of 270,000 farm owners, only 11,000 or 4.07 percent were Negroes. Undue hardships, even tragedy, become the lot of too many of these displaced farmers and their families. They are less prepared for earning a living in industry and commerce than they were in agriculture. The problem is clear. The importance of a conference on land tenure at this time cannot be minimized. Tuskegee Institute is happy to serve as the focal point for such a conference. A realistic approach to the problem of land tenure must be taken. The alert and intelligent leaders of professional agricultural workers recognize and accept their responsibility in helping to solve the problem of land tenure. It is the hope that an outgrowth of this and succeeding conferences will be a basis for the development of local action programs. F. D. Patterson President. Tuskegee Institute, Alabama March 31, 1951 . ::> 171611 iii SUMMARY OF CONFERENCE by L. A. POTTS, Dean of Agriculture Tuskegee Institute, Alabama The far-reaching changes taking place in American agriculture during the past fifty years have brought about new relationships among individuals who buy, sell, lease, and use farm land. These changes, which include different systems of farming, increased mechanization, and greater emphasis on livestock and pasture and forage crops, have also created serious problems for the three million Negroes who occupy 31,000,000 acres of farm land. Thirty and one-tenth percent fewer Negroes were employed in. agriculture in 1950 than in 1940. Of the decrease in farm tenants between 1930 and 1945, 35 per cent were Negroes. Of the increase in owners in the same period, only 4.07 percent were Negroes. This growing need for improving land tenure in the South prompted Tuskegee Institute to sponsor a conference of professional agricultural workers to study land tenure in the region, with emphasis on the special problems of this minority group. Eigthy-five top-level Negro agricultural employees from fifteen southern states attended the conference. The conference membership included field agents, and state leaders of Extension service, state teacher-trainers of vocational agriculture, soil conservation supervisors, selected farmers, professors of soils, and directors of agriculture. The conference consultants included officials from the United States Department of Agriculture representing the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, Farm Credit Administration, Soil Conservation Service, Farmers Home Administration, and the Extension Service. Other consultants were state supervisors of agricultural education, ministers, agricultural press agents, and one insurance executive. The central theme of the conference was, "The Influence of Programs of Federal, State, and Local Agencies on Land Tenure in the Southern Region," but greater breadth and depth were given to the subject by the wide-spread representation, interest, and participation of the workers. The first conference speaker analyzed the present land tenure situation of Negro farmers in the South. A set of basic objectives was suggested as a method of measuring and weighing the present system of tenure. The statistical analysis of the number of farms, the acres of land, and the value of the land operated by Negro farmers in the South formed an excellent background for discussing the influence of agencies and educational institutions on land tenure. v The second conference speaker discussed "Land Ownership, the Basis of A Sound Democratic Society." He emphasized that family farms offer an opportunity for the development of psychologically self-sufficient people and that land ownership provides opportunity for people to make their own decisions. Family-size farms also provide constructive balance between man and machines. Members of the conference were urged to recognize and emphasize the possibility of higher yields on small family-owned farms as compared to a trend toward larger land units and, in many instances, lower acre yields. In the discussion of this subject by participants, it was brought out that the family-farm is considered one on which the operator and his family supply all the necessary labor (except during the rush season), restore and maintain soil fertility, maintain buildings, and produce sufficient income for an acceptable standard of living. The conference group recognized the importance of increasing land ownership as a basis for strengthening our democratic system. Family-owned farms develop creative ability, responsibility, emotional stability, initiative, and self-reliance. One speaker emphasized the importance of family-farms by stating that they are the mudsill of our democracy. Even though the demand for good land has caused an increase in price, farm ownership must continue to be encouraged in this region. Although land ownership is considered the basis of a sound democratic society, one speaker urged that full emphasis be given to the importance of bringing together qualified farm-families and adequate farms. Families without these advantages cannot compete in the present agricultural economy. In a discussion on community farm tenure changes, it was revealed that there are five functional type farms in the cotton South. In addition to the three traditional types-the plantation, the small independent, and the subsistence-there are the mechanized and the part-time farms. These new type farms offer additional opportunity for more secure tenure. In the opinion of one consultant, the individual who is generally interested in farming and cooperative in initiating and carrying out successful farm and home practices deserves being established as a farm-owner. The owner who does not have enough land resources for productive use of family labor is frequently worse off than tenants. Secure tenure, therefore, implies occupancy of the right kind of farms by the right kind of farm families. The conference was frequently reminded that government agencies and other sources will make funds available at reasonable rates vi of interest to qualified applicants who wish to improve land tenure. The Fann Loan Associations could lend two and six-tenths billion dollars for improving tenure. However, available loans at low interest rates will not assure a solution to tenure problems in the South. If for any reason income on a fann is too low to retire loans, the operator is sure to suffer from insecure tenure. Individuals who expect to become successfully established in fanning must have access to adequate land resources, follow successful fann management practices, and use available income to improve and to pay for their fanns. Agencies represented at the conference primarily concerned with systematic instruction are centering their efforts on raising the productive capacity of both the land and the people. Training in plant and animal production, marketing, home management, and research are efforts of these agencies to improve land tenure in the South. The papers presented in the conference were thoughtfully prepared. The discussions that followed were thoroughly democratic and unusually frank. This meeting of the largest cross section of top-level professional Negro agricultural workers ever assembled to study a common problem proved highly stimulating. In the last session of the conference it was agreed that notable progress has been achieved in improving land tenure, and that professional agricultural workers must accept the challenge presented in the discussions. The members of the conference were urged to fonn a pennanent working group to plan procedures for giving full consideration to unidentified problems of land tenure in the South. Dr. Arthur Raper recommended in his final statement to the conference that the representatives make specific plans for detennining who are the unreached groups, and what are the facts regarding these groups that may be helpful in contributing to the development of a sound democratic society. Before the close of the conference, representatives from different sections of the South were making definite plans and engaging consultants for land tenure meetings on the state level. This was a hopeful sign for the future. As one participant stated, "The pennanent value of this conference will depend upon the extent its members are willing to come to grips with the fundamental issues raised in the sessions." vii PROGRAM AGRICULTURAL WORKERS CONFERENCE THE INFLUENCE OF PROGRAMS OF FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL AGENCIES ON LAND TENURE IN THE SOUTHERN REGION Tuskegee Institute Tuskegee, Alabama FIRST SESSION Sunday, January 14, 1951 L. A. PO'ITS, Dean, School of Agriculture, Tuskegee Institute, Presiding 2:00- 2:15-WELCOME I. A. Derbigny, Acting President, Tuskegee Institute 2:15- 4:30-LAND TENURE OF NEGROES IN THE SOUTHERN REGION Marshall Harris, Bureau of Agricultural Economics, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D. C. DISCUSSION SECOND SESSION Monday, January 15, 1951 9:00-10:00-LAND OWNERSHIP, THE BASIS OF A SOUND DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY Arthur Raper, Bureau of Agricultural Economics, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D. C. 10:00-11:00-CONTRIBUTION OF THE FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION TO LAND TENURE I. W. Duggan, Governor, Farm Credit Administration, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D. C. 1l:OO-1l:30-COMMUNITY FARM TENURE CHANGES-CASE STUDIES Lewis W. Jones, Research Associate, Tuskegee Institute, Alabama viii 11 :30-12:00-DISCUSSION A. H. Fuhr, Administrative Office, Farm Credit Administration, Washington, D. C. S. E. Marshall, District Agricultural Extension Agent, Petersburg, Virginia 12:00- l:30-LUNCH THIRD SESSION T. M. CAMPBELL, Field Agent, Agricultural Extension Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Tuskegee Institute, Alabama, Presiding 1:30- 3:30-1. CONTRIBUTION OF EXTENSION SERVICE TO THE IMPROVEMENT OF LAND TENURE IN THE SOUTH J. L. Robinson, Extension Economics, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D. C. FORUM DISCUSSION "What Kind of Program Is Needed for Increasing Owner-Operated Farms?" J. W. Mitchell, U. S. Department of Extension Service, Field Agent, Leader W. B. Hill, Ala. Martin J. Bailey, Md. P. H. Stone, Ga. R. J. Courtney, La. S. E. Marshall, Va. T. R. Betton, Ark. 3:30- 5:00-SYMPOSIUM J. C. Cannon, Supervisor, Vocational Agriculture, Alabama, Presiding Program and Progress in Establishing Individuals on Farms Alva Tabor, Georgia, Leader S. B. Simmons, N. C. A. G. Gordon, Miss. J. A. Jackson, Miss. J. R. Thomas, Va. A. Floyd, Ala. O. J. Thomas, Tex. (State Itinerant Teacher-Trainers, Vocational Agriculture) ix 2. FOURTH SESSION Tuesday, January 16, 1951 M. H. PEARSON, Chief, Fann Ownership Operation, FHA, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Montgomery, Alabama, Presiding 9:00-10:15-THE INFLUENCE OF FHA ON LAND OWNERSHIP Howard Bertsch, Director, Fann Ownership Division, Fanners Home Administration, USDA, Washington, D.C. DISCUSSION: Shennan Briscoe, Infonnation Specialist, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D. C. J. P. Davis, Administration Officer, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D. C. ALEXANDER NUNN, Managing Editor, "The Progressive Fanner," Birmingham, Alabama, Presiding 10:15-12:00-THE PLACE OF LOCAL BANKS, INSURANCE COMPANIES, AND THE CHURCH IN IMPROVING AND INCREASING FARM OWNERSHIP 1. W. S. Hornsby, Executive Vice President, Pilgrim Life Insurance Company, Augusta, Georgia 2. Ralph A. Felton, Director, Department of Rural Church, Drew Theological Seminary, Madison, New Jersey DISCUSSION: E. T. Dixon, Rural Religious Activities, Tuskegee Institute, Alabama 12:00- 1:30-LUNCH 1:30- 3:00-SUGGESTIONS TO AGRICULTURAL LEADERS FOR PREVENTION OF LAND EXPLOITATION T. S. Buie, Regional Director, Soil Conservation Service, Spartanburg, South Carolina DISCUSSION: E. C. Ellison, Director of Agriculture, Fort Valley State College, Fort Valley, Georgia C. W. Clift, Head, Department of Plant and Soil Science, Tuskegee Institute, Alabama x 3:00- 4:00-GENERAL DISCUSSION AND RECAPITULATION Arthur Raper, Bureau of Agricultural Economics, U. U. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D. C. 7:00 -9:00-ANNUAL FARMERS BANQUET Toastma:ster: L. J. Washington, Farmers Home Administration, Washington, D. C. Speaker: A. G. Gaston, President, Booker T. Washington Insurance Company, Birmingham, Alabama xi PARTICIPANTS THOMAS R. AGNEW State 4-H Club Agent for Boys Extension Service Tuskegee Institute, Alabama A. S. BACON Savannah State College Savannah, Georgia SAMUEL S. BACOTE P. O. Box 475 Kingstree, South Carolina MARTIN G. BAILEY District Agent, Extension Service Box 5302 Seat Pleasant, Maryland T. ROY BETTON District Agent, Extension Service 1600 Ringo Street Little Rock, Arkansas FELIX BLACKWOOD County Agent Abbeville, Alabama MALCHOLM C. BLOUNT 438 8th Street Waynesboro, Georgia JOSEPH BRADFORD Assistant Editor, The Neg110 Farmer Tuskegee Institute, Alabama SHERMAN BRISCOE Information Specialist U. S. Department of Agriculture Washington, D. C. CLEMENT A. BRONSON RFD 1, Box 170A Tuskegee, Alabama T. S. BUlE Regional Director Soil Conservation Service U. S. Department of Agriculture Spartanburg, South Carolina EDGAR A. BURTON Soil Conservation Service Virginia State College Petersburg, Virginia JOHN C. BUTLER Soil Conservation Service RFD 1, Box 165A Tuskegee, Alabama T. M. CAMPBELL Field Agent, Extension Service U. S. Department of Agriculture Tuskegee Institute, Alabama LUTHER CLEMON P. O. Box 343 Dublin, Georgia C. W. CLIFT Head, Div. Plant and Soil Science Tuskegee Institute, Alabama HOUSTON CONLEY Route 1, Box 113 Meridianville, Alabama G. W. CONOLY Resident Teacher Trainer Florida A & M College Tallahassee, Florida WESLEY CONWELL RFD 2, Box 70 Centerville, Alabama R. J. COURTNEY State Leader, Extension Service Southern University Baton Rouge, Louisiana G. C. CYPRESS 116 W. Pearl Street Jackson, Mississippi J. H. DAVES Specialist in Negro Education and Relations, Training and Education Relations Branch, Tennessee Valley Authority Knoxville, Tennessee AGRIPPA DAVIS Normal, Alabama JAMES P. DAVIS Administration Officer Production and Marketing Admin. U. S. Department of Agriculture 802 W . 9th Street Little Rock, Arkansas W. LOUIS DAVIS Chicago Defender 3435 Indiana Avenue Chicago, Illinois I. A. DERBIGNY Vice President Tuskegee Institute Tuskegee, Alabama THOMAS L. DETTON P. O. Box 49 Fort Valley, Georgia E. T. DIXON Director, Religious Extension Work Tuskegee Institute, Alabama xii I. W. DUGGAN Governor, Farm Credit Admin. U. S. Department of Agriculture Washington, D . C. AUSTIN V. EDWARDS State A & M College Orangeburg, South Carolina C. L. ELLISON Director, D epartment of Agri. Fort Valley State College Fort Valley, Georgia S. H. EVANS Department of Agriculture Fort Valley State College Fort Valley, Georgia RALPH A. FELTON Director, Dept. of the Rural Church Drew Theological Seminary Madison, New Jersey J. J. FLOOD Dean of Men Tuskegee Institute, Alabama ARTHUR FLOYD Itinerant Teacher Trainer Tuskegee Institute, Alabama JAMES N. FREEMAN Director, Dept. of Agriculture Lincoln University Jefferson City, Missouri A. H.FUHR Administrative Officer Farm Credit Administration 6843 South Agriculture Building , Washington, D. C. A. G. GASTON President Booker T. Washington Insurance Company 470 First Street, North Birmingham, Alabama MRS. HALLIE L. GRAY 108 W. Lynch Street Jackson, Mississippi JOSEPH A. GRESHAM District Agent, Extension Service Florida A & M College Tallahassee, F lorida LEE HARRIS Planter Mound Bayou, Mississippi MARSHALL D. HARRIS Head, Land Tenure Section Division of Land E conomics U. S. Department of Agriculture Washington, D. C. ALFRED L. HAY Soil Conservation Service P. O . Box 343 Dublin, Georgia W . B. HILL State Leader, Extension Service Tuskegee Institute, Alabama BISHOP HOLIFIELD Soil Conservationist 110 Lincoln Street Tallahassee, Florida J. H. HOPE Head, Department of Poultry Southern University Baton Rouge, Louisiana JAMES F. HUGHES Soil Conservation Service 911 Lane Avenue Jackson, Tennessee JOHN A. JACKSON Acting Director of Agriculture Alcorn A & M College Alcorn, Mississippi E. S. JAMES Pastor, Washington Chapel Tuskegee, Alabama MAURICE GODLEY Virginia State College Petersburg, Virginia ARCHIE G. GORDON Itinerant Teacher Trainer Alcorn A & M College Alcorn, MissisSippi E.A.GRANT Head, Div. of Argi. Education Tuskegee Institute, Alabama MISS PATSY A. GRAVES Home Economist Farmers Home Administration U. S. Department of Agriculture Washington, D. C. J. M. JONES Soil Conservationist P. O. Box 550 Wadesboro, North Carolina L. W. JONES Director of Research Rural Life Council Tuskegee Institute, Alabama W. O. JONES Agriculture Teacher P. O. Box 11 Daphne, Alabama xiii C. W. KELLEY Pastor, Greenwood Baptist Church Tuskegee, Alabama JOHN W. LAWSON Vocational Teacher Box 411 Statesboro, Georgia JOSEPH D. LEGGETTE Route 1, Box 616 Clarksdale, Mississippi CALDWELL McMILLAN Planter Route 1, Box 234 Annapolis, Maryland PAUL J. MANLEY Director, Dept. of Agriculture Kentucky State College Frankfort, Kentucky CLAUD C. MARION Maryland State College Princess Anne, Maryland STANLEY E. MARSHALL District Agent Virginia State College Petersburg, Virginia HARRIS M. MARTIN County Agent P. O. Box 236 Statesboro, Georgia MISS MILDRED E. MEADOWS Home Management Supervisor Farmers Home Administration Boykin, Alabama JOHN W. MITCHELL Field Agent, Extension Service Hampton Institute Hampton, Virginia GRADY C. MOORE A & M College Normal, Alabama E. E. NEAL Director, Rural Life Council Tuskegee Institute, Alabama ERNEST M. NORRIS Teacher-Trainer Prairie View State College Prairie View, Texas O. S. O'NEAL District Agent, Extension Service Fort Valley State College Fort Valley, Georgia G. H. PARIS Farm Management Division Farmers Home Administration, U. S. Department of Agriculeure Tuskegee Institute, Alabama M. H. PEARSON Chief, Farm Ownership Operation Farmers Home Administration U. S. Department of Agriculture Montgomery, Alabama MRS. L. A. POTTS P. O. Box 448 Tuskegee Institute, Alabama L. A. POTTS Dean, School of Agriculture Tuskegee Institute, Alabama ARTHUR F. RAPER Social Scientist Bureau of Agricultural Economics U. S. Department of Agriculture Washington, D. C. C. R. ROBINSON Administrative Assistant Farmers Home Administration 2838 Burger Avenue Dallas, Texas JAMES L. ROBINSON Extension SpeCialist in Rural Credit and Cooperation U. S. Department of Agriculture Washington, D. C. ANDREW G. SADLER District Superintendent of Teachers Box 252 Sylvester, Georgia W. Q. SCOTT Box 152 Normal, Alabama WILLIAM H. SHELL Official, Farmers Home Admin. U. S. Department of Agriculture Washington, D. C. A. A. SHEPHERD Soil Conservation Service U. S. Department of Agriculture Tuskegee, Alabama LeROY SILLS RFD 1, Box 364 Waynesboro, Georgia S. B. SIMMONS Supervisor, Vocational Agriculture A & T College Greensboro, North Carolina F. S. SMITH P. O. Box 507 Prescott, Arkansas OCIE LEE SMITH Supervisor, Farmers Home Admin. 1500 Bishop Street . Little Rock, Arkansas xiv H. J. SPEARS Box 251 Livingston, Alabama MRS. ERNESTINE T. STEVENS Home Management Supervisor Farmers Home Administration Montgomery, Alabama P. H. STONE Box 98 Savannah State College Savannah, Georgia ALVA TABOR Supervisor, Vo. Agri. Education P. O. Box 488 Fort Valley, Georgia JAMES R. THOMAS Teacher-Trainer Virginia State College Petersburg, Virginia O. J. THOMAS Teacher-Trainer Prairie View State College Prairie View, Texas IRA D. THOMPSON County Agent P. O. Box 428 Cleveland, Mississippi WILLIAM THOMPSON County Agent Manning, South Carolina R. T. THURSTON County Agent Tuskegee Institute, Alabama C. E. WALKER Dean of Agriculture Florida A & M College Tallahassee, Florida L. J. WASHINGTON Official, Farmers Home Admin. U. S. Department of Agriculture Washington, D. C. MRS. HATTIE S. WEST Dean of Women Tuskegee Institute, Alabama C. A. WILLIAMS District Agent, Extension Service Tuskegee Institute, Alabama MRS. CECELIA B. WILLIAMS P. O. Box 507 Prescott, Arkansas T. T. WILLIAMS Instructor in Agri. Economics Tuskegee Institute, Alabama EDDIE WILSON Farmer RFD 4, Box 173 Statesboro, Georgia xv PLANNING COMMITTEE L. A. POTTS L. J. WASHINGTON LEWIS W. JONES W. B. HILL E. E. NEAL T. M. CAMPBELL A. FLOYD C.E.TROUT xvi CONTENTS AGRICULTURE AND THE CURRENT CRIsIs ___________.Dr. George F. Gant LANDOWNERSffiP, THE BASIS OF A SOUND DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY ________________________________ Dr. Arthur F. Raper _____ LAND TENURE SITUATION OF NEGROES IN THE SOUTHERN REGION ______________ ____________ _______ .Dr. Marshall Harris _ ____ CONTRIBUTION OF EXTENSION SERVICE TO THE IMPROVEMENT OF LAND TENURE IN THE SOUTH ________ .___ ______________ __ __________________ .Mr. James L. Robinson FORUM DISCUSSION: What Kind of Program is Needed for Increasing Owner-Operated Farms ___ . _ _________ ___ _ ____ ___ _ ____ _______________________________.Mr. John W. Mitchell, Leader Messrs. W. B. Hill, M. G. Bailey, P. H. Stone, R. J. Courtney, T. R. Betton, S. E. Marshall CONTRIBUTION OF THE FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION TO LAND TENURE_________________________Mr. I. W. Duggan THE INFLUENCE OF FHA ON LANDOWNERsHIP_ .Mr. Howard Bertsch SYMPOSIUM : Program and Progress in Estab- Mr. Alva Tabor, Leader lishing Individuals on Farms ___________ _ ____ _______.Messrs. J. R. Thomas, A. Floyd, A. G. Gordon, S. B. Simmons, O. J. Thomas THE PLACE OF LOCAL BANKS, INSURANCE COMPANIES, AND THE CHURCH IN IMPROVING AND INCREASING FARM OWNERSHIP____ .Dr. W. S. Hornsby ___ A LAND POLICY FOR THE CHURCH_________________ .Dr. Ralph Felton DISCUSSION ___________________________________-Rev. E. T . Dixon COMMUNITY FARM TENURE CHANGES ___ _______.Mr. Lewis W. Jones DISCUSSION ____ _________________ ~essrs. L. J. Washington, E. E. Neal, H. Bertsch, G. W. Conoly, T. M. Campbell, S. B. Simmons, L. A. Potts; Drs. C. E. Walker and J. N. Freeman SUGGESTIONS TO AGRICULTURAL LEADERS FOR PREVENTION OF LAND EXPLOITATION________ _ Dr. T. S. Buie ___ _ DISCUSSION .___________ ______________________________________ Messrs. C. L. Ellison, C. W. Clift, A. A. Shepherd; Drs. T. C. Buie and J. N. Freeman EVALUATION _ _________________________.Dr. Arthur F. Raper ApPENDIX _ ___________________ _ 1 6 15 31 38 48 54 63 72 75 77 78 83 91 102 106 112 AGRICULTURE AND THE CURRENT CRISIS GEORGE F. GANT, General Manager, Tennessee Valley Authority These are sober days. Each one of us is wondering how he can best support his country in the current international struggle. Each one of us is thinking about the effect of this struggle upon his family, his farm, his business, his job. And each one of us is hopeful that the struggle will be successfully concluded in his lifetime, so that he and his family and his neighbors can enjoy the freedom and security of his dreams. The realization of these hopes depends in large part upon the wisdom of the personal decisions made by millions of citizens, and the excellence with which those decisions are carried out. For sixty years, now, Tuskegee Institute has annually arranged a conference of farmers and agricultural leaders. In this, and in other ways, Tuskegee is acquainting farmers with up-to-date information about research results and about needs and opportunities in agriculture. We have here a splen9id illustration of a research and an instructional institution passing its knowledge on to farmers. The farmers, by virtue of this research and information, have wider choices in their farm operations, choices which affect their income, the conservation and productivity of their land, and choices which taken together affect the economy and strength of the nation. Both Tuskegee and the farmers have a series of relationships with Federal and state agencies, both private and public, which similarly widen the choices, and support the decisions of individual farmers. We are today participating in one part of the process by which the people of the nation prepare themselves for the days ahead, be they gloomy or bright. I wish now to tell you of the way in which the area of choice has been widened in the Tennessee Valley and the Southeast, and how that broader oportunity has strengthened the region and the nation. The Tennessee Valley Authority, in this region, is a part of the network of cooperative relationships through which we make decisions and do our jobs. When Congress established TVA in 1933, it gave this agency a threefold job, two fairly specific tasks, and one of a more general nature. First, TVA was told to get the Tennessee River under control through a system of dams and reservoirs and related works which would control floods in the Tennessee Basin, and contribute to flood protection downstream in the Ohio and Mississippi Valleys. The blessings of an abundant rainfall were to be realized without the curse of destructive floods. TVA's development of the river was also to provide a navigable channel on a stream which had theretofore flowed heavy in the winter and spring but where flow was too meager for commerce in dry periods. And the water falling -1- over the dams, previously wasted, was to be used for making electricity. The second specific task given to TVA by Congress, was to put the then idle chemical plants at Muscle Shoals to work. TVA was told to use these plants, built during the first World War, to produce, and get into use, improved and cheaper fertilizers, keeping the plants available for munitions production as our nation's defense might reqiure. The third responsibility Congress gave TVA was to study constantly the entire situation presented by the Tennessee Valley with a view to encouraging and guiding the orderly and balanced development of the diverse and rich resources of the region. TVA's last report to the Congress and the President shows that as a result of the progress made in the last two decades, the region is much better prepared for conflict now than a decade ago, at the beginning of World War II, and there is a democratic series of interagency relationships with the maturity, flexibility, and strength to support the kind of effort which it appears must be sustained if peace and freedom are to be ours. Since the time TVA was created, in 1933, it has collaborated with many agencies to achieve the development of all of the resources of the region. TVA was provided with no regulatory or governing powers. Freedom was not limited, but expanded. It was directed to work cooperatively with the people of the area, and their organizations and institutions. Since 1933, the Tennessee River has been harnessed and put to work. Twenty-eight dams are now operated in a single system to control floods, to provide a 9-foot navigable channel, and to produce electricity. The river channel adds 630 miles to the inland waterways, and carries oil, grain, coal, steel, automobiles, and other traffic to the extent of over 500 million ton-miles a year, a traffic which was orily 30 million ton-miles in 1933. This development strengthens the nation's transportation system; it enables shippers to select the most . convenient and the most economic routes for freight. A power installation of 3,000,000 kw to serve the 80,000 square miles which is TVA's service area, compares with a capacity of only 800,000 kw in 1933. That generation will be doubled by the end of 1953, to an installed capacity of 6,000,000 kw. Whereas only 3 out of every 100 farmers had electricity in 1933, 86 have it now; the farmers elected to use this resource when distribution lines and low prices made it possible for them to do so. Previously they did not have the choice-the lines were not built, and high prices discouraged use. Other power agencies have profited by TVA's experience, particularly utilities in the South, and, generally, farmers in this area today have access to electric energy and are learning to use it in farm home and enterprise. TVA's flood control and malaria control operations now insure -2- industry and agriculture along the river against disruption because of high water and disease. These operations, again, provide wider opportunity in the selection and location of enterprises for development. But among the most serious limitations to choice in this area in 1933, were the limitations on the use of land. As a general proposition, southern soils are light, acid, and lacking in organic matter. Many of them lie on slopes, and are subject to leaching by heavy rainfall. In spite of these unfavorable factors, 35 percent of open land was in com and cotton row crops, in 1930, contributing to a serious erosion which jeopardized the agricultural base of the region's economy. Eleven percent of open farm land was idle; yet people were umemployed. The row crops lequired only seasonal labor. The average gross value of products per farm had been only $834. Something was wrong here. TVA inquired into this condition because it wished to fit the production of its fertilizer plants at Muscle Shoals into a program which farmers would agree was sound for the land and for their own interests. TVA was told by agricultural experts and by farmers that farmers grew row crops because the phosphorus deficient, acid soils would not grow the legumes, small grains, clovers, and alfalfa which would conserve the soil, diversify the agriculture, and help to use the year-round growing season. High analysis phosphate fertilizerS at low prices and in large volumes were not available, and farmers had had little experience with their use. It was clear, then, that in spite of the serious faults in the single, row-crop system, that most farmers were making the best decisions they could under the circumstances. They had no real alternative but to follow cropping systems that further robbed the soil of its fertility, and its protection. Following the counsel of its agricultural advisors, TVA decided to devote the research and productive facilities of the heretofore idle chemical plants at Muscle Shoals to the development of high analysis phosphate fertilizers. These plant foods are required by the kinds of land use whi.ch accommodate the many factors of soil, climate, and geopraphy of this area. Moreover, they are required if farmers are to have wider choices about their own farm management. Electric furnaces were constructed to produce concentrated superphosphate, containing 47 percent plant food, compared with 16 to 20 percent plant food in ordinary superphosphate. Altogether, TVA has distributed over a million tons of this fertilizer. In 1949, production of concentrated superphosphate in the nation, not including that of TVA, was 13 times as great as in 1933; ordinary superphosphate production multiplied four times. Many farmers who originally took on the task of demonstrating the uses of these new types of fertilizers also felt the need for having their own organizations set up to handle these -3- materials. They and their neighbors formed soil conservation associations to sponsor farm demonstrations. In 1935, 95 such associations had less than 1,000 members. By 1945, there were 118 of them with 38,000 members. And the organizations branched out into ownership and use of terracing machinery, the purchase and sale of limestone, the marketing of their crops, and other activities so essential to a healthy and progressive agriculture. TVA fertilizer materials are now distributed by many such organizations as well as by several privately owned companies. These distribution arrangements are also designed to widen the choices of the farmer-consumer by assuring information on wise use of the materials and by securing accurate information on distribution costs. TVA has advanced ammonium nitrate technology, also. TVA built a new ammonium nitrate plant for munitions during World War II. When it was no longer required for this wartime purpose, TVA pioneered in converting the material to fertilizer use in large-scale manufacture of ammonium nitrate fertilizer, a material which contains 50 to 100 percent more nitrogen than fertilizers such as ammonium sulphate and sodium nitrate. Laboratory research and production, however, were not enough. The agricultural colleges and the farmers had to have an opportunity to experiment with these fertilizers, and to tryout the alternate systems of farming to which they lend themselves. Other factors which limited farmers' choices in farm management, such as credit, buildings and machinery, required con-current attention. For this purpose, TVA and the colleges developed the test-demonstration program, under which more than 67,000 farmers have learned for themselves and demonstrated to others, as the results show, that shifts of farming systems to more diversified and hence more stable and profitable and sustained operations are feasible. Tuskegee Institute is now sharing in this program, and is conducting related studies for TVA in population trends. A striking change has taken place in the agricultural picture in the region since 1933. There has been a reversal of the long term trend of erosion and soil depletion which 17 years ago was well advanced. Today, the soils and the agricultural systems are on the upgrade. The scars of erosion are being healed by close-growing legume and forage crops and by reforestation. A million acres have been shifted from row to close-growing crops, and improved permanent pastures have been increased by 800,000 acres. More forage and pasture have increased the number of livestock and encouraged dairying. More diversified farming is making possible more efficient use of farm labor. Most of the farms now have electric service. The region today is much more capable of producing food and fibre than it was before the last war. -4- These changes have taken place because thousands of individual farmers have taken advantage of new fertilizers, electricity, and new ways of doing things to get a more productive result from their labor, and from their land. These farmers have taken this opportunity voluntarily, not by virtue of a mandate. Tuskegee Institute and other state agencies have provided research and educational assistance. TVA and other Federal agencies have provided fertilizer and technical and financial assistance. It has been a cooperative endeavor. It is required of us, now, that we reassess our alternatives in light of the current situation. On the one hand, we must anticipate a shortage of farm labor, as the requirements of the military forces and of war industry increase. On the other hand, and at the same time, we can predict a demand for greater agricultural production. But we will be able to accommodate these diverse trends-that is the reduction in farm workers and the increase in farm production, if we take advantage of the water-climate-soil combinations we have in this region, if we profit from the experience of many practical farmers and the knowledge assembled by our colleges, and if we accelerate the progress already underway. I would like to illustrate this point by reminding you of the experiences of John Bull of Lauderdale County. As you know, he was recognized here at Tuskegee about a year ago by the National Urban League. John Bull's farm has 200 acres in it. Ten years ago, he was making 16 bales of cotton on 65 acres-and grew little else. He and his family of 10 children worked only when the cotton required it-a part of the year. Today, that farm produces not only cotton, but corn, wheat, hay, steers, hogs, poultry and eggs. John Bull and two sons operate the farm-on a year-round basis. Cotton yield is up to a bale per acre, taking labor on fewer acres, and on land suited to cotton culture. Corn yield is 85 bushels. Fifteen acres are in permanent pasture, and 100 acres are used in the winter for grazing for livestick. The net result is a farm income in winter, useful year-round work, less people required, and much greater production. The land, properly fertilized and used, is richer today than 10 years ago. This case can be multiplied. It will be multiplied time and again as additional farmers, wishing to support the nation in the present crisis, take this occasion to adjust their own programs. But it will be a voluntary effort, based upon individual selection of alternatives, and with the support and assistance of our institutions and government agencies. The farmers and people of this region and nation can demonstrate again, as heretofore, the strength of these free, democratic methods, which are based upon the reliability of our citizens, and the availability of institutional research and leadership. -5- LANDOWNERSHIP, THE BASIS OF A SOUND DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY ARTHUR RAPER, Bureau of Agricultural Economics, United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, D. C. You can imagine my disappointment on being asked to take Paul Maris' place on this program. It is too bad he cannot be here as planned. I am a sorry second for him, but upon the urgent request of your Program Committee I will do the best I can on this short notice. I am still hoping, along with you, that Mr. Maris will walk into this room the very next minute. If Paul Maris Were Here If Paul were here it is my impression he would emphasize that in our democracy land ownership has been of fundamental importance. Farm Ownership has been associated with a free people. Also, I am sure Paul would emphasize the work that has been done by the Farmer's Home Administration and its predecessor, the Farm Security Administration, and particularly the work of the Farm Ownership Program, earlier called the Tenant-Purchase Program. He could give you the exact number of farm tenant families-somewhere around 60,000 is it not?-who have been helped into farm ownership by this effort. He could tell you, too, something of the philosophy of how this public program to promote land ownership for tenants arose, and how it has worked out. It is a great story of how things can, and do, happen in a democracy. I have the belief that in the future the significance of the Farm Ownership Program in our democracy will be recognized more widely than it has been up to now. Paul would tell you stories of what it has meant to individual tenant families to get some land of their own. I covet for each of you the privilege of hearing him tell of the new light that comes into many a tenant applicant's eyes and into the eyes of the tenant family when they knew of a certainty that they were to possess a farm of their own. The members of this Conference have seen that same hope in the faces of people as they moved from tenancy into ownership. In passing, he would indicate what proportions of the tenants helped into ownership have been Negroes, and why the proportion of the total who are Negroes has been relatively high, namely, because early in the program it was determined that there would be some relationship between need for the program and the application of the program. That, too, is in the right direction, the democratic direction. Paul Maris has a basic philosophy of fair play. That's why he made such a good administrator of the Farm Ownership Program. I was asked one day whether Paul Maris is a preacher. I said, "He is." -6- Then they asked if he preached the gospel. I said, "He does." He is a preacher of the gospel of hope through investment and self-help for farm tenant families who want to become land owners. Family-Sized Farms and Democracy Democracy is a system of government by the people themselves. The form and content of a democratic government is determined by the wishes of the people. Ownership of farm land has been most basic to democracy when the ownership has been widespread-that is when the land has been owned in family-sized units.. Farm ownership is as desirable in the South-now as when Thomas Jefferson spoke of its contribution to democracy, a century and a half ago. In a farm community widespread ownership of land is basic to democratic institutions. In areas where a few fatnilies or agencies own great tracts of land, a considerable proportion of the population must either own no land or but little land. Ownership contributes to the development of independent personalities. So, in the first place, family-sized farms are of importance in a democracy because they afford the opportunity for the development of psychologically self-sufficient farm people. In the second place, landownership is important because wherever there are independent personalities, the people can make their own choices. In short, public opinion can readily be found, and public policies can be based on the will of the majority of the people. Within this kind of governmental framework, the type of leadership that most of the people want comes to the fore in community affairs. In the third place-and I don't think this has been discussed as much as it might have been, or as it will be-where most of the families own their own land there is an opportunity for constructive balance between the man and the machine. A Proper Balance Between Man and Machine The farm family with too much machinery tends to get tied down by the cash expenses and debts involved. Too little machinery, on the other hand, leaves the family with too much physical labor to do. Maybe it would help us get perspective on our own man-machine situation if we turned from it and looked for a little while at a couple of farming areas very different from our own-namely, Japan and the Great Plains area of this country. In the latter farms are very large, in the former very small. Naturally, there is little opportunity for the use of machines where the land resources per farm family are so small as in Japan. It is hard for us to visualize how small is the land area on which the Japanese -7- farm family makes its living. The average size of farms in Japan is 23~ acres, with more than half of all farms less than 2 acres. On the average, each farm is made up of about 16 different fields, usually scattered. The Occupation program tried to get these fields consolidated. The Japanese farmers didn't think they should be consolidated. So far as I can see, this response of the Japanese was highly realistic. There were two reasons why they didn't want the fields consQlidated. They knew that frosts in a valley do not strike equally hard every where. Naturally they would want their fields scattered about. Likewise, floods strike unequally. So too with insects. We can understand how the Japanese farmers came to the conclusion they did. A second reason the Japanese farmers didn't want to consolidate their scattered fields is that their fabric of human relations is tied up with meeting one another often on the narrow roads and paths that lead from the village where they live, to the fields where they work. It is by means of these continuous meetings that they find out about things. That is how they ·know who is sick, who has gone to Tokyo, who is making a pilgrimage to a shrine, or who plans to get married. By this means they make joint preparations for festal occasions, rotating the responsibility from family to family. Generally speaking, they are much more sociable by reason of these frequent contacts with one another. So they said by their actions, "No, we'll not consolidate our fields," and they were right. It was out of this same background of realistic thinking, I might say here in passing, that the Japanese farmers welcomed the Land Reform Program of the Occupation. The farm tenants had long wanted to own the land they cultivated and had been able to get permissive land reform legislation enacted into law prior to World War II. But there was little land for sale to them. When the war was over, the Supreme Commander for Allied Powers recommended a land reform program by which the farm tenants could purchase the land they cultivated. This increase of land ownership was looked upon as the most effective way to provide a framework for development of a democratic way of life in rural Japan. Field surveys indicate that hopeful progress is being made as a result of the purchase of land by tenants. The new land ownership program weakens the traditional feudalism of rural Japan and strengthens democracy. However, the great pressure of population upon land resources remains a very basic problem. There are a few small machines in most Japanese villages, such as foot-pedal rice threshers, hand looms to make rush matting, and now and then a small electric motor for polishing rice or for threshing small grain. With the new ownership of land, cooperatively owned small machinery may increase. -8- By way of contrast, let us think of mechanized farming in the Great Plains area of our country. Farms are large and big machines are used for plowing the land, sowing the grain, and harvesting it. A typical farmer leaves the farmstead at morning, driving a tractor. He rides across the field, alone. It may take a half-hour, or an hour, or even two hours for him to get .to the other end of the field and backAll morning long he sits on-the machine with nobody to talk to -just the continuous roar of that powerful tractor. The ideal life seems to lie somewhere between the farmers who still do most of their work with their hands and those who rely most wholly on machines. In this scientific age it seems somewhat out of place for a farmer and his family to go out with an ox to work up a mud paddy into the consistency of pancake batter to plant rice seedlings. Nor may it be good either, for a farmer to get so much machinery that he finds himself less free to enjoy living than when he had smaller cash expenses to meet. It seems reasonable that the best relationship of man to machines lies somewhere between the absence or near absence of machinery as in Japan, and the heavy capital investment in machinery as in some parts of our country. The family sized farm in the older Eastern well-watered parts of the United States seems to offer a better opportunity for a constructive relationship between man and machine than in either of the extremes mentioned above. There seems to be a tendancy now for farmers without machines to remain machineless, and for farmers with machines to become increasingly more highly mechanized. This latter tendency explains why in recent years farm units have been getting larger and larger in the Middle-West and Great Plains portions of this country, whereas, in some other parts of the world farms have been becoming smaller. If more and more machines are used, farm operating units are enlarged to make profitable use of the machinery that has been purchased. It sometimes appears that the size of farm operating units has not been determined so much by the farmer, as by the size and cost of the tractor and other machinery that is available for his use. Considerable attention should be given to the matter of the relationship between man and machine, because farming in the South is in transition from hand methods to machine operations, and operators of various types of farms need to know the extent to which they can profitably mechanize, the type of machines they should attempt to own, and the type of farming operations it would be cheaper for them to have done on a custom basis, or with machinery jointly owned by two or more farmers. If attention is not given to these matters, many a small owner will often find himself either without the benefit of the machinery he needs, or he may have more capital invest- -9- ment in machinery than he can afford, and so jeopardize his farm ownership. I don't think we have anywhere near thought through the manmachine situation yet as it is related to farm ownership. Most of us have not been thinking about it nearly enough. Many of us still want more machines on our farms, and maybe we can afford them, maybe we can't. We had best spend such time as is needed to find out whether the machines we buy are the right size and cost to be of greatest service to our farming operations. It is possible, too, that the availability of farm machinery may have influenced us more in the direction of enlarging the land area of our operating units than in increasing the yield per acre. Even so, as all of us know, noteworthy progress has been made in recent years in increasing yields. Small Farms Can Be High Yield Farms There was a time when farmers of Alabama and Mississippi had little hope for an average of more than about 15 bushels of corn to the acre. Individual farms secured yields of 25, 35, and more bushels on a few acres by putting heavy applications of manure on a limited land area. When everything was taken into account, these efforts amounted to little, for the State averages remained uniformly low. The ownership of small farms makes much more sense now that high yields are possible and practicable. The whole picture of corn production, for example, began to change with the use of hybrid corn, deep fertilizing, the production of more legumes for green manure, and other improved practices. I was at Alcorn College last fall for the Farmers' Conference. Recognition was given to Negro farmers who had grown 100 bushels of corn or more to the acre. Citations for this performance were formally made by the President and Secretary of the State Bankers Association. Scores of farmers walked up to the platform as their names were called. Attention was also called to a number of individual farmers for high cotton yields, yields of two bales or more to the acre. In presenting the certificates to these farmers, the oficials of the Bankers Association congratulated them on the contribution they are making to the improvement of rural life in the State. As we rode from Alcorn back to the State Capital at Jackson, we could look at the corn and cotton fields and see whether a family was farming the new way or the old way. It is my understanding that the additional pounds of cotton and bushels of corn on the high yield acres are the cheapest pounds of cotton and bushels of corn that the farmers grow. In Jackson, the supervisors of the State Vocational Agricultural Teachers reported that approximately 2,500 farm boys this past year -10":"" produced more than 100 bushels of corn to the acre. On Achievement Day in December, · farmers and farm youth from all over the State were invited to Jackson by the Governor. In 1949 there were about 1,200 boys who had a corn yield of over 100 bushels; the highest yield that year, 205 bushels to the acre, was made by a Negro youth. In 1948 there were about .600 citations. The year before about 400, and the year before that around 200. This shows what can be done. Our old excuses no longer make sense. It was assumed then that a low income naturally went along with a small farm. New scientific developments have established new standards of performance and new challenges to farm leadership. It seems to me it would be a smart public investment to launch a program designed to make small farms high yield farms. It likely can be demonstrated in a few years that the traditional relationship between small size farm 'units and low incomes is another one of the myths of the old South. We need to make small farms high yield farms for the benefit of the small farm operators, no less than for the prosperity of the southern region. We also need to do it to make our agricultural story more convincing in Japan, India, China-in fact in most of the rest of the world. We need now to demonstrate that we have an approach to this farming situation other than bigger and bigger farms operated by bigger and bigger machines. When we speak of recent agricultural trends in this country to the people in the crowded Orient, we likely remind them how impassable is the chasm between them and us. What I am saying is something that all of us in America need to be thinking about. There is probably enough land in the world to feed all of the people adequately, if we can apply the science we already have. We need to experiment with full use of science in some areas all over the world. We need to assist in this wherever we can. Some early demonstrations among the small farmers in the South would be of great significance here and abroad. The application of scientific methods is not an expenditure nearly so much as it is an investment. We need to continue to promote more scientific farming. If we do, we will feel better about the world situation, and so will everybody else. We need to give increasingly serious attention to these matters that will make the democratic way of life more widely appreciated in the crowded countries of the Old World. Small-sized high-yield farms will also give added hope to the sons and daughters of American farmers. Farm youths will have more appreciation of the performances of their own parents and more pride in their own home. They will see the local farm community as a better place in which to live. In the past, if the small -11- family-sized farm was the sole income of the family their living standards tended to be characterized by that of subsistence. This was a difficult handicap. These farms made no real contribution to the need for national and international food supplies. They also provided inadequate means for cash incomes which the families needed. When a small family-sized farm, by high-per acre yield, can produce as much corn. cotton or wheat as was earlier gotten by skimming around over a much larger area of land, farm children have a basis for more hope than they could have ever had under the old system. High yields on small farms in the United States will make our agricultural talk much more attractive in India and China. It is desirable, of course, for small farm operators to produce as much of their family needs as possible on the farm, but the family also must have something to sell. For as mentioned earlier they must help provide world-food needs, and, besides, the farm family needs cash to pay for a modern standard of living which includes electricity, health, education, and all the rest. One other thing should be mentioned in connection with this highyield farming. Sometimes 100 bushels of corn per acre may have no more basic minerals than would have been in 10 bushels. It is comparatively simple I understand, and comparatively inexpensive to apply to the land the needed minerals and minor trace elements. When this is done the basic quality of each of the measures of highyield crops may readily be superior to that of low-yield crops. Special Problems Related to Negro Land Ownership Ownership of good farm land by Negroes is- not easy in many communities. It is a problem; but a problem about which something can be done. In many communities in the South-and incidentally Negroes own practically no farm lands in any other region-it is difficult for a Negro family to purchase good land on a good road. If Paul Maris were here he could tell you how the Government has bought large tracts of good land on roads, and sold it to Negro farmers under the Farm Ownership Program. Also, some Negro farmers themselves have purchased good land well-located. Another serious problem related to the increase of Negro land ownership has been the fact that most farm tenants of each race have attempted to move into ownership in prosperous years. This is when low income farmers most often have a little surplus money to make the down payment on a farm. But too often, the prosperous times have been short lived. Prices of a farm products have fallen, and many purchasers of a farm have not been able to make the annual payments on them. The prices of land dropped, too; so many new purchasers forfeited the land to their creditors. Many families -12- who made unsuccessful attempts to move into ownership have become disillusioned. They may state somethmg like this: "We wanted to become owners; we took all the savings that we had and made a down payment on a farm. By skimping and saving we were able to make several subsequent payments. But, when land prices dropped, and we still owed more on the farm than it could be sold for, we just let our creditors have it back. Good riddance; no more land ownership for usl" This problem like that of the type and location of land which is bought, has been corrected for some families by the Farm Ownership Program. For, as we all know, the F. O. payments are arranged over a long period of time at low interest, with opportunity for small or no payments to be made when yields are very low. The Farm Ownership Program also protects against nonproductive farm units. The county committee which certifies land for purchase knows the capabilities of the land and thus assures the purchase of a satisfactory farm, one on which the family can make a reasonable good living while paying for their farm. Basic Advantages of Democratic Systems to Minorities It is of considerable importance that our democratic system encourages minority groups to strive for home ownership, in fact, for full rights and privileges in all phases of life. The Constitution of the United States and its Bill of Rights provides the legal framework for minorities to better their conditions just as the diverse backgrounds of our people emphasize that in diversity there is strength. Our legal system makes it plain that no difference can be made between nationality groups. Norwegians who came here are just as American as the Frenchman, the German just as American as the Englishman, and so on. The fact is that historically speaking, it was possible for the United States of America to come into being only because people of different backgrounds emphasized the things they had in common rather than their differences. That is why there is no state religion in our country. What religion could have become the state religion? Certainly not the Anglican Church, for there were many Dissenters; certainly not the Catholic Church for there were many Protestants; certainly not the Baptists or Methodist, for there were many Quakers, and so on. The result was that since the colonies wanted to be free from England and they needed to work together, they decided they would have religious freedom. Our basic American principles of freedom of speech and of the press arose in much the same way. The basic rights and privileges of American citizenship sprang from these early agreements among people with different backgrounds to submerge their differences and emphasize their common goals, namely, the development of an independent constitutional democracy, the protection of individual rights, and the rest. -13- The Negro in American has already profited by these basic principles, and will profit by them still further in their desire for full . participation in American life. More Negroes are voting now than ever before, more are holding responsible Governmental positions, more ae known through the nation in the field of sports and entertainment. The position of the Negro as a group has improved considerably with the years. There was a time when some people tended to become excited because the Negro constituted the balance of political power in some Northern and Eastern States. That feeling subsides as we become more mature in the understanding of our own system of representative government. Quite naturally, a minority group is in a very advantageous position where it constitutes the balance of power in populous states. For then the minority group has a good opportunity to work for its own good. Representative government naturally works best when all elements are represented, and where all are interested in the welfare of the whole nation as well as their own group. Constructive programs designed to improve the economic position of the Negro in America, therefore, can be expected to become more important as all elements in our population are able to have their own needs taken seriously. If I judge the situation correctly, the Southern rural Negro wants, above everything else, to own his own farm-a large enough one to make a good living on. Furthermore, it is to be expected in a democracy that minority groups will be jealous of improving their situation and that they will attract to themselves such support as can ccome from other elements of the population. This is what every self-conscious group in our democracy does-whether it be industrial management, organized labor, or farm organizations. There is good reason to believe that an increasing proportion of Southern people as a whole will look with favor upon any realistic programs devised to increase Negro land ownership. In this connection, let me remind us in closing that the Farm Ownership Program came into being through the efforts of two Southerners, Senator Bankhead of Alabama, and Congressman Jones of Texas; and that another Southerner, Senator Richard Russell of Georgia has been Chairman of the Agricultural Appropriation Committee during the years of successful operation of the public efforts to assist farm tenants to become landowners through the Farm Ownership Program of the Farmer's Home Administration. -14- LAND TENURE SITUATION OF NEGRO FARMERS IN THE SOUTHERN REGION MARSHALL HARRIS, Bureau of Agricultural Economics, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D. C~ Dean Potts and friends, I am certainly happy to be here this afternoon. I've been at Tuskegee before, but the last time was some years ago. I am always pleased to come to the campus because of the spirit of the institution and the fine work that you are doing. When at Tuskegee, I observe a concentration of effort on the task to which you have assigned yourself; and also a consecration to the duties that you are privileged to perform. And when you have consecrated concentration, you're certainly going to get a good job done. I'm sure that has been the history of .Tuskegee, and will continue to be the way your great institution serves the Negro farmer of the South. If 1 sense correctly the central theme of this conference, it is (1) to analyze the land tenure situation among Negro farmers in the Southern Region, and (2) to consider how it can be improved. Those who planned the meeting are to be congratulated for laying out such a comprehensive agenda, and so logical a program. Real foresight was shown in selecting the subject and in timing the meeting. For this conference was planned some months ago, even before the United Nations, the President of the United States, the Secretary of Ariculture, and others took positive action in regard to the national and international aspects of the tenure situation. In the last six months, we have seen much going on in the field of land tenure and land reform around the world, and many leaders are beginning to understand that it is one of the acute problems of the peoples of the world, particularly in areas of rural poverty. In this regard I do not know of a better person to quote than your own Senator Sparkman whom you all know. Senator Sparkman made a statement, as a delegate of the United States to the General Assembly of the United Nations, on October 31 of the past year. In introducing his discussion, which was concerned with land reform and farm development programs for the underdeveloped countries of the world, he said,-and I'm quoting from his address as released to the press 1 : "Land reform is a matter in which the United States of America has long been interested as has been demonstrated by the programs that it has initiated within our own boundaries." 1 Press Release No. 1041, October 31, 1950. United States Delegation to the Gt:neral Assembly Statement by the Honorable John J. SparIanan, U. S. Delegate, in Committee Two, on U. S. Proposals for Land Reform and Farm Development. -15- He went on to say, "In one of the opening speeches of the General Assembly, our Secretary of State, Mr. Dean Acheson, made this statement, Which I should like to quote: 'As an example of the kind of need to which we must put our efforts, I would like to speak of the problem of the use and ownership of land, a source of misery and suffering to millions. In many parts of the world, especially in Asia, nations have been seeking to achieve a better distribution of land ownership. Leaders in India and Pakistan, for example, are keenly aware of this problem and are taking steps to deal with it effectively. In Japan, as the result of land reform programs three million farmers-well over half of all the farmers in Japan-have acquired land. In the Republic of Korea, where previously there had been twice as many tenants as owners of land, a redistribution of farmlands had, by the time of the invasion, changed this ratio so that those who owned land outnumbered those who held their land in tenancy. Plans scheduled for this summer would have made farm owners of 90 per cent of the farm families: Still later, President Truman in his speech at San Francisco called attention to this same problem and stated in his speech as follows: 'We know that the peoples have problems of social injustice to solve. They want their farmers to own their lands and enjoy the fruits of their toil. That is one of our great national principles. We believe in the family-sized farm. That.is the basis of our agriculture and has strongly influenced our form of government'." Many of you know that Senator Sparkman grew up on a small farm here in Alabama, and that he considers himself a small farmer. Mter presenting the problems of the small farmer he said, and again I quote: "If I may be pardoned for another personal reference, I may say that the first speech that I ever had the privilege of making as a member of the United States Congress was in favor of the Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Purchase Act, which set up for the first time a program in the United States making it possible for governmental help to farm tenants to become farm owners. Mr. Chairman, may I interpolate here that something has been said in connection with the discussion of this resoultion about the use of the term 'peasant: 'Peasant' is a term that is not used in the United States. I suppose that the meaning which is generally accepted where the term 'peasant' is used, might correspond in the United States to the term farm tenant or small individual farmer. They probably mean the same thing. The purpose of this Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Purchase Act was to make it possible for more people to become owners of their own individual family-sized, family-operated, family-supporting farms." -16- And then, addressing himself specifically to the matter under consideration before the General Assembly, he said, "In the United States we believe strongly in farm ownership, individual farm ownership. We believe that the land that a man and his family works and on which they make a living ought to belong to him and to his family. It is that objective toward which we have been working during the last many .years, and it is that same kind of a program or a similar program that we envisage may very well be encouraged by this General Assembly and by this Committee, and might very well be undertaken in many parts of the world. That is the reason, Mr. Chairman, that we wholeheartedly support this kind of a program and that is the reason we ask for the amendment that would particularly provide for helping small farmers, individual farmers to own and operate the land out of which they and their family make a living." Subsequently on November 20, 1950, the General Assembly passed a resolution calling for a complete survey of the land tenure situation in the underdeveloped countries of the world. An additional indication of current interst in land tenure is its consideration by several agencies of the Federal Government that are working for the betterment of rural conditions in other countries. They are getting together as a formal committee to consider ways and means of improving the lot of farm people. Also, the Department of Agriculture is now in the process of reviewing all of its policies, programs, and activities to determine how it can serve more effectively the family farmers and the farm families of this nation. So, Mr. Chairman, I suggest that this conference is in a . good setting-nationally and internationally. We, in the United States, have much to contribute to international thinking on these matters, and a part of that contribution must come from those assembled here this afternoon. It seems to me that at a conference similar to the one which you have planned, four steps must be taken. First, to do a good job, it is necessary to determine fairly accurately what objective you have in mind-what goal or goals you intend to reach. Second, the present situation must be analyzed and assessed in some detail. Basically, that is the assignment you have given me for this afternoon. Third, the distance from the present situation to the objectives must be measured. This must be done both qualitatively and quantitatively, to understand the nature of the road and the distance that must be covered. And then, fourth, ways and means. must be developed to get from the present situation to the objectives. That process is rather simple. I believe it's workable; it's direct and understandable. I am sure that all of you, individually and collectively, have pretty well in mind the goals that you think should be attained. They are -17- implied in the program for this conference, as you have developed it. To sum it up, I'd judge that you visualize an owner-operated, familyfarm type of agriculture for the Negroes of the South. But like all summaries, that is too simple a statement of complex objectives. Several years ago in a paper before the Anglo-American Caribbean Commission! I endeavored to layout the basic objectives of good land · tenure poligy. I shall merely summarize them here. They are: 1. 2. 3. Responsible freedom of personal action. Equality and dignity of all tenure groups. Secure possession of rights in land, so the operator will be encouraged to improve and conserve the resources under his control. Equitable distribution of rights in property. Conservation and development of resources in order to i;"sure food, fiber, and oils for both present and future generations. Highly efficient utilization of productive resources, so as to supply at reasonable prices the agricultural products demanded of the Nation and the World, and provide reasonable incomes to farm families. Equitable distribution of income, as between agricultural and other occupational groups, and within agriculture. Well-integrated community life, to make possible a reasonable enjoyment of the fruits of one's toil and to add strength to our democratic way of life. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. These eight objectives, or similar ones that you may outline, are the scales in which we must weigh our present land tenure system. You are making progress in attaining these kinds of objectives; your efforts are not going unrewarded. Paraphasing Rupert Vance's statement, made almost two decades ago, the rise of a Negro people from slavery to ownership of 189,232 farms consisting of 11,380,968 acres and valued in 1945 at $374,732,784 furnishes one of the world's most dramatic stories.! Of this truly dramatic progress you can be justly proud. The progress of the Negro race you take for grantedit has been slow, yet sure. "Objectives of Land Tenure Policy" in Caribbean Land Tenure Symposium, Caribbean Commission. Washington, D. C. 1947, or in Reading on Agricultural Policy, O. B. Jesness (editor). 1 Data are for U. S. in 1945. 1 -18- Negroes Gainfully Employed in Agriculttlre~ Any consideration of land tenure among Negroes in the South, if the facts in the case are presented, must begin with an over-all picture of the status of all males who are gainfully employed on farms. It is a common mistake to omit from the consideration all of those who are laborers. I have been guilty of this omission in times past. But we must face the situation as it actually exists. A true picture can be seen by looking at data in Table 1 on the number in each of the principal tenure classes per 1,000 males (20 years old and over) gainfully employed on farms. In 1940, 2 out of each 3 Negro males gainfully employed in agriculture were laborers or sharecroppers. On the other end of the agricultural ladder, standing as owners were only 15 percent of the Negroes. To put the matter in another way-2!5 of the Negro males gainfully employed on farms had attained no tenure status per se, not even the questionable tenure status of sharecroppers. So, when we discuss land tenure of Negroes, we are not talking about 40 percent of those who work in agriculture-we are leaving them out. We must remember that throughout our deliberations. . It is among these Negro laborers that we find the most acute "tenure problems," that is, the problems of getting them on the tenure ladder, as sharecroppers or tenants, 'so they can climb up to ownership. I do not propose to discuss this aspect of the problem. That is distinctly another matter. But it merits your earnest attention. Measures of Tenure StattlS The various Censuses of Agriculture give us three major measures that can be used in studying trends and the present tenure situation among farm operators. These are: number of farms, acres of land and value of land in each tenure category. I'm going to talk mainly about the figures on tenure of Negro farmers, and trends shown by those figures, although the tables will permit you to make any comparisons you wish to make with other groups or with totals for all farmers. Number of farms: Now let us direct our attention to the three Negro farmers out qf five who are on the so-called agricultural ladder as croppers, tenants, managers, part owners and full owners. You will note from Table 2 that the total number of farms in the South increased between 1900 and 1920, from 2.6 million to 3.2 million, and • In the Census of Agriculture classification by color, "white" includes Mexicans; "nonwhite" includes Negroes, Indians, Chinese, JaP€lnese, and other nonwhite races. throughout this discussion and in the tables the terms "nonwhite," "colored," and "Negro" are used interchangeably in referring to those operators classified in the Census as "nonwhite." For general purposes this seems appropriate, owing to the very low proportion of nonwhites in the South who are other than Negroes. -19- then remained fairly constant until 19351 • For the past 15 years the number has been decreasing, rather substantially. It is probable that the total number of farms in the South in 1950 will be less than in 1900. How has the Negro farmer fared in comparison with other farmers? In 1900, 28.3 percent of the farmers were Negroes. This' ratio remained fairly constant until the 1930's when their number decreased both absolutely and proportionately. The bad years of the '30's reduced the proportion of farmers who were Negroes from a high of 28.8 percent to a low of 22.6 percent. The good years after 1940 have reversed the trend. This reversal in the over-all trend is intere~ting and significant. But it takes on added meaning when the internal shifts among the various tenure groups are studied. You will note in Table 2 that since 1935 the proportion of Negro farmers who are sharecroppers has decreased from 45.2 percent to 40.6 percent; the porportion who are tenants, including sharecroppers, has decreased from 77.1 percent to 71.5 percent during the same period. One percent of this 5.6 percent decrease occurred among tenants, other than sharecroppers, while 4.6 percent occurred among sharecroppers. This trend is in the right direction-it is up the agricultural ladder. It is reflected largely in the proportion of colored farmers who are full owners. In 1930 only 15.9 percent were full owners, while by 1945 this had increased to 24.2 percent-rather significant! Now, what has happened to the white farmers? Let's look at the record. In 1930, 16.4 percent of all white farmers were sharecroppers, by 1945 this proportion was reduced to 8.0 percent-cut in half. During the same time white tenants including croppers decreased from 46.6 percent to 31.1 percent-a reduction of one-third. These shifts showed up, of cuorse, in the increase among full owners, from a low of 44.8 in 1930 to a high of 60.8 percent in 1945. Thus the percentagewise increase among colored full owners was over 50 percent, 15.9 to 24.2 while the change among white full owners was only slightly over one-third, 44.8 to 60.8. Regardless of your interpretation, this should not be overemphasized, for it is easier to increase percentagewise from a base of 15.9 than from 44.8. 2 In light of the objectives, what does this distribution among the various tenure-color group indicate, particularly in regard to "equitable distribution of rights in property" and "highly efficient utilization of productive resources?" 1 See Appendix • It is noted that part owners and managers have been omitted from the discussion owing to their numerical unimportance. They will be mentioned only occasionally throughout the paper. -20- Acres and value of land: Trends in the tenure of colored farmers, and also in their relative position, can be measured also in terms of the acreage of land that they operate (table 3) and the value of their farms, land, and buildings (table 4). In general terms these trends follow the same pattern that has been shown for the number of farmers in each group. However, the relative importance of each tenure group when measured in terms of acres and value is significantly different than when measured in terms of number. For example, in 1945 Negro farmers accounted for almost onefourth (23.1 percent) of the total number of farmers in the South, and they operated less than one-twelfth of the acreage and about one-twelfth of the value of the hmd. In short, one out of four of the farmers in the South are Negroes, yet they operated only one out of twelve acres of the land, valued at only one-twelfth of the total value of the land and buildings. A similar relationship existed in earlier years. Both part owners and managers operated in 1945 a much larger proportion of the land, whether considered in terms of acres or value, than their numbers would indicate. This has been true for the earlier Censuses. This is also true for both white and nonwhite operators. For example, in 1945 these two tenure groups made up only 7.2 percent of the farm operators, while they controlled 26.6 percent of the acres and 20.8 percent of the value. The disparity seems to have become greater over the years. In 1910, 7.4 percent of the operators (the part owners and managers) operated 17.3 percent of the land, and 14.1 percent of the value. This gives us one clue to the concentration of control over land that is taking place. It also gives us a clue as to distribution of rights in land and income from land. The comparison would not be complete without a look at the sharecropper group. Note the data for 1945, where 15.5 percent of the farmers operated only 5.0 percent of the land and 6.7 percent of the value. The disparity is greater for the white sharecropper than for the nonwhite. Size of farms: Some orthese differences are more obvious when the average acreage per farm is considered. During the first half of the last 50 years the av~rage acreage per farm declined sharply, while since 1925 the trend has been in the opposite direction-farms are getting larger (table 5). This downward and upward swing has been true for both white and colored farmers, considering all tenure groups together. The trend in size of farms for full owners, however, was downward from 1900 to 1940, when a slight upturn occurred. Both white and colored full owner operators have followed th~ same general trend. -21- Now let's look at a few comparisons between the various tenure groups as to average per farm. They rank in size from largest to smallest, as follows: Managers, part owners, full owners, tenants, and sharecroppers. This ranking holds for both white and Negro operators. In all tenure groups the average size of colored farms is considerably below the average for all farms. We should pause again to relate these conditions to distribution of rights in land, conservation and utilization of resources, and distribution of income. Values per farm: Trends in average values per farm are more erratic than either numbers or average acreages. In general, average values have followed average acreages, but values have been influenced also by economic conditions. The gradual increase in values from 1900 to the end of World War 1, the decline in values to 1935, and the recovery to 1945, have been followed for all tenure groups, whether white or colored (table 6). Comparisons as to average value among the various tenure groups are quite similar to those for average acreages. The trends and comparisons need not be detailed here. But we should stop long enough to ask these questions: What kinds of living could you expect in a community made up of Negro full owner, tenant, and cropper farm units valued in 1945 at less than $2,000 each? What do you think about the owner-operator goal for Negro farmers if these units average in value only $1,896? Stability of Occupancy It is generally conceded that farmers must remain on their land over a period of years in order to be in position to develop an efficient and conservational system of farming. That is why "secure possession of rights in land" is an objective of sound land tenure. The data in Table 7 on length of occupancy indicate that within any tenure group, Negroes had been on their farms longer than whites, when the 1940 Census was taken. For example, the proportion of full owners who had been on the farms for less than 5 years were 19.7 percent and 23.6 percent, respectively. For croppers these proportions were 68.3 percent and 79.3 percent (table 7). On the other hand, a larger proportion of the Negro owners than of the white owners had been on their farms for 15 years or more; for full owners the respective proportions were 49.8 percent and 44.7 percent, while for croppers they were 5.7 percent and 3.0 percent, respectively. These data indicate that full owners have more stable and secure occupancy than croppers, whether white or colored. To illustrate, white full owners occupying their farms for 15 years or -22- more made up 44.7 percent of all white full owners, while the same data for white croppers was 3.0 percent. Negro operators followed the same pattern-full owner, 49.8 percent and croppers 5.7 percent. Can you expect resources to be used efficiently when almost half ( 46.3 percent) of the farm operators had occupied their farms for less than five years when the 1940 Census was taken? Does short-time occupancy make for conservation of the land and maintenance of the buildings? Indicators of Economic Opportunity The economic situation among Negro farmers and comparison among the several tenure groups may be measured in other ways. Let us look for awhile at their situation as regards ownership of farm machinery, tractors, trucks, and automobiles, and how much Negro fanners spend for selected items needed in farm production. Implements and machinery: The average value of implements and machinery per farm varies greatly between the various tenure groups. In 1940, in the South, Negro sharecropper units averaged only $69 worth of the tools of production. Of equal significance is the low value of machinery and equipment on Southern farms generally. This is still true, even though mechanization has made rapid progress in the South since these data were obtained. What can be expected -of a farm family that has less than $500 worth of equipment and machinery with which to work? The man with a hoe has been dramatized, but he cannot compete with the man with a tractor. Tractors, trucks, and automobiles: The low value of machinery and equipment is due in part to the scarcity or infrequency of such key items as tractors, motor trucks, and automobiles. Comparisons for these items are readily available only by divisions rather than for the whole South. Therefore, we will analyze the situation for only the East South Central Division-Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, and MissisI sippi. For these States, tractors are found on only 0.5 percent of the Negro fanns and 4.7 percent of the farms of white operators (table 8). Similar disparities exist for all tenure groups except managers where the proportion of white and colored farmers who own tractors is comparable. The proportion of the farmers in each color-tenure group that reported motor trucks lS similar to those with tractors. And sharecroppers, tenants, and full owners have fewer motor trucks than part owners and managers, whether colored or white, except for managers where the proportion is almost identical. -23- In regard to automobiles similar relationships exist. The significant difference is that a larger proportion of the farmers had automobiles than motor trucks, and more of them had motor trucks than tractors. Other indications of the impact of the Negro's landed situation upon his well-being can be measured in terms of electricity and telephones. Let us look at each of these items separately, considering only the East Central Division (table 8). For all tenure groups a larger proportion of the whites, 32.8 percent than of the nonwhites, 25.9 percent, have an electric distribution line within one-forth of a mile of the dwelling. This difference is not great, but it indicates that the location of Negro houses makes it more difficult for them to get electricity than for whites. This difference is greatest in the full owner group where the percentages are 35.1 and 20.3, respectively. This results from the Negroes' tendancy to buy poor land in out-of-way places. The difference is least among the sharecroppers, where electricity is more accessible to the Negro group than to the white, the percentage being 31.6 and 30.6, respectively. The same differences among the several tenure groups tend to exist in other parts of the South. Accessibility of electricity influences the proportion of homes that have electricity. This is revealed in a detailed comparison of each tenure group for the three Southern divisions. In every instance, except for white tenants in the West South Central Division, the larger the proportion of farm operators with electricity within one-forth of a mile of their dwellings, the larger the proportion with electricity in their dwellings. Accessibility of electricity, however, is not the only factor and probably not the most important influence on the use of electricity for lighting the farm homes of the South. The data indicate that the tenure-color status of the operator is an important item. Let's look at the tenure influence first, comparing again sharecroppers with full owners. Approximately the same proportion of both groups have electricity within a quarter of a mile of their homes, 31.2 percent and 33.7 percent, respectively. However, only 6.0 percent of the croppers' homes are lighted with electricity, while 21.0 percent of the full owner homes have electricity. For all tenure groups, 32.8 percent of the white operators have electricity accessible to their homes and 18.0 percent have electricity, while for the colored operators, 25.9 percent have electricity available but only 3.8 percent have electricity. To put it another way, over onehalf as many of the white farmers with electricity within one-fourth of a mile of their homes have their homes lighted with electricity. On -24- the other hand, only one-seventh as many of the Negro farmers so situated have electric lights. Similar data shown in Table 9 are for the entire South for 1945. A percentagewise comparison of the East South Central Division in 1940 with the South in 1945, although not strictly comparable, shows that for all farm operators the percentage of farms equipped with electricity has more than doubled. This holds true for each color-tenure group with the exception of managers where the increase is 58 percent for white managers and 14 percent for colored managers. The increase for all operators is 141 percent; 147 percent for Negro operators and 136 for white operators. White croppers reported the largest increase; from 9.0 percent to 28.1 percent-an increase of 212 percent. Radios were reported by almost two-thirds of all operators. This item was reported more frequently than any other item in Table 9, by all groups regardless of color or tenure and ranged from 27.6 percent for colored tenants to 97.8 percent for white managers. The small percentage of combines and milking machines reported indicates that although mechanized farming and dairying are being adopted in the South, much progress is yet to be made in this direction. Farm expenditures: Another set of statistical comparisons may be used to indicate the relative position of the various groups in the South. These comparisons have to do with expenditures per farm for specified items, such as those related to maintenance of farm buildings, conservation of the land, development of livestock enterprises and the introduction of modern technology. Again, we will consider only the East South Central Division-Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, and Mississippi. You will observe in Table 10 that colored farmers spent less per farm for every one of the seven items listed than did white operators. If it were possible in the South to increase annual expenditures of colored farmers for these seven items alone up to the level of white farmers those supplying these items would have taken in during 1940, $309,521,030 more than they did. The butcher, the baker, and the candlestickmaker should be interested in these differences. I often wonder what the South would look like if it were basically a land of owner operated, family sized farms. Not only the farming areas, but the rural towns that service these areas and the large cities would be different. Greater progress among Negro farmers toward farm home ownership would benefit all groups throughout the South and this would extend to the Nation, industrially as well as agriculturally. -25- Livestock on Farms A major deterrent in the attainment and maintenance of family farm home ownership among Negro farmers in the South has been the single cash-crop system of farming-cotton or tobacco. This is so patent among Negro croppers and tenants that we need not bore you with the statistical data. Suffice it to point out that widely fluctuating annual income that comes in all at one time retards the struggling young farmer from accumulating enough capital with which to buy land of his own. On the other hand, as Sherman Briscoe has said, "Balanced farming-the new pattern which is replacing one-crop agriculture in the South-is beginning to payoff for colored farmers in terms of better living." Dairy cows, beef cattle, and hogs are occupying many acres that were formerly devoted to cotton. To support the growing livestock industry, corn yields are being increased, improved pasfures are being expanded, year-round pasturing is growing by leaps and bounds, and hay production is finding a place in the diversified cropping system. The old 3-L program-limestone, legumes, and livestockis taking on new life. Home gardens are furnishing more and better food for the Negro farmer's table. The old one-crop system of farming is being licked in many areas. This means larger cash returns and a more steady and dependable income. Quoting Briscoe again, "Colored farmers who formerly pinched their pennies from one-crop farming and a once-a-year payday now plan their expenditures with new confidence created by year-round sales of farm prodticts." Financial planning among Negro farmers is increasing. Capital accumulation of purchase money is becoming possible. It helps the individual but little, in the long run, to teach him how to manage his farm and not at the same time show him how to manage his finances. The fact remains, however, that Negro operators have fewer productive livestock than the average for all farmers in the South (table 11). Negro farmers in the South need to increase significantly their number of productive livestock. Increases in mechanization and livestock farming apparently are displacing Negro farmers more rapidly than white operators. Between 1930 and 1945 the total number of farm operators decreased by 332,816. Of this number 208,687 were nonwhite and 114,129 were whites. Percentagewise the number of nonwhite farm operators declined 23.7 percent, while the whites decreased only 4.9 percent. The decrease has been heaviest among Negro tenants and croppers, for it is on rented farms that the introduction of machinery and livestock tends to displace the labor force. -26- Farm production: The per farm differences between the several groups as to size and value of farms, value of machinery and equipment, prevalence of electricity and telephones, expenditures for production and conservation purposes, and number of livestock influence total farm production. This is revealed most accurately in how much the various groups get for what they produce. In general terms the white operators sell or use about twice as much produce as do Negro operators, $2,190 compared to $1,292, for all operators (table 12). The difference is greatest for part owners and managers and least for tenants and sharecroppers. In fact, colored sharecroppers compare quite favorably with white sharecroppers, $1,515 and $1,915, respectively. The comparison between the tenure groups, as to farm income, is interesting. Colored sharecropper farm income is almost twice as large as for colored full owners, and compares favorably with white full owners, $1,515, $889, and $1,791, respectively. On the surface, this is persuasive evidence that ownership is bought at a high price. But this is more apparent than real. The colored sharecropper's $1,515 must be divided with the landlord, usually on a 50-50 basis, and the furnish system takes part of the remainder. It should be remembered, however, that the full owner must take out of his income such expenses as interest, amortization, taxes, upkeep, and production credit costs. Even so, three facts seem to be apparent: (1) Sharecroppers and tenants, both white and colored, have a slightly lower level of living than full owners and a significantly lower level of living than part owners and managers; (2) Negroes have a lower level of living than whites in comparable tenure groups; and (3) neither white nor colored croppers and tenants have much of an opportunity to save money with which to buy farms. These low levels of gross income indicate that many of the objectives of sound tenure cannot be attained until income is increased considerably. Some Miscellaneous Comparisons For convenience, I have put in one table a group of unrelated items that will complete the comparisons. These data relate to roads, work off-farm, age of operator, persons resident on farms, and expenditures for hired labor. Roads: A comparison worthy of note is the kind of roads on which farmers live. We find that 32.9 percent of the Negro farmers have allweather roads (that is, hard-surfaced, gravel, etc.) adjoining their farms (table 13). Interestingly, a larger proportion of the colored croppers than colored full owners, live on all-weather roads. Again, this is an indication that many colored farmers who have climbed the ladder to ownership have done so at the expense of locating on poor land in out-of-the-way places. -27- Work off-farm: One way of increasing income available for family living is to work off of the farm during slack seasons. A readily available measure of differences between the various groups in this regard is the proportion who worked 100 days or more off of the farm. The latest data are for 1939. It is probable that the proportion has increased for all groups since 1939, but it is not believed that differences have changed Significantly. For all operators the proportion who worked as much as 100 days off of the farm was over twice as much for the whites as for the Negroes, 16.7 percent as compared with 7.3 percent (table 13). The same tendency exists for the various tenure groups except managers and part owners. The greatest disparity is for tenant and sharecropper groups. In short, the Negroes who need most to work off their farms, and who have the most idle time on their hands, have the least employment elsewhere. Age of operator: A study of the average age of farm operators reveals that nonwhites average two years younger than whites, 46.6 as compared with 48.6 (table 13). But it should be observed that colored operators in each tenure group are invariably older than white operators, and that average age increases 3 to 4 years between tenants and part owners and 5 to 6 years between part owners and full owners. Persons per farm: The average number of persons per farm on nonwhite farms is about the same, oJ)ly slightly larger than for farms operated by whites, 4.5 and 4.2, respectively (table 13). This slight differential holds true for full owners, part owners, and tenants, but not for sharecroppers and managers. But since Negro farms are generally smaller and less valuable than white farms, this poses one of the major problems for all Negro farmers in the South; that is, of getting enough land and other resources to provide them with a really adequate level of living. Hired labor: The slightly larger number of persons per farm and the significantly smaller farms make it necessary for colored operators to hire much less labor than white operators. As an average for all tenure groups the amount paid as cash wages to farm laborers on colored farms was only $141 as compared with $550 for white farms (table 13). This differential exists for the various tenure groups. For your consideration, I should like to draw a statistical picture of Negro full-owner and sharecropper farms in the South. For selected item~ shown in the various tables, it is as follows: -28- Item Nonwhite full-owner farms 58.2 Nonwhite Sharecropper farms 30.5 $1,464.00 69.00 191.00 1,296.00' 1,515.00' 4. __ _ _ ______ __ ____ Average size of farms (acres) ___________________ _ ______ $1,896.00 __ Average value of land and buildings ______________ Avrage value of machinery and equipmnt (1940) ____ 104.00 __ Average expenditure for selected items (1940) '_______ 286.00 Average value products sold_______________ _ ________________ _____ 592.00 Average value products sold and used___________________ 889.00 _ Average years of occupancy, estimate_ _ _ ______________________ Percentage of farms reporting: Tractors (1940 ) , _ _______________ _ ______________________ _ _________ _ Motor trucks (1940 )'_________ ______ ______ ______________ _ _ _____ _____ Telephones (1940 )'_________________ _ ___________ _ _ ____ _ ___ _ ______ ______ _ Automobiles ( 1940 )'____ ________ ________ Radios ______ _______ ______ _ ________ ________ __ .____ ______ _ _____ ___ Sinks with drain __ _________________________________ _ ______ __ Mechanical refrigeration _ _______________ ___ _______ ____ ___ _ _ Power washing machines _ ________ ___________ ___ _____ ____ ______ __ All weather roads _____________________ _ ________ ______________ _ _ Percentage of operators working off farm 100 or more days (1939) _ _ ______________ _______________ _ _____ . 15. 0.9 3.7 1.0 17.4 4.0 12.6 37.3 4.2 3.8 2.5 28.7 13.8 ~l!~f~t;a~~~~~~~--~~~~~~~~--~~~~-~~~~-~~~~~::~:~~:~~::~:~:~::::::~~ 0.4 0.4 0.6 8.2 1.3 9.4 28.2 0.8 0.7 0.4 38.2 4.5 1 NOTE: All data are for 1945 unless otherwise specified. Data are for East South Central Division only. • Usually about 50 p ercent of the income of sharecropper farms is paid to the landlords. . If you will , study these data you can grasp the magnitude of the problem before you as you think through policies and programs to bring the present situation up to your objectives. Summary of Tenure Statistics 1. In 1940, 2 out of each 3 Negro males in the South gainfully employed in agriculture were laborers or sharecroppers. Thus, only a small proportion of Negroes owned and operated family-sized farms. 2. Two out of 5 Negro males had attained no tenure status-they were laborers. 3. Between 1930 and 1945 the percentage of full owners among Negro farmers increased from 15.9 to 24.2, a fifty-percent increase. 4. One out of 4 farmers in the South are Negroes; they operate lout of 12 acres of farm land, valued at 1/12 of the value of farm real estate. 5. In all tenure groups the size of colored farms is considerably below the average for all farms. -29- 6. The value of farms operated by Negroes is considerably below the average value of all farms. 7. Short-term occupancy is acute among both white and colored tenants and croppers. 8. The value of machinery and equipment on Southern farms, whether white or colored, is low. 9. Negro farmers make less use than white farmers of tractors, trucks, automobiles, electricity, telephones, and other such facilities. 10. White farmers spend almost 3 times as much as do colored families for selected operating expenses. 11. Colored farmers have considerably fewer productive livestock than the average for all farmers. -30- .' . CONTRIBUTION OF EXTENSION SERVICE TO THE IMPROVEMENT OF LAND TENURE IN THE SOUTH JAMES L. ROBINSON, Extension Economist, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D. C. I'm glad to be here with you for several reasons. One is that I've heard and read so much about Tuskegee. Another reason is that, among the group here, there are quite a number of fellows I have worked with off and on through the years. There are four in particular-Messrs. Oclmpbell, Mitchell, Washington, and Fuhr. Then, too, I'm very much interested in the subject of land tenure in the South. Finally, it is an honor to represent a leader of the caliber of Director M. L> Wilson, one of the great humanitarians in the public life of America today. He is keenly aware of the things for which you're working and has long endeavored to strengthen the extension work for Negro people. You are losers because Director Wilson had to give up his plan to take part in this conference. The Extension Service has always been interested in this question of improvement of tenure for the Negroes and for the whites. Tenure in the South is not just a matter et Milk plant here." He told the white audiences that the welfare of Wilkes County depended upon having a stable citizenship, men with families who owned their land and who would make contributions to this enterprise. He offered to draw the abstract, look up the titles for all the farms that the Negroes wanted to buy in that county free of charge. On the 30th of last August there were 127 Negro farmers in that county selling cream and milk to the Pet Milk plant there. Since establishment in 1940, 105 Negro farmers have bought land in that county. So, today, Wilkes County, which was once down close to the bottom in land ownership among Negroes is about at the top. Certainly, they have had a higher percentage of new landowners in Wilkes County than in any other county in Georgia. My feeling then is-looking at that situation-that in order to have -40- £ann owners you have got to carryon a program of education because these people feel that there are certain tendancies that go with ownership. They think about taxes. They hate to go into debt. They are conservative people. They do not like long periods of payment of debts. They have inflated land prices. They are faced with providing proper credit facilities and reasonable interest rates. And then you've got to show these people that along with ownership, there are advantages that they do not have as non-owners. Does ownership bring more satisfaction? Will it in any way add to the comfort of my family? Will it give me more security? If you can solve those problems of taxes and their thinking; if you can satisfy them that to be an owner will increase their security and their status in the community; if you can show them that ownership will add to the comfort of their families and the general satisfaction of living; if we can set the foundation for better land; If we can provide an economic program that is going to give them the income to pay for that land . . . That's been the story in Wilkes County. T. R. BETfON, District Agent, Extension Service, Little Rock, Arkansas If we would attempt to outline a program that would lend itself to creating increasing land ownership, it should be a program broad in scope. If we would make it realistic, we would need a closer coordination of all agricultural agents. Speaking of Extension Service as one of these agencies, we might give one or two examples of a community in which, seven years ago, 2,000 acres of land became available1,000 owned by a Negro farmer and the other by two white farmers. There was organized a cooperative known as the Gas Grove Community Association. Money was borrowed from a local bank to make a down payment on the land. Twelve men started that movement. Now we have forty men in that community owning land. Then there are other illustrations, one is the Farmers Home Administration which, some years ago, brought together some forty or fifty fanners. They organized a cooperative and are still expanding. If through vocational agriculture and all of these other agencies we will do something basic to bring about ownership or improve land tenure, we would have to broaden or expand the enterprise of the fanners and people with whom we work. There are among 4-H'ers records of accomplishment. There is one record of a boy who started out with a pig, and who now has expanded his enterprise to include several different activities. Last year he made more than any professional worker in the state. He cleared $30,500. A story like that caused others to become a little courageous. It motivated people to improve land tenure. -41- M. G. BAILEY, District Agent, Extension Service, Seat Pleasant, Maryland · The land tenure problem that we are facing is a by-product of the socio-economic changes that are taking place. And in our state, as in the other states, we are trying to formulate a program that will serve masses of the people. I think extension service as wen- as the other public agencies-all public agencies-have as their one major objective to serve the people. Since the general social pattern is being determined by industry, mechanization and big business, I don't know whether we should try to determine a program that will put us in competition with this mass production that Dr. Raper spoke about this morning; or whether we should think in terms of advising people on a program that will preserve their manhood responsibilities to the family and hold the family close together. I have heard enough to be confused thus far. At the same time, there are a few principles that I think should go into the subject of "What Kind of Program Is Needed for Increasing Owner-Operated Farms:" In the first place, I think that if the federal agencies are being financed by public funds, the program should be set up so as to serve the majority of the people. If agricultural practices are not suited for the majority of the family, I think that programs like that Mr. Neal is heading here in Tuskegee should be emphasized in all the areas. Our state is recommending social workers in extension work. In one county last fall, the chairman of the county commissioners said, in putting on a new assistant. county agent, he would rather have him eighty percent sociologist and twenty percent technical agriculturalist, because the majority of the people there would not have an opportunity to apply technical agricultural practices to an advantage. I think we should consider ill formulating our program that the agency and the workers-especially those who work in direct contact with the farmer-stop trying to build up a high priority office. Each county agent, if he is not watched, will become a bureaucrat and will no longer be working with the church. It used to be that the county agent did most of the work on Sunday; but now there is a tendency to run a regular program, most of it in the office. Mr. Campbell's suggestion of spending vacation nights living with the folks as they live, is a great thing. I have always had a lot of appreciation for what Mr. James Davis has done in working with the clergy. I think there is a wonderful opportunity there. Finally, I feel that we should try to act and live the lives 6f am M -42- bassadors of goodwill in .our field. The problem brought up following Governor Duggan's speech, the idea advanced by Mr. Fuhr of go· ing out with the people and informing every Tom, Dick and Harry what his opinions mean, and helping him to develop proper attitudes. • That holds true for both races. I think the world is turning so fast that we don't have time to look at the overall picture as to where we're going, so we're looking at what's going on immediately here and we fail to set our sights to see the benefit of working together and cooperating regardless of class qr race. If we can just act as ambassadors to do all we can to try to bring the two together wherever we can, I think we will have done a great service toward making is possible for whatever program you arrive at to be carried out. R. J. COURTNEY, State Leader, Extension Work, Southern University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana "What Kind of Program Is Needed for Increasing Owner-Operated Farms," has made me think about just what could we do. I know that we can do a few things to kind of stretch the service. The first thing that I thought about was actually finding the people who wanted to be farm operators. I am thinking about the large percentage of Negro tenants in the Delta area. They are largely tenants because they cannot do any better. As soon as World War II came along, and with it the opportunity to go to California, the Delta lost a lot of its .tenants to industry. A large number of farmers took advantage of the increased prices and bought farms. The landlord sold out because .he had lost a lot of tenants. So we say that the first thing we should find are genuine tenants who would like to become farm owners. After we find the!D and get indication that they want to be owners and become a part of this status, I think we ought to have a top educational program in sound farm practices. I am thinking about a tenant I know who was living on a plantation. He had about nine in his family, five of whom were able to carry out responsibilities on the farm and add some income to the farm. This farmer was sharecropping and renting because he could not get enough land to sharecrop to take care of all the needs of his family. In the process he followed good, sound practices. Even though he was on this plantation, he would carry out these soil building practices. He would plant the good seeds being recommended through this educational program. In a few years he moved away from this particular plantation and moved into his own home. That answers the first two questions as to becoming educated into the desire to become a farm owner and then he followed sound farm practices as a tenant. -43- He followed a good farm management program, raised his money and bought a home. So maybe in our working with the farmers, we could go into that type of program. Then we are also interested in developing high production per unit. Feeding cows can keep farmers in debt because they are poor producers. Feeding hogs can destroy the entire corn crop. A farmer who had a hog that wouldn't respond to good feeding didn't know too much about the breeding. I believe that a program of good production per unit, if instituted among the farmers, would add a lot to farm ownership. Letting farmers in Louisiana know where they could drop cotton and go into beef cattle production has been inspiration to farmers leaving the tenant status and paying down on a farm and eventually paying it out. Then we have a problem with which Negro tenants are largely concerned. It is the ratio, ethics, and marketing of milk. In One area Negro farmers are not able to sen milk on the public market because of race, or because they cannot get approved for operating a dairy and selling the milk to the public. So we could do something about that in educating the buying public to buy Negroes' finished products and educate the Negroes to put the finished product on the market. That would in turn put income into the Negro· farmer's pocket. He could then invest that capital in land. S. E. MARSHALL, District Agent, Extension Service, Virginia State College, Peters burgh, Virginia I think about the situation we have in Virginia. We are very much concerned about tenure. We are very much concerned about the family size owner-operated farm. For the last fifteen years, Negro farm operators in Virginia have decreased nearly 15,000. And I daresay, that when the 1950 census comes out, we are going to find ourselves down about 4,000 to· 5,000 more. In spite of the fact that the number of landowners in Virginia has decreased, the amount of land they own has increased. The size of the farm has increased. I believe the size of the farm of both the landowner and the operator has increased. I think that that is a rather healthy sign. If we have been thinking in terms that there are many farms which are too small for a family to make a living-and especially the kind and the standard of living that is desirable at this time-It is almost necessary that the average size of the farm be increased. And, too, we have been concerned about the fact that we are certainly going to need fewer people on the land because we are certainly increasing all over this country the production per unit for both -44- land and animal use. If we were to do anything, I think, to try to perpetuate or try to increase this family size owner-operated farm or to build a kind of program that will do that, it should take one, two, or three kinds of trends. The first trend, I believe, should be an educational one that would try to put some of our college graduates back on the farm: as operators, and not have all of them go into extension work and vocational agriculture, and the other educational agencies. We can put some of those folks on the land. They can be living examples and demonstrations of the kind of farm that we want to perpetuate, and, at the same time, be an encouragement for people in other walks of life to give their support in more than one way to the farm people. I think there is a~other trend it should take too. To the family who is out there and having a good level of living-and ·we have many of them all over this country-we should make note of their success and give them some publicity or some talk among our students and people in other walks of life. I think we have neglected that as agricultural workers. Most of the publicity and most of the pictures that we have seen have been made of groups sitting around a table having some kind of party. And if we could just make it of a good standard of living of people out on the farm, I believe it would do a whole lot for our particular line of work, since we are engaged in trying to raise our standard of living. There is one other trend here that we will have to take if we follow this thing in Virginia; and I am speaking particularly about that situation. So far as agriculture is concerned, Virginia is a rather diversified state. We have a section there known as the tobacco section. We have smaller areas which are know for cotton and peanuts. We have another large section in our state that is a good grain and livestock area. Most of those small farms and the farms that are giving us a problem as far as being able to make a good living-and I am not talking about Maryland-have to have some kind of cash income that is going to let the farmers take a part in the total production of commodities and get some cash income so that he might buy electrical equipment, furnishings, and other items that go toward the high standard of living that all America wants. But it happens that most of our small farms are in the peanut and hog sections in which there is no land for sale. Most of those people want their land and when they offer it for sale they offer it at a price that no one would pay. But there are many people in that area who would buy farms if they could get them. But in the grain section there are any number of farms for sale, and at fairly reasonable prices. They are of family size and larger 1£ desired. We are going to have to include in that program a type of training that's going to bring a man out who has been used to the produc- -45- tion of hogs and peanuts into a section where he can produce livestick and grain. I think we are going to have to get him well into this . thing in Virginia. One other thing that we are planning to do is to keep the record of one community at least in each county of a landownership and tenant relationship. That is, the number of tenants and the number of farmers. In their own way, they try to encourage the purchase of farms there by those tenants. But in connection with that-we've been doing that all the time-we always have one or two places that we 'can visit in different counties that show what we are working towardalmost an ideal-in this family ownership farm with a good standard of living. That has done much to encourage our people to want farms. It has done much to encourage them to buy family size farms and to operate them. The thing that I have said that we are attempting to do is to recognize each year with ·a citation of some kind, an outstanding farm family. One other thing that I would like to mention is that this program should include some disposition that will be made of the family farm when the older members of that family retire. I think that is one thing in Virginia which causes a considerable amount of trouble. I know of one or two instances where a farm of about 85 or 90 acres have been divided equally among ten or eleven children. There are other instances, and I know you gentlemen have run into the same thing, where farms have just remained in the heir estate and have been rented out to bring about another tenant in the area. Question: (E. E. Neal) Does the Extension Service offer information on where farms are available for purchase if anyone wants to come for it? Answer: I believe that that service is available through the Extension Service. I think it would be gotten like this. Probably the Extension Director would not have that information at his fingertips; but the person making the inquiry probably has in mind where he wants to find this information, whether it is in Richmond or DeKalk or Thomas County. In that case he will be referred to that county agent who should have that information. In other words, I think the Extension Service would have that information in all ordinary cases. Question: (L. A. Potts) First of all, is there a need for a general policy on improving land tenure and, if so, does the Extension Service have such a policy? Answer: Extension has been increasing its effort in this field and this committee I mentioned to you is taking a lot of time working that out, and there is a lot of research going on to have a -46- background for a program. I think you can say that Extension does have, though it has not been nailed down in concrete form as it should and will be, a program to improve status for Southern farm operators, both white and colored. QuestiOn: I would like to ask the whole conference a question concerning what Mr. Marshall suggested about land not being available in the peanut and hog area, but available in the grain and livestock area. People have moved away from those family type livestock and grain farms in the upper part of the state which, in my mind, is an indication that there is something wrong with that particular type of program there. And I feel that there is a little uncertainty about the wisdom of transferring land to a new type of farming in a place where folks for generations have been doing grain-livestock farming. Are we biting off more than we can chew or taking too big a chance in trying to rehabilitate a different type of farmer into an area where the experts have failed? Answer: I think that in a program that we are going to try to perserve and increase the family operated farm we will have to include some educational aid that will make possible that adjustment. I said that that was the problem in Virginia. The only thing that we need to do so so far as I see is where a man knows how to feed peanuts to hogs, to teach him to feed grain and corn. Statement: I am thinking about farmers who have failed there. In order for land to become available someone must have left it, and there must have been some logic behind his leaving. -47- CONTRIBUTION OF THE FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION TO LAND TENURE I. W. DUGGAN, Governor, Farm Credit Administration, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D. C. I think it is well that you are, this week, taking a critical look at land tenure in the southern States. The problems of land tenure are nothing new. In fact, they are of very long standing. I would like to quote from a paper I prepared in 1939. The title happens to be "Cotton, Land and People: A Statement of the Problem." In fact, I stated the problem rather than trying to answer it. • "Probably one of the most discussed problems in the South is the high rate of farm tenancy. It seems to me, however, that the South's system of tenure or cropping system, and the credit system have grown up together and are so closely entwined that it is difficult to deal with anyone of these problems separately. "Sharecropping dates back to the War between the States 'and is an outgrowth of the conditions following the emancipation of the slaves. The planter had possession of the land, tools and in many cases, equipment, but no money with which to employ labor, The laborer had no money with which to acquire land, tools, or equipment, or to finance his operations, and was unskilled in any occupation except agriculture. Out of this situation grew the sharecropper-tenant system as we have it today. The need for credit to finance crops made it essential that crops be grown for which there was a ready cash market. Cotton was a natural answer to the cash crop problem. "The high rate of farm tenancy in the South is too well known to you to ~equire much discussion. It will be sufficient to remind you that 60 percent of all the farmers in the ten States are tenants or sharecroppers. The percentages range from 47 in North Carolina to 70 in Mississippi. Despite the heavy Negro farm population, there are 40 percent more white than Negro tenants in the South. Tenancy has shown a steady increase, even during the relatively prosperous years of the Twenties. In the State of Oklahoma, for example, which started about 60 years ago as free land to all who would homestead it, we find today that 61 percent of the farmers are tenants. On the average of about 40 percent of the tenants in the South mover every year, and over half move every 2 years. "The credit system of the South with high interest rates has contributed to the tenancy problem. However, providing lower interest credit alone will not solve this problem. If the income from the farm is not sufficient to pay back the principal, a low interest rate in itself would not bring about farm ownership. The press of a dense farm -48- population for land tends to lead to the over capitalization of land values and retards operator ownership." In .dealing with land tenure in the southern States, one of the first ,problems we must face is the question of a dense farm population pressing against limited resources. There just is not enough total farm income in the South to support its dense farm population. The average per capita earnings of rural people is unbelievably small. "There is no hope of correcting these ills through the redistribution of the available income, because that income is so small and so inadequate that even if it were redistributed there still would not be enough to go around. The first problem is to increase the total income going to the South so there will be more to divide among its dense farm population." Progress has been and is being made. However, the crop land per capita of farm population in the South is far too small. In that same paper, back in 1939, I pointed out that in 5 of the 10 States, there were only about 6 acres of crop land per person on farms. The crop land was only about 80-85 percent as productive as the U. S. average. With that problem it is very difficult to move into a solution of the others. While improving, the opportunities for farm people to find employment in industry are far too limited. Most of the South does not have industry or the opportunity for off-the-farm employment in proportion to the population equal to other areas. It is important to solve the off-the-farm employment problem in order to increase farm ownership. Two out of three farm families who have gotten to own their land or farms have gotten some part of the money from savings they made from off-the-farm jobs. The problem that has to be recognized by this group and brought to the attention of the leaders in your community and State is the importance of having industries developed. And we can develop many industries in the South and raise the standard of living in the South without hurting any other area of the country because there is an opportunity to increase consumption of goods right here in the South if we can get production and distribution of all types. We also have to recognize that farms change hands every generation. We find in farm credit that a large percentage of the original land bank borrowers are not the ones who finally payoff the long-term mortgage loans. This is because the farm frequently goes into other hands during the period of a 34-year mortage loan. Our American family-size farm is the cornerstone of democracy; in fact of the free enterprise system. It is on the family-owned farm that our people develop initiative, self-reliance, and independence. -49- Their habits of work have helped us immeasurably in the battle ~f production on the farm and in our factories as well. Their self-reliance developed on the farm has been important on the battlefield where our soldiers, sailors, and marines are having to fight so hard. As you know we are fighting a cold, and at times a hot war to defend the right of indivdual ownership. The individual family farm is the mudsill of our democracy. If it rots, so does democracy. If we lose the muds ill-if it rots into communism or any other "ism"-then we lose dem<,cracy. It is becoming, in some ways, much more difficult for young people to acquire farm ownership. To be economic units that will raise the standard of living, farms have to be larger. We are going into mechanization. It is well that we are making progress now throughout the South in increasing the size and efficiency of our farms. It is well that we are doing it more rapidly during the time when we have op. portunities in industry for full employment. The increasing m~chani­ zation and increasing size of farms require larger capital investments. The average age at which farmers acquire ownership of farms is older than it was a few years ago even when there are mortgages on the farms. It takes much longer even with a few high income years to accumulate adequate funds with which to make a big down payment. In New York State a study was made of a group of farms in 1907, 1917, 1927, 1937 and 1947. The study started with approximately 200 farms and ended with about 70. The acres operated had gone from 132 to 191 acres; the number of cows from 11 up to 25. The study showed that the capital per family-size farm required in 1907 for land, buildings, livestock and equipment was $6,365. In 1947, the capital was $23,141. That's four times as much capital required in 1947 as in 1907. The study also showed that receipts from these farms had gone up nine times from $1,495 per farm to $12,722. Receipts have gone up faster than capital investment. Expenses for farms have gone up from $667 to $9,248-fourteen times. Yes, farming today is a bigger business and more profitable. Farming has always been a gamble and stakes are higher than they ever were 10 or 40 years ago. Money can be made faster on a farm today, and a farmer can lose his shirt faster. If these farmers lost their cash operating expenses every year they could go 9.7 years in 1907 before they would lose all of their capital investment; in 1917, 7 years; in 1927, 5 years; in 1937, 4.1 years; and in 1947, 2.5 years. Total cash operating expenses are more important today in proportion to total investment than they have ever been. Higher operating costs have changed our whole credit picture for farm real estate. In 1907 if a man owned his farm debt free, he could get what little money he needed for operating expenses by borrowing against his land. A man may own his farm debt free today and in 2J~ years lose it by losing his cash operating expenses. This raises serious problems with respect to land tenure. -50- We are developing another period of land inflation. There is pressure from groups of people to buy farms around cities. Workers want to get away from the city to do part-time farming to supplement their incomes or lower their cost of living. And they're buying poor land at inflated prices. Then there's the group of people who'd like to get away from the congested cities to enjoy life, etc. They're buying the better farms at inflated prices. Another group wants to get away from the possibility of being bombed out. They're moving out of the cities and also buying the better farms at inflated prices. Then we have the group of people who have accumulated some funds and want to invest in real estate. They're interested in buying land for an investment. I was at Auburn sometime during last winter. The secretary of the f~rm loan association there reported that he'd had more inquires from people wanting to buy land than he had had at any time since he has been secretary of the association. There were very few wanting to borrow money ... most of them wanted to buy land as investment. As a result, we have land prices going up. In 1920 the index based on the 1912-14 average land values reached a postwar peak and was 177. It was 179 in November 1950. Inflation and high prices increase the pressure on farmers to raise cotton. Farmers in the South didn't ·go into cotton originally because they necessarily wanted to. They had to have a cash crop in the beginning. Then with the dense farm population, more productive hours could be put on cotton, tobacco, and truck crops. To keep that population even partially employed they had to produce cotton. With livestock there would have to be larger units and fewer people on farms. It is a problem for other people, as well as agricultural people, to find off-the-farm employment for people who cannot be used on the farm efficiently. We don't want any able-bodied group condemned to a subsistence type of livelihood. Looking back to Farm Credit and what we can do. I think you are more or less familiar with it. farm Credit is composed of farmer owned cooperative credit units and Government owned institutions which are serving the cooperative institutions. We have the Federal land bank system . . . the oldest unit in the Farm Credit System. There are roughly 13,000 farmers in Alabama who have Federal land bank loans. Since its organization in 1916, 44,000 farmers in the State have borrowed from the land bank. Today there are 300,000 farmers in the entire United States who are using this system. This is not as many as there could be because many farmers now get credit from other sources such as commercial banks, insurance companies and individuals who almost or actually quit lending during the early 1930's and have now come back pretty heavily into the mortgage lending field. -51- The 12 land banks and the 1,200 national farm associations are wholly owned by farmers. There is not a penny of Government capital now in any of the land banks. All the Government capital has been repaid. It shows that farmers can manage and operate their own credit systems and make a success of them. All we do in Washington is to · examine and supervise the land banks and farm loan associations. Our work is somewhat comparable to the work of the Comptroller of the Currency in supervising and examining national banks. The land bank system, of course, sets the pace in making 20 to 34-year loans, on normal agricultural values rather than speculative values. During the depression land bank loans frequently were higher than the actual market prices at that time. In fact in many cases there wasn't a market price. These loans were based on normal agricultural values. Loans are still based on normal agricultural values on the assumpt~on that a loan which is not good for the bank is not good for the borrower; that a loan which is good for the borrower is good for the bank. There's a field of work for the Farmers Home Administration for farmers who need a Government subsidy because they cannot or haven't reached the stage where they are able to use cooperative credit or other types of commercial credit. In many cases they do not have a large enough down payment to bring the loan down to 65 percent of the normal agricultural value which is the maximum the land banks can loan. The history of the land banks and farm loan associations has demonstrated that these credit cooperatives are workable; that farmers can work them, manage them, operate them, and capitalize them. The land banks have $260 million of capital and reserves. At the low ratio of 1 to 10 the associations could lend $2.6 billion without having to go back to the Government for additional capital. They are in good financial condition and are able to serve the farmers' needs if land prices can be kept from getting too high. So much for the land bank system. Now for the production credit system. With 7,200 borrowers in Alabama last year, which is between 3 and 4 percent of the farmers in the State, $13 million in loans were made by 8 production credit associations in the State. I am sure you are familiar with this type of production loan. The farmer works out a budget at the beginning of the year in which he asks for the money as he needs it during the year and agrees to repay it as he sells his crops or livestock products. He pays interest on the loan only for the time he is actually using the money which is, on the average, about 6 months. He does not have to pay interest on money which he does not use. On the average, farmers get about four advances and make about four repayments a year on production credit loans. There is about $18 million of Government capital now invested in the PCA's compared to over $90 mil- -52- lion at the peak. So they are rapidly becoming farmer owned, coopera. tive credit institutions. The funds production credit associations and the land banks lend are not Government funds at all. The funds they lend are gotten through the sale of bonds and debentures to investors by the intermediate credit banks and the land banks. These bonds and debentures are not guaranteed by the government. If the issuing banks can't pay them off, the Government has no liability. These banks have always been able to get favorable rates-not as high as the best corporations pay, but not as low as the Government gets its money. Every farmer who gets a loan in Alabama is affected by the interest rates paid by the intermediate credit banks and the land banks. Sound credit and low interest rates are not enough in themselves to increase farm ownership in the South. They are important and necessary and I think we should have them, but alone they are not going to insure farm ownership of family-size farms. When we have established a definition for an efficient, economic family-size farm, we'll have a better objective in farm credit. If a lender helps a man get located on an uneconomical farm unit, he is going to have to lower the living standards of himself and his family. Then when it comes to the time of recession he'll be disillusioned and the lender will not have done him a service. We must not overlook the fact, however, that the desire for farm ownership must be strong enough so that farm families are willing to cooperate in very way possible to achieve their goal. This cooperation calls for hard work on the part of every member of the family. It frequently means sacrificing the standard of living until the family has built up a farm business and paid off its debt. The need for that spirit of family cooperation holds true just as much today as it ever did, and it will continue to do so in the future. The women probably contribute more to the farm than the men. They are willing to sacrifice and contribute to the productivity of the farm. Local, State, and Federal agencies can set the rules of the game and help make sure farm credit is available, but in a free democracy none of these agencies can give anyone a farm. The right to own property is the keystone of our democracy and of the free enterprise system. So long as we have courts to protect this right, we shall always be a free and great people. That's because the Government guarantees protection of the right to own property. Without this protection the strong and the cunning could take property away from the weak, and they would do it. This key to our democracy was not easily attained and we are not going to give it up easily. Our American family farm has grown and prospered from it. Our democratic system of free enterprise which made this possible is what our Nation is now called upon to defend and to protect. -53- THE INFLUENCE OF FHA ON LAND OWNERSHIP HOWARD BERTSCH, Director, Farm Ownership Division, Farmers Home Administration, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, .D. C. I consider it a very great honor to represent the Farmers Home Administration at the conference here today. I particularly want to commend those people responsible for framing a conference dedicated to a discussion of the land tenure problems of the South. I think there is no other area of discussion which would bring our attention to bear on a problem more vital to American agriculture; I think there is no other phase of the agricultural pattern which is likely to have a more widespread effect on the nation's farm families-a disastrous effect if we don't come up with the right answers to this problem; a wholesome and prosperity-producing effect if we are able to find the right answers. I think it's a discussion that will not be resolved here in this conference; it will not be resolved this year. It's a discussion that must continue; it must go ·on and on and on. This conference of professional agricultural workers is certainly to be commended for initiating such a discussion at this time. I think there is no single aspect of the whole agricultural panorama which has the international implications associated with the question of land tenure. It seems to me that the fundamental challenge facing the freedom loving people of the world here and nowtoday-is this: We, the freedom loving countries, must demonstratenot discuss, but demonstrate-and by that demonstration convince the whole world that a democratic form of government, a free government, provides an environment in which little people can acquire for their own a share in their nation's land resources; a stake in their country and their country's destiny. The present unrest in China and other parts of Asia and the unrest in practically every heavily settled portion of the world is primarily the result of the failure of the land controlling groups in those countries to recognize the significance of the land tenure problem. The principal reason that communism is prevailing in China today is because the Nationalist government was unable, or unwilling, to give the Chinese people a stake in the land resources of China. You see, the communists have capitalized upon this inertia and they've promised the people of China-falsely, no doubt; but, nevertheless promised them-some share in their country's land resources under a communist regime. Now, even though those promises are patently false, a promise which is subject to question is more attractive to a man without anything than no offer at allno hope at all. So the Chinese people, people of other races and countries whose existing governments have failed to cope with the problem and failed to show an interest in the problem of land tenure, -54- have turned to the first form of government that has offered them some solution to this, their major problem. We must see that it doesn't happen here. That's why the theme of your conference here is such a fundamental one from an international standpoint. We must marshall the national interest, create an awareness of the danger, and not only establish, but also implement a national policy which will make it crystal clear to all the peoples of the world that a free people living under a democratic form of government is provided an environment and given an opportunity to share in the benefits that result in prosperity for all. There are national implications of importance at this stage. I have been attending meetings of Farmers Home Administration employees looking to the new year and our operations during the new year, and generally speaking, there has been this sort of expression at those meetings. About the agricultural future, here's what agricultural economists are saying: If we continue what used to be called the cold war with which we now call the luke-warm war, then the United States will maintain an expanding defense budget, and there will be money pumped into the economy as a result of that. Agriculture is likely to enjoy a level of economy which will be a substantial one. However, if we have all out mobilization, then there will be more money pumped into the economic stream and agriculture is likely to enjoy a higher level of economy in 1951. Even if by some means we are able to negotiate an agreement between the "isms" and the freedom loving countries we probably must, in order to be strong, spend more money for defense than has been our peace-time habit. We are carrying a terrific national debt which must be retired in an orderly fashion. So, even in the most favorable alternative, the economy is going to be a pretty substantial one. We haven't found any alternative which might mean unemployment. With any of these three alternatives, one of the most important aspects of our national economy is full productivity-everybody making his maximum contribution to the national economy. We've got to keep incomes at a high level. Without any social implications at all; without any humantarian implications at all, it's just dollar-wise for this great country of ours to have every man in the economy working full time making his maximum contribution. High productivity is the greatest counteraction to potential inflation. I am not an economist. I am repeating what is said by informed people in whom I have confidence. In 1940-41 when we had to mobilize and expand production during the war, we had a big reservoir of unemployed people whom we could thrust into industry and agriculture, and we could build up our economy quickly because of the under-employment. What's the situation now? Where is this under-employment? The Secretary of -55- Agriculture has said-with substantiating evidence-the biggest untapped reservoir of unemployment in the United States today is represented by the 2,000,000 farm families who, last year, had incomes of $2,000 or less. They are under-employed on their farms. They haven't a full time job at home; and our challenge then to bolster the national economy is to put those 2,000,000 farm families efficiently, productively at work full time. Many of them, of course, have an agricultural culture and an agricultural tradition, and they'll be effectively put to work full time only if they're put to work on farms. And they can be put to work productively and full time on the farms only if the land tenure problem is resolved; only if they secure the occupancy of the right kind of farms. So, to make the maximum contribution and to shore up this national economy of ours-and to assure a prosperous, stable America-we must continue the examination, which you folks have started here, of this problem of land tenure and secure occupancy so that those 2,000,000 farm families in the country will be making their maximum contribution to the economy. It's cheaper for the United States to find a way to put those people to work than it is not to put them to work. That my organization, the Farm~rs Home Administration, should be interested in land tenure is not strange when we recall that the preamble of our basic legislation clearly states the the objective of that legislation is "to promote more secure occupancy of farms and farm homes." That's why our organization was created. Secure occupancy of farms and farm homes is, I submit, the land tenure objective about which you're talking here. Secure occupancy must necessarily be occupancy on a sound basis: it must be occupancy on a basis that will support a living level compatible with what somebody yesterday referred to as the "American standard of living." That's a term we've come to employ. It's a rather general but nevertheless adequate term. To tie it down, I can tell you what it means to me and to those of us in the Farmers Home Administration. Among other things, it means safe and sanitary housing; housing with electric lights, running water, and inside plumbing. It means household conveniences such as radios, refrigerators, washing machines. It means a nutritious and adequate diet, educational opportunities for young people. It means medical care and hospitalization. We don't have to define with precision what the "American standard of living" is, but that's part of what it means to us. And I think we can proceed assuming general agreement. So we're talking about secure occupancy of the kind of farms that are good enough (and well enough farmed) so that they'll return sufficient income to support that kind of living level. I'll repeat that secure occupancy-and I'm using secure occup~ncy as though it were synonomous with desirable land tenure-means occupancy of the kind of farm which, when operated efficiently by a farm family -56- possessing adequate managerial ability, will provide sufficient return to permit living comforts that to us represent the "American standard of living." I think we need to find out what kind of influence we can agree ought to be exerted on .the land tenure policy. I am going to suggest that the right kind of land tenure influence means influence exerted in the direction of providing diligent, efficient farm families possessing managerial ability with land resources adequate to the production of incomes sufficient to provide the level of living which we've been talking about. Isn't that our land tenure objective? That is, bring the right kind of farm families and the right kind of farms together. And provide the kind of tenure that will permit them to be secure in the occupancy and operation of those farms. Now, I propose to test with you some of the basic policies of the Farmers Home Administration. Then I propose to test with you the execution of those policies. I think that will enable us to see not only what the influence of the Farmers Home Administration in this direction is intended to be as expressed by the policies but also the extent to which this influence has been actually exerted in the execution of those policies. I am not going to attempt to defend our deficiencies. 'We have some deficiencies. They're not deficiencies of the spirit. I think they are, rather, deficiencies of the body. We just haven't accomplished as much as we've wanted to accomplish; as much as needed to be accomplished. Some of the deficiencies are a result of the cautious beginning to which the Congress wisely limited our operations until the methods to be used had proved to be sound. Some are due to disruptions in the agricultural economy which have been going on for the past ten years. And some are due to our human inadequacies. So, with your help, your questions, and your discussion, I'd like first to test some of our basic policies. I think we have agreed that the right land tenure influence should be one that brings together qualified farm families and adequate farms. The two policies of the Farmers Home Administration we ought to test initially, then, are the policies with respect to what is a qualified farm family and what is an adequate farm. In discussing with you what is an adequate farm, I'd like to pUrsue an observation made here yesterday that it took a $15,000 investment to establish an efficient family size farm. I'd agree generally that investments totaling not less than $15,000, and up to $35,000 or $40,000 are within the family size farm range. That includes investment in both real estate and operating capital. The right kind of farm frequently has invested about as much in operating capital as in real estate. It generally holds true that when we refer to a $20,000 investment, we mean about $10,000 in real estate and $10,000 in machinery, livestock, and other operating capital. -57- We must keep in mind that by the right kind of families, we mean farm families who have developed the managerial ability to manage a $20,000 business in a highly competitive field. There is no more competitive business on earth than the farming business. I think you must conclude that professional agricultural workers have a tremendous responsibility if it means developing in young farm people the kind of managerial skills that will permit successful, competitive management of a $20,000 business. We are not referring to those people who can't compete elsewhere slipping into the agricultural scheme and finding a way to compete there. We're talking about secure occupancy, which means occupancy that will permit competition, because nobody is secure in the occupany of a farm whether he is an owner or whether he is a tenant unless that farm is so managed as to enable the operator to successfully compete, to realize a profit, and to remain there. He can't remain there year after year operating at a loss even though he is an owner. And even if he remained the owner he still wouldn't be secure in his agricultural operations if such security means living decently. Someone has recorded on the blackboard here a definition of a family farm as follows: "a farm that's operated with family labor; a farm that provides security and stability for the family; a farm on which the family makes most of the management decisions; a farm that provides for conservation of resources; a farm that produces efficiently the needed agricultural products; and a farm that provides for development of human personalities." I think that a farm that provides an acceptable level of living implies a farm that will permit the development of human personalities. For the guidance of the Farm Ownership program, the Farmers Home Admnistration has developed the following definition: an efficient family-type farm-management unit is a farm which furnishes maximum, productive employment for an average farm family assuming justifiable use of labor saving equipment on the farm and in the home and operation of the farm on a sustained or increasing yield basis. It is a farm which an average farm family can opearte successfully without employing outside labor, except during seasonal peakload periods. Such a farm must have the capacity to yield income on the basis of long-time prices which will maintain an average farm family according to acceptable living standards, pay annual operating expenses, pay for and maintain necessary livestock and farm and home equipment, and payoff the loan. I should like to comment on what appears to me to be some of the significant elements in that definition. First, the reference to justifiable use of labor saving equipment has a distinct bearing on the resultant size of farm. A farm that would provide productive employ- -58- ment for a farm family with a hoe in its hand would be substantially different from one which would provide productive employment for a farm family with a tractor and tractor-drawn equipment. The latter farm would doubtless permit the more efficient use of farm labor with corresponding increase in the level of living for the farm family and a tremendously increased likelihood of being able to successfully compete in the present agricultural economy. The reference to providing productive employment with a farming system that would result in sustained or increasing yields is significant. A farm might utilize farm labor and provide adequate income temporarily under a system of farming which resulted in the depletion of soil resources. However, under such a system we would, within a relatively short period, find ourselves with a farm possessing inadequate soil resources to continue to use family labor efficiently or to produce adequate income. The third element in this definition to which I call your attention is the reference to measuring the farm's capacity to yield income on the basis of long-time prices. Farms which under present day high prices for agricultural commodities would appear to be efficient units might well be productive of so little income over the long pull that in periods of reduced prices the owner and his family would be forced to market their labor inefficiently, sacrifice their level of living, and generally find themselves in a position where they could not successfully compete. Now, let us turn our attention to the kind of family which has a reasonable likelihood of success in the operation of an efficient familytype farm. The family which we can reasonably expect to help in acquiring secure occupancy of the land must be a family with the diligence, the industry, the integrity, and the managerial ability required to operate a business of sufficient size to give that family productive employment, employment which will result in income sufficient to provide the living level to which we have referred. Let us test the policy of the Farmers Home Administration with respect to qualified families. Legally, we may make Farm Ownership loans only to those families which our locally established county committee is willing to certify as having a reasonable chance of success. These committees are made up of three local persons, two of whom must be farmers. We provide these committees with certain guidelines based upon our experience of twelve years in making Farm Ownership loans. I shall briefly touch upon some of those guidelines which I think are most important. These are the characteristics which in our judgment and on the basis of our experience seem to indicate a reasonable likelihood of success. Successful farmers seem to have had them; unsuccessful farmers seem to have lacked them. First, a family to qualify must be engaged in farming or have been engaged recently in farming as a means of providing the major portion of the family income. Our pro- -59- gram is not a back-to-the-land movement. We are authorized by law to make loans only to farm families. There is one exception to that, which is for veterans. The reason is obvious. An applicant who has been out fighting for his country couldn't have been recently engaged in agriculture or be currently engaged in agriculture. The law was amended to qualify such a veteran. The best evidence that an individual is interested in farming is for him to be engaged in farming. He has to be interested in farming or he is not likely to be successful. Second, he must be willing to cooperate in instituting and carrying out proper farming and conservation practices, and sound farm and home management practices. That's one of the best COlltributions we can make to secure farm tenure. We believe that unless an individual expresses a willingness to carryon good farming, to move progressively into sound farming operations using good farming practices, then he is not likely to succeed; and we do not undertake to establish him as a farm owner. He must possess integrity, industry and other qualities evidencing good character. He must show a proper attitude in meeting his debt obligations. He must have a sincere desire for stability of residence; he must not be a drifter. He must be interested in operating a family-type farm. He must not have excessive non-real estate debts. Wherever practicable, preference will be given to those applicants who are able to make an initial down payment or who are owners of livestock and farm implements necessary to carry out successful farm operations. With no down payment or a relatively small down payment, chances of success depend upon a good efficient family-type farm-management unit, a good system of farming, and an applicant with managerial ability who is carrying out good farming practices. Those elements on the basis of our experit ence seem to be far more important - han whether a man pays ten or twenty percent down. We have discussed two of our basic policies, providing the right kind of farms and finding qualified families. It is our conviction that those policies, if properly executed, will exert the right kind of influence on the land tenure pattern of America. Now let us test the execution of these policies. Since 1938, under these policies, about 60,000 families have received loans amounting to about $350,000,000. Most of those loans have been for the acquisition of farms. In 1946 our authority was expanded to include not only loans to tenants for the acquisition of farms but also to owners of undersized farms to round them out into adequate efficient family.type farms, and for further development to owners of farms which were big enough but weren't well enough developed. The first category is known as purchase loans; the second as enlargement loans; and the third as development loans. They start at different points but all end up with the same kind of farm-an efficient family-type -60- farm-management unit. The two latter authorizations represent quite a stride; they represent a recognition on the part of the Congress that farm tenants are not the only group in American agriculture suffering from insecure tenure. I'm sure you'll agree that the owner of a farm who doesn't have adequate land resources to permit productive use of family labor may be worse off than a farm tenant, because he has his roots down enough to be reluctant to get up and move away. His very ownership keeps him there in poverty, underemployed, and on a basis which can't support ' decent safe and sanitary housing or any of the other' elements necessary to dignified living. So there should be concern for the owner-occupant of the underdeveloped or inadequate farm. He's destined to a life of underemployment, low income, and a level of living incompatible with that most farm people aspire to. Most of these 60,000 loans were made prior to 1946 so most of them were purchase loans. About 20,000-nearly one-third-have been paid in full. They were all amortized over a forty-year period, but none of the loans were over twelve years old when they were repaid. Between two-thirds and three-fourths of those 20,000 borrowers remained in possession and operation of the farm at the time the loans were paid in full. The other one-third or one-fourth were paid in full from the sale of the farm. We do not consider those who paid by selling out success cases. They do not represent a contribution by the Farmers Home Administration in improving the security of farm tenure. How ever, the other two-thirds-about 14,000-paid for their farms principally from farm income. For those people, we fairly well achieved our objective. We did establish them in secure occupancy. Sixty-five percent-25,000-of the 40,000 borrowers still indebted for their farms have paid more than is due on their notes. Those 25,000 farm families represent good judgment on the part of the county committee both with respect to selecting the right kind of family and the right kind of farm. They represent good farms and good farm management. I don't want to imply that the only measure of success is a fiscal measure; but it is one measure that is generally accepted by the public and it's a measure that is far simpler to establish than those which are less tangible. We are now assembling information which will, five years from now, be very valuable in measuring family progress by other factors such as change in net income, gross income, family living expense (which somewhat reflects level of living), change in laborsaving devices which are enjoyed on the farm and in the home, and the extent to which better farming practices have been adopted. Twenty percent-about 8,000-of the 40,000 borrowers are current with the installments on their notes. They're neither ahead nor behind. I don't know whether they're secure in the occupancy of their farms or not; but they are not yet seriously insecure. The bulk of those will move into the successful category. Some of them, by improvin~ their farms, -61- have built up their equity in that fashion rather than by reducing their debt. Some of them, while they have kept their note payments current, have lost equity in their farms by letting their farms depreciate. I suspect that we'd just better say those folks have not yet succeeded or failed; they can go either direction. Fifteen percent-6,OOOof those 40,000 have paid less at this moment than the scheduled installments on their notes. They have paid an average of $250 less than they should have paid by this time which represents a little less than an annual payment. I don't know whether they're succeeding or not. However, they are in danger of failing to become securely established on their farms. The important analysis that we must constantly make of our operations as stewards of a public trust-a public program-is how well we accomplish the pronounced objectives of our legislation; how well are we doing in establishing secure occupancy of farms by farm people. The Farmers Home Administration is better equipped now to discharge this responsibility than ever before. I think we are equipped to make a contribution to the establishment soundly and securely on farms of many farm families who would not otherwise become so established. I submit that secure occupancy implies occupancy of the right kind of farms by the right kind of farm families and that this must be our land tenure objective in the United States. The Farmers Home Administration will make a substantial contribution to the achievement of such an objective. -62- SYMPOSIUM Pr?gram and Progress in Establishing Individuals on Farms ALVA TABOR, State Teacher Trainer, Fort Valley State College Fort Valley, Georgia Succe~s with carrying out the establishment phase of our objective has been slow, and I believe this is true primarily for the reasons that the original Smith-Hughes Act did not provide funds for assisting boys and farmers to purchase farms on which to become established farmers, and those responsible for conduct of the training on the local or community level have too long neglected their responsibility for making a definite approach toward a solution of this phase of the total objective of all vocational training in agriculture which is establishment of individuals on farms. In Georgia, the State Division of Vocational Education, in cooperation with the State Farmers Home Administration, launched an informal cooperative program in February, 1950, the primary objective of which is the establishment of all trained and worthy individuals who can qualify for establishment on farms. It is not possible to present a complete picture of the many fine services which each of .t he cooperative state programs has carried out during the year in connection with establishing individuals on farms. The activities sketched here indicate that State leaders are endeavoring to find a better working program for establishing individuals on farms. As a summary of progress achieved under the cooperative program, I shall read a statement received from Mr. R. L. Vansant, State Director, Farmers Home Administration. I quote: "In giving you the approximate figures on the number of Negroes who have been assisted by our program during the period January 1 through December 15, 1950, I am breaking them down into two categories, namely, real estate loans and production loans. Real Estate Loans-Real estate loans have been made to 47 Negro applicants during the above period. Even though we do not have an accurate figure on the number of veterans and nonveterans receiving these loans, I would estimate that approximately 75 percent were non-veterans and 25 percent were veterans. Of the above number, five were housing loans and the remainder were farm ownership loans. Production Loans-We are servicing through our Production Loan program approximately 3,000 Negro farrAers, about 2,600 of whom received loans during 1950. This represents approxi-63- mately 35 per cent of all operating loans made in Georgia. I regret that is is impossible for us to break this figure down between veterans and non-veterans but it is my judgm6'll that at least 25 percent of the production loans were made to Negro veterans. As you and I have discussed on several occasions during the past year, I believe that the groundwork is laid for an increasing number of applications in our respective county offices from good Negro farmers which will result in an increasing number of loans being made during this year. Thanks to you and your splendid staff for the cooperation you have given us in getting the right information to Negro farmers about the services that we are in position to offer. We are very happy to work with you in an effort to serve efficiently Negro farmers in Georgia. I trust that you will have a most profitable meeting in Tuskegee." Some Findings 1. Many farmers eligible for benefiting under the local provisions of the several types of current programs need much assistance with preparation of their formal application blank. 2. Too many applicants for loans to become established on farms do not meet the minimum requirements as to the accumulation of money, equipment, and farming ability. 3. Some applicants approved for loans are having difficulty in locating a desirable farm to purchase. 4. Approximately 40 percent of our teachers did not actively participate in the program of establishment of individuals on farms during the past year. 5. There is a serious need for educational meetings to be conducted for farm leaders on the local level, and dealing with loan provisions of the various farm financing programs. I believe the year 1950 marked the beginning of a tum for the better in establishing individuals on farms in Georgia, and the informal and unofficial cooperative program will definitely lead to an expanded extent of establishing individuals on farms during the current year. -64- J. R. THOMAS, State Itinerant Teacher Trainer, Virginia State College, Petersburg, Virginia I want to give you a brief picture of what is happening in the institutional on-the-fann training program in Virginia. I wish to impart something of the program of vocational education in agriculture which is designed to get young men established in farming. The program of vocational -agriculture works both with the in-school and the out-ofschool group. I want to give you a brief picture of the out-of-school program as represented by the institutional on-the-farm training for veterans in the State of Virginia as to the establishment in farming. This isn't such a very fine picture at the present as it was during the days when 35 areas out of the 49 counties in Virginia worked their on-the-farm training program. It involved 1,360 young farmers. At the present time-and this program is still in operation, a little less than four years-488 or of the 1,360 young fanners are definitely established in farming. There are 496 who are in the process of becoming established. * What we mean by being established is developing a family size, owner-operated farm, and being established, have complete control over the farm business. Those are the qualities of becoming established for those who do not own a fann or do not have full control over the management of the farm. They are the ones who are largely working with their fathers and mothers who are owners of the farm. There are 362 who will not and cannot become established. Of these, 3.4% of the young men are interested in becoming established. About 18.6% are not interested. I think you may recall that many veterans who are in the program probably are in because of the subsistence that they get from the C. I. Bill. Another interesting thing about this program is that with these 1,360 veterans-and that's about all the young farmers in the veterans program because we did not cover all the areas-there is the problem of availability of farms. That is one of the problems that these young men are facing; whether or not they can secure farms that are the size, location, and have the quality of land that will enable them to make a go in farming. There are only about sixteen of these thirty-five areas that report that they have enough farms for those who desire to become established. And there are eighteen areas-about 51% of the total areas studied-that do not have enough fanns for those who desire to become established. Some of the problems that young farmers, are facing in becoming established, I have tried to place in the order that was given in the replies. They are, namely: -65- 1. Lack of Finance. They do not have enough money and cannot secure reasonable credit; and they lack the capital to invest. 2. Good farms are not available. That is, the kind, size, location of farm suited for purchase or for rent. Another problem is renting suitable farms for profitable agreement. Also, there are certain areas where Negroes cannot buy farms. 3. Farm management. There is a poor distribution of labor and insufficient family labor to carry on a good farm program. What labor there is is very poorly distributed. Too, some of these farms are cheaply bought. There is lack of precedent among Negro farmers for successful farm operation. I was very much disturbed about that one because I didn't know exactly what that will mean other than the fact that there are not enough Negro farmers who are advanced - in carrying out good farm practices to entice young men to want to become farmers. There is a reason for that. They are not willing to accept new conquests in farming and they lack the know-how. Another problem is securing suitable tenants; that is, renters and cropsharers. And still another problem in getting established is inflation, the high prices of desirable livestock, farm land, and interest rates. In order to get around some of these problems the following procedures have been proven most successful in getting parents to employ the necessary legal steps to insure the young man of legal I?ossession of the farm at the death of the parents: 1. Getting the parents to leave the farm to the young men. 2. Pointing out to the parents the loss of the farm to the family because no legal provisions were made for dividing the farm . 3. · Getting the confidence of the parents by playing up successful father and son agreements. 4. Purchasing the interest of the other heirs. 5. Getting parents to purchase other property for other heirs. One father purchased city property for those children who wanted to go to the city so that they could fall heir to that property and he could leave the farm to those who wanted to remain on the farm. 6. Getting the parents to form a corporation of all the heirs of the farm and letting them operate it for the other heirs. 7. This one the legality of I am not sure, but it's holding the investments made by individuals as judgments against- the farm, 8. Getting young men to purchase machinery, land, delinquent farms, and interests of other heirs in the farm. -66- 9. Increasing the capital, the source of income; that is, changing from a one-share basis to a one-fourth share basis. 10. Getting a long time lease with an option to purchase the farm, or getting credit through the Farmers Home Administration. 11. Building confidence in the young men who are trying to get established. This can be done by pointing out the advantages and the value of farm ownership, developing a desire to become established, and working up the establishment ladder. The general coments of those supplying the information that made up my talk were, namely: 1. There is not enough available farm land for purchase. 2. Negroes cannot purchase or rent gflod farms. 3. No desire to change the status of hired hand or sharecropper. He'd rather be a hired hand or sharecropper than an owner-operator. 4. It's hard to get loans at 4%. 5. The farms, usually, are too small. A. G. GoRDON, State Itinerant Teacher Trainer, Alcorn A & M College, Alcorn, Mississippi In Mississippi in 1900 there were 85.5% of the people who were farm operators, and 15.3% who were owners. This was out of a total of 120,000 Negroes in Mississippi at that time. This shows that there were about 15,000 owners. Of the farms operated in 1945, there were 158,000 total operators with a 16% ownership, which gives about 25,000 owners in Mississippi at the present. I think this will go up in the next few years. These figures show that not only have the boys who are already farmers been kept on the farm, but individual ownership has increased 10,000. The percentage doesn't show the increase that we'd like, but at least it shows some progress. In 1930 when there were only thirty-five Negro agriculture teachers in Mississippi the farm ownership was still 13%. But in 1940 there were 128 departments of vocational agriculture. Until this time 15.7% of the farm operators were owners. In recent years very much has been talked about concerning establishment in farming in our state, and teachers of vocational agriculture have made special effort to locate and to let the eligible buyers know of land which can be purchased, and also information on the lending agencies. This information has been given in summer conferences and short courses. During the short course in 1945, the -67- Fann Credit Administration was asked to send all of the teachers of vocational agriculture a handbook that they had gotten out on farm credit. And late issues of the same book have been placed in the hands of every vocational teacher in order that he might know the long term and short term lending agencies so that the persons wanting to purchase farms could take advantage of them. O. J. THOMAS, State Itinerant Teacher Trainer, Prairie View . State College, Pairie View, Texas The report that I'm going to make is concerned primarily with a resul of working with approximately 180 departments of vocational agriculture in Texas, and it will have to do also with a federal program in vocational agriculture and education which is being sponsored and carried out through the Veterans Administration. The two programs working from the reports of the State Board of Education parallel, and a very close-up cooperative basis of a number of times in the same school, and with a part of the same facilities. Of all the objectives set forth in the National Vocational Act for education and agriculture, the one which strikes me as the core is to develop effective ability to become established in fanning or to make a beginning and advance in farming. Whatever else we may have accomplished in our program in agricultural education, our major concern is to what extent are we achieving this objective. Fann use and adult farmers need training and assistance which will give them aid in becoming successfully established on fanns, and unless this training and assistance is given, either one or two things will likely result-they11 leave the farm or they will remain there on a low income and low standard of living. Either one is unsatisfactory. In Texas, while we have never been able to achieve a topmost goal in .this area of service, we are proud of the fact that through our program of training in vocational agriculture, in many communities the leading fanners are fonner students of vocational agriculture. Other fonner students are engaged in teaching vocational agriculture, extension service, agricultural service for the government, and occupations related to agriculture; still others, of course, have found occupations or employment in areas not related to agriculture. According to James W. Husband, in his master's thesis in 1938, "Occupational Status of Former Agricultural Students From TwentyThree Schools in the White Training Areas of Texas" (his thesis having been done at Colorado State College), of 933 fonner students studied 65% of those who studied vocational agriculture from one to -68- two years were farmers, 25% of them owners. Seventy-seven per cent of the thr~e.:year students were farming, and 14% of them were farm owners. The following data were taken from a thesis written by Mr. Sidney E. Palmer, who is one of the district supervisors of agricultural education in Texas. This thesis was done at Colorado, also. The title of the thesis is "The Establishment of Negro Boys in Farming." One hundred former students of vocational agriculture who were established and 100 who were not establish~d in farming were studied. Of the 100 established, 73 were influenced by the vocational agriculture teachers; 64 to earn money; 60 by successful farmers; 40 by parents; 45 were interested in outdoor life; 22 by county agents; and 20 by the school principals. To give an account of difficulties encountered by 100 boys who were established in farming: 61 had difficulty in securing farm machinery, 64 in securing workstock, 42 in securing seeds, 63 in securing a loan, and 27 in securing living quarters. The 100 boys had a total of 257 difficulties. These difficulties were overcome as follows: 38 rented additional farmland; 29 were aided by parents with rental fees; 29 were aided by parents in securing loans with credit; 21 were left farms by parents who withdrew; 18 fathers furnished operating capital; and 17 parents assisted in building and renting homes. The 100 boys established in farming had a total income of $130,687.00. Seventy-one per cent of the boys reported that the agriculture teachers had made regular visits to their farms. Sixty-two per cent stated they had been assisted through instruction by the teachers in organized classes, and 64% had been instructed through special conferences on the farm. Since World War II, the veterans training program in agriculture has opened a new area for the training of young farmer groups which is made up of four former students of vocational agriculture and those who have had no former training. With this program greater emphasis has been placed on comprehensive farm programs. Opportunities for learning through experience, agricultural training, and production and conservation are active programs. I have three stories of young men who have become successfully established in farming. They were compiled in 1948. These stories, of course, consist of from two to three pages each, and time forbids that I read them. The stories start with the young men in the beginning, and are related throughout concerning their program and how they made step by step advancement from year to year. I also have a copy of a summarized statement of on-the-farm training for Negro and white veterans in Texas. I'd like to read a few statements from it. -69- There have been 46,257 veterans enrolled in the farm program since 1946; there are 22,380 enrolled at this time. All of our agricultural agents, as well as the personnel of our regional office of the Veterans Administration, have cooperated in most instances in getting this program over. There are 12,278 veterans owning their own farms; 7,804 of whom purchased farms since the enrollment in 1946. A. FLOYD, State Itinerant Teacher Trainer, Tuskegee Institute, Alabama I believe we have as many definitions for establishment on farms as we do individuals in this room. When is a person established on a farm? We mean by that that a person owns or rents his farm. I will venture one definition of what I · think farm establishment means. Let us say that the person is perhaps established on a farm when he is producing or he realizes more than a half of his income or his living from the farm, and related farm endeavors. Farming itself consists of other activity other than actual plowing, raising animals, etc. It may consist of woodcutting, and activities of ' that kind. Let's say then, for the sake of argument, that a person is established on a farm when he realizes more than half of his income from farm operations and related activities. I have an annual report for institutional on-the-farm training for veterans from which I am going to read a few statements which will, perhaps, give,you some idea of the progress (I'm oot going too deeply into the program) that has been done previously. We have-and there's no separation of the racial groups here17,187 veterans in the program who are married. Of that number who are married, there are 65,351 dependents who must receive their living from the farm. Now the educational status of this group. The number who completed fifth grade, 5,616. The number who completed seventh grade, 5,141. The number who completed ninth grade, 4,529. The number who completed twelfth grade, 2,970. The number of college graduates other than in agriculture, 67. The number of white trainees, 16,381. the number of colored, 3,814. The number of farm owners, 9,462; cash renters, 4,865; sharecroppers, 5,868. The number who purchased farms this year, 1,371. The number planning to purchase farms next year, 2,906. -70- S. B. SIMMONS, Supervisor, Vocational Agriculture, A & T College, Greensboro, North Carolina I came to this conference to learn something about land tenure. No specIal effort was made to prepare a report. One of our great problems in North Carolina is effectively interesting boys and young men in becoming partners with their parents on the farm. This greatly cqncerns me for we are losing too many young men and farms. I confess the people engaged in the work I represent must do more to improve land tenure in my State. Our director is fundamentally interested in rural youth and better land tenure. His support, combined with efforts now being made, and the stimulation we hope to give should enable us to make substantial gains in land tenure improvement in North Carolina. -71- 'THE PLACE OF LOCAL BANKS, INSURANCE COMPANIES AND THE CHURCH IN IMPROVING AND INCREASING FARM OWNERSHIP W. S. HORNSBY, Executive Vice President, The Pilgrim Health and Life Insurance Company, Augusta, Georgia I am deeply conscious of the honor that has been accorded me to participate in this panel discussion. The topic assigned is, "The Place of Local Banks, Insurance Companies, and the Church in Improving Farm Ownership." I shall attempt to discuss this from the angle of the Life Insurance Companies. Prior to the year 1937, tenant farmers, share croppers and farm laborers had little or no chance to become owners of the land they tilled. It was their lot to work for poor wages, pay excessive high interest rates and often work the entire family from sunrise to sunset in order to eke out an existence. The family existed on the barest necessities and these farmers were among the socially and economically underprivileged groups of our Country. In the year 1937, the Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act passed Congress and was signed into law by the President. It provided for 40 years loans at low interest rates to the farmers who were unable to qualify for bank credit. Some of these loans were made by the government and some by private capital. In 1946, the Congress enlarged the program so as to include farmers who already had small farms to enlarge them and make some improyements thereon. Under this program, with the Farmers Home Administration insuring the loan and the qualifying farmer paying at .least 10% and meeting other requirements, the success of the project has been assured already. It is my information that rural banks have made most of these loans. However, the Life Insurance Companies have entered wholeheartedly in the program, as well as, other commercial banks, Managers of Trust accounts, and individuals. Life Insurance Companies in order to earn the interest required to maintain their reserves find the Federal insured three per cent loans a very satisfactory investment. Our own Company has invested $40,720.00 in these mortgages within the last 12 months. We have signed commitments for $61,900.00 additional. As bad as we need avenues for safe sound paying investments, we feel we should contribute to the well being o~ the people we serve. Hence, our participation in this program assumes a greater importance when viewed from this angle. It is our considered opinion that in a democracy all segments of our society must be allowed to -72- rise as high as their abilities will permit, so long as they do not encroach upon the rights of others. The Life Insurance objectives in the broad sense are to alleviate economic want. These objectives might be broken down as follows: (a) To protect (b) To rehabilitate ( c) To be useful during periods of emergency ( d) To preserve the home and the family unit Hence, any program that provides protection against want, and allows a man to raise his sights, conforms to our way of thinking. The Salvation Army says, "A man may be down but he is never out." The Tenant Farmers, share croppers, and small farm owners as a group need a program of rehabilitation as much as any group in our American life. Prior to the passing of the Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act, they had no hope for the future but to live frustrated, proverty-stricken lives as had their forebears before them. Disease ridden, poverty stricken, and morally bankrupt people are neither good prospects for life insurance nor builders of an on-going society. Life Insurance has stood through wars, panics, epidemics, and all emergencies. A financial tie-up with the farmer gives the latter a prop during times of crop shortages and other unforeseen periods. To keep the family interested in farming; to aid the general development of agriculture and to produce better farm methods, conditions, and housing, help preserve the family as a unit. These requirements are so essential in our American way of life. These are but a few of the ideals of the Life Insurance Companies as they spread the gospel of thrift among the insuring public. Life Insurance is a "share the risk" proposition. It is a cooperative venture. The Life Insurance Company acts in the capacity of a temporary depository agent by collecting funds in small premiums and then returning them to the states, counties, and cities to build roads, schools, and other improvements. It loans the savings of its policyholders to farmers to buy equipment' and build up farms. The Pilgrim is proud to be a part of this program. We are told that in a Communistic state individuals cannot own their farms or businesses. We understand that initiative is discouraged and private ownership is forbidden. Here in America, the Federal government, the local governing bodies, the lending Agencies, the Churches, the Social Service organizations are pleased to encourage farm ownership among the individuals of the state and communities. Everybody benefits through this type of cooperation. We are not -73- specialists in the science of government but we .have been told that under Communism, the people work for the state. We know in a democracy, the state exists to safeguard the rights of the people. We also know we are engaged in a cold war on one side of the World and a shooting war on the other side of the world. We know that but for the food and other necessities of life already sent to some foreign countries, that the Iron Curtain would have shut off greater portions of the world than have already been closed to free intercourse of trade and communication. With these facts in mind, it is our firm belief, that a well balanced program of agriculture, produced by men who are free politically and economically; men who are free to follow the religious ideas they prefer, and men who are physically free, such a program will meet all the requirements of our beloved America and her Allies. As factories come into the South with their well paid labor, so must our farmers be encouraged to live on their own farms and produce food and other products for our ever growing economy. Hence, these farmers living on their own farms must be able to receive incomes commensurate with the factory and office workers. Tuskegee Institute along with other schools is pioneering in the development of improved agricultural methods; such as soil conservation, crop rotation, diversified farming with emphasis on dairying, poultry raising, and livestock production. The schools can only point the way. The Churches through its leaders are giving cooperation and it is the lending agencies who are doing their part to encourage farm ownership by buying these farm mortgages. In conclusion, let me say that this type of cooperation is what makes America strong. There will be bottlenecks in industry at times; there will be crop failures at times; there will be military setbacks at times; but in the final analysis when the "chips are down," business man, banker, professional man, farmer, factory worker and comon laborer, will all unite in defense of our great country. The Life Insurance Companies are in accord with these objectives as outlined by this Conference. You wil have our continued interest and support. -74- A LAND POLICY FOR THE CHURCH RALPH A. FELTON, Director, Department of The Rural Church, Drew Theological Seminary, Madison, New Jersey The Church has developed a policy regarding many things-salvation, family life, divorce, health, recreation, and community improvement. Now it is developing a "land policy." Land ownership helps in the solution of many of our Southern problems. Our people who are land owners have over twice the gross farm income of tenants, twice as many owners have lawns. Four times as many owners as tenants have shrubs around the house. Over twice as many owners as tenants have their homes painted. They have twice as many screened windows. Four times as many owners as tenants have electric lights. The "abundant life" that we preach about on Sunday is lacking in the home of the Negro tenant. Many of us are committed to the task of changing this situation. The church is the one ins~itution to which our people belong. Lodges are numerous, but 58 per cent of our families are not in a lodge, 77 per cent of our women are not members of a home demonstration club. Still fewer are connected with the Farm Bureau, 4-H club, or Scouts. But only 9.S per cent of our people do not belong to a church. As our churches develop a land policy, we will be able to make progress all along the line. "Better land for better living" is a slogan that points toward a land policy, This means if we conserve the soil and water, and build up the land we will be able to live better. Another equally good slogan is "Own the land you live on." Land owqership brings about a better income, security, and a "sense of belonging." Churches are promoting soil conservation, land ownership. fatherand-son partnerships and are helping young couples get started in farming. This we call a new gospel of the soil. The writer has travelled 5,000 miles during the past year to visit and study 16 rural churches that have developed a land policy. Eight of these 16 churches have a "Placement Committee" which helps young couples secure farms. They secure loans from the Farmers Home Administration, from the Federal Land Banks, from local banks, or from individuals. They appraise the farm, help to secure the loan, and give regular advice to the young couple after the purchase. This Placement Committee is usually composed of three of the best farmers as well as churchmen. In many cases the Placement Committee helps a young couple rent a farm for a year or two before buying. Often they help this -75- young farmer to secure livestock. While he rents they help establish a better relationship between him as a tenant and his landlord. Six of the sixteen churches mentioned above have a significant program of soil conservation. We often preach about the children of Israel getting into "the promised land" after Egypt and the wilderness. These six churches are improving the wornout soil and eroded farms and gettng their people on land that has even more promise than the land of Canaan. With improved soil come improved homes and improved churches. Three of these 16 churches have i~fluenced their denominations to loan their endowment funds to young farmers to help purchase land. Most of the church colleges and denominational boards have some endowment funds to invest. The Farmers Home Administration is ready to supervise and insure loans made by church boards to help buy family-sized farms. The rate for an insured loan is usually 4 per cent, the church agencies receives 3 per cent and the F. H. A. charges 1 per cent a year for providing the federal insurance and for supervising the loan. Five of these 16 churches have significant programs for promoting father-and-son partnerships in order to help the son or son-in-law to get started on the home farm. One church has 36 such father-anson agreements. One often drops in on an elderly couple sitting before their fireplace with their hands folded limp in their lap. They are whittled thin by the years and hard work. On the mantle is a clock and a calendar ticking off the hours and the days. The lonely parents, waiting to cross over Jordan, are always ready to talk about their children. "Let me see, we have three in the North, three girls and two boys in Cleveland, one girl here married to a farmer. That's right, six children living. And then we have seven or eight dead." Father-and-son partnerships are one of the best ways to keep the children, parents and grandparents together and to save the land and the people and the church. NOTE. The topics referred to above are discussed more fully in three bulletins which are being distributed on a non-profit basis by the Rural Church Department, Drew Seminary, Madison, New Jersey. 1. A New Gospel ,of the Soil. Stories of 16 Rural Churches that have promoted soil conservation, land ownership, father-and-son partnerships, and farm committees to help young couples get started in farming. 96 pages, 118 photographs. 1 copy 40c, 3 copies $1.00. 2. The Church and the Land. A study of 412 families showing the relation of Land Ownership, Soil Conservation, the Standard of Living and Church Activities. 44 pages. 1 copy 25c, 5 copies $1.00. 3. These My Brethern. A study of 1,542 Negro families and 570 Negro churches in the rural South. The thirteen chapters deal with the types of homes in which Negroes live, their farms and their churches. They also describe the Negro pastors, their education, the type of church services they conduct and the way they raise their money. 104 pages. 1 copy 40c, 3 copies $1.00. -76- DISCUSSION E. T. DIXON, JR., Director, Religious Extension Work, Tuskegee Institute, Alabama I want to cite some figures for you, first of all, as to Negro farmers and their status; then some figures concerning Negro churches; and then some statements which have given me hope that were made at a conference on the church and land tenure. It happened last year that Dr. Taylor delivered an address on "Possible Areas of SocioEconomic Research in Land Grant Colleges," and in it he headed one of his main topics "How to Practice Successful Farming as a Tenant or Sharecropper." That is, "How to Accumulate Capital and Experi.ence as Necessary Steps Toward Ownership." In other words, he was recognizing the need, or the fact, that we must start with the sharecropper where he is and work with him in order to get him to accumulate enough money to purchase and setup this $15,000 or $20,000 farm that Mr. Bertsch talked about. I'd like to quote these statistics to you. There were, in 1945, approximately 1.2 million tenant-operated southern farms. This was 40% of all farms. Forty-one percent or approximately 500,000 of these farms were operated by Negroes. Seventy-one percent or approximately 360,000 of all Negro farmers were tenants. Sixty-seven percent or approximately 175,000 of all Negro tenants were croppers. More than 60% of all sharecroppers were Negroes. That indicates, in some way, the situation of your rural people. When we talk about the church, we can't talk about it unless we talk about the people because the church is the people. It isn't the building. It isn't the minister. It's the people out in those farm areas. -77- COMMUNITY FARM TENURE CHANGES-CASE STUDIES LEWIS W. JONES, Director of Research, Rural Life Council, Tuskegee Institute, Alabama This is a progress report on a study that the Rural Life Council at Tuskegee has been doing in collaboration with the Tennessee Valley Authority in the past year. All of us here have been actively interested in the rural South and have, through careful observation, become aware of the changes in our South and in our communities over the past few years. One asks himself, "What do these changes mean to people?" ''What adjustments do people make to the changes?" "Is there a selective process by which people are retained in agriculture?" "What has happened to the institutions that serve these people?" "What changes have occurred in the community life of these areas?" In an effort to understand these we developed a typology in which we classified farms functionally and arrived at five functional types of farms in the cotton South. Three of these were traditional-the plantation, the small independent, and the subsistence. The two others were those developed along with recent changes-the mechanized and the part time farm. For the purpose of this study, the small farm is a family farm (regardless of technology, whether hand labor, using primitive tools or farm machinery), cultivated with family labor, producing for the market, bringing a return on capital and labor invested that gives stability and security to the family. That allowed us to contrast it with what we call the subsistence farm. This is also an independent family farm. However, production is not for the market, although there is some production of commodities for sale. Farming is a major source of income but it does not bring the return on labor and capital invested that insures stability and security of the family. Production for household use appears to be of primary importance, as it was on the pioneer frontier farms, for maintenance of the family. The United States Census of Agriculture recognizes farming which produces chiefly for household consumption as a special type, classifying it as one on which the value of farm products used by farm households exceeds the total value of all farm products sold. The third type-the plantation or the multi-farm type-has several operation units under central control while the family continues to be the productive unit. The stability and security of the plantation farm family, economically and socially, are subject to the policies and decisions of the plantation manager. Plantation studies-and there have been many of them-have described in detail the economy, farm management, and social characteristics of the plantation type of organization. -78- In studying the plantation, we found certain changes in process. On one of the plantations studied there was a change from mules to tractors, and the plantation owner charged those men who could not operate tractors themselves the wage he paid the tractor operator per hour to plow their crops. When the extension people came to advise them on poisoning for boll weevils last year (I was there in November talking with them), the plantation manager came by and asked them when they wanted to start poisoning. They were supposed to start on a certain date, but the tenant suggested that they start right away. The manager told them to go ahead since they had the poison. But the tenant's son came up and argued that they should start when the Extension Service recommended. Anyway, they poisoned the crops very successfully. The tenant had a graphic example of what poisoning will do because a big power line crossed the field and the plane could come but so close to it, and a strip on either side of it was not poisoned. Where the power line kept them from poisoning, there was no cotton. The tenant said that he wished everybody around could come and see what poisoning had done in the field where this accidental demonstration had taken place, and what would happen if ppisoning was not done. On one plantation when they changed from mules to tractors, the owner sold his mules at one cent a pound. On another plantation the owner sold his mules to tenants at $450 per pair, and transferred his loss to the tenants, who, if they wanted to stay on his place, had to buy these mules and become renters instead of sharecroppers the next year. When one plantation owner poisoned his cotton he charged the tenant what it cost-about $7.50 per acre, the total cost for six applications. Another plantation manager didn't poison because he told his tenants the poison itself would cost them $35 per acre and that they'd have to pay for the application in addition. He said that they could poison if they wanted to but they'd be that much further in debt. On one side of the road they had cotton, but on the other they didn't. In both cases plantation families had practically no control over their own operations. The large mechanized farm-the fourth type-which is regarded as a successor to the traditional plantation for large scale production of cotton, emphasized individual production rather than cooperative family endeavor. On a mechanized farm the family loses much of the characteristic organization for production familiar to the first three types. The head of the family is not a farm operator, but a wage worker whose only share in the risks of production is his hire. The head of the family, and sometimes other members, like industrial workers, sell their machine operating skill in the competitive markets. The fifth type is the part time farm which is a type in the South -79- where some members of the family work part time in industry and continue to farm. ' With these descriptions of our five-fold typology we'll show you some charts presenting a few of the characteristics indicating the differences that these communities showed when we went in to interview families and to study them as types. We'll take tenure first because it is our major interest in this conference; and we have the sixfold typology, incll!ding dairying, which, as indicated, will be eliminated in a final report. In the plantation area there are less than 5% of the heads of the families owning farms. The mechanized area has about 11% owning farms. The part time area has about 22% owning farms. The dairying area about 47%. In the small independent area we have nearly 60%. And in the subsistence area a little more than 60 of the farms being owned by the operators. In the subsistence area practically all the farms are owned or rented. These are independent operators who own their own production equipment, their own tools, and manage their own operations. In the subsistence area the production is so low that there would be hardly any other circumstance in which land would want to be used, In the small iIidependent area owners and renters predominated along with a very small proportion of sharecroppers. In the dairying area farm laborers appeared. S6me of the dairy farms are operated with hired labor and the people don't share in the risks of production. The community which showed the greatest proportion of non-farm workers was the part time community. There are some people who, after they work on the farm and in industry awhile, bought themselves homesteads and decided to live on the farm but to work in industry and do a little farming at home. In the mechanized area, of course, we have some non-farm people. To look at the gross income of the several types. The subsistence farm has the greatest number of families whose income was less than $500. This is cash income and doesn't take into account what is produced for home consumption. The plantation has the fewest families with annual gross earnings of less than $500. But when you come to the upper ranges-over $2,000-we find the small independent farm has 70% of its families with an income of over $1,000. The small independent farm shows the greatest concentration of families having earnings above $1,000, and also above $2,000 and $3,000. In the dairying area was the second highest proportion of families having incomes above $1,000. These charts you may look at closer, ask questions about; and we'll discuss them more fully if you care to. . There are also differences in community structure. After you get the economic characteristics, you find that the small independent farm has the largest number of children and youth in the population-those under 24 years of age; that a very small proportion of the older peo-80- ple-65 and over: and a smaller proportion of those in the younger productive age-25-49-than are found in some of the other areas. In the plantation community there is a higher proportion in the 50-year old and older group than in other communities. It might be interesting to point out thal the small independent community has the largest t family, the highest income, and apparently live better than in other types of communities. As indicated, the heads of the families in the mechanized community are young because of the choice of tractor operators, machine operators, younger adults are preferred over older adults. It is also shown that there are a great many more young children in those communities because the parents are younger than in the other communities. The large families in the small independent communities are due to the number of children staying at home until they are twenty, which is very different from the subsistence and other areas where the children have to leave as early as they can to find employment outside because the farm itself does not provide for them. When they reach an age where they can work, there is no employment for them on the farm. But on the small independent farm, we do find that they are able to stay at home and in school longer and share in what the family produces rather than having to get out or become a liability on the family. An interesting thing that we might call some attention to is that traditionally, family size was most important. A tenant contracted for his land in terms of his work force; that was the number of males who were able to plow efficiently, and the number of females able to put in a satisfactory day's work chopping. Together they guaranteed the harvest of a crop. Now, children are no longer assets in the form of unpaid family labor. In the mechanized area, in terms of social changes that these economic changes are producing, on one plantation that is partially mechanized, a mother protested and quarreled about the landlord's attitude toward her children. She had "all this undergrowth" that she needed to work and help take care of themselves. The manager told her that all of those under 16 had to go to school. The mother said they didn't have any clothes to wear. She was told to make a list of the clothes she needed to get them to school. The landlord went to town, bought these clothes she needed to get them to school, and charged them against her tractor-driving husband's wages. Of course she didn't like that at all, because ·her children weren't needed anymore. I have had reports that in Clarksdale, Mississippi, last fall, instead of the children going out on the trucks to pick cotton, a policeman stood where the trucks loaded and forbade all children under sixteen from getting on the trucks. The adults went out to pick. In the Clarksdale area they're using the mechanical cotton picker. On those planta- -81- tions where the cotton is not picked by a machine, they have adults to do the hand picking. So children are no longer needed and are being eliminated-or we might say emancipated-from that sort of labor. There are a lot of people who don't quite understand that type of emancipation which some of them have been crying f.or a long time. We are able to see what is happening to community institutions. In the dairying area where most of the communities had been pretty well defined, we were able to study an area where only vestiges of communities remained after the change from cotton to livestock production. There had been an exodus. There had been five churches closed in the community. The schools were drawing only a few children and there was some transportation of children' to the town schools. We have been interested in watching what sort of reordering of life in that area might be expected as this pattern is fully developed. I think with that general roughing in I'll stop and let you ask questions if you want to, and we can probably get some of the differences better than we can by going ahead trying to show characteristics of these several communities. -82- DISCUSSION Question: You say that some of those people do part time farming, and in the wintertime work in industry. Do you mind telling me what kind of industry? Answer: Well, in choosing our community, we had to find one where the Negroes had the opportunity to work in industry. Because you know, in much of the South where there is part time farming no opportunity is given Negro farmers in those industries, particularly in our textile areas. But up in the Tennessee Valley where we found our community, the Reynolds Metal Company and the Tennessee Valley Authority fertilizer plants employ Negroes, and some of them travel as far as 35 to 40 miles and back each day to work in those plants. Of course, the family works the farm, and in off time the farmer works. They have a special schedule so that when the man works until midnight, he then sleeps. The next day he works in the crop with his family. He takes a seasonal layoff when the farm needs him. They have numerous electrical appliances-deep freezers, refrigerators, etc.and most of them own homesteads. We do have figures on homestead ownership as contrasted with farm ownership. And up in this part time area, some owned from 3 to 10 acres as homesteads, even though they rented farm land for the family to work while they were engaged in the industrial plants . . Question: To switch over to Mississippi where these children under sixteen weren't permjtted to go out to pick cotton. Was that compulsory education or was it done because the children were in scho~l? Answer: I understand there's always been a law that children under sixteen should attend school. The Delta Council has encouraged that (somebody told me), and it is not a policy to work young children. E. E. NEAL, Alabama I would like to tie together some of the statements Dr. Raper made and Mr. Jones' presentation to try to focus our attention on the discussion which will follow. Dr. Raper was setting a background or a basis for a sound democracy on one hand, and Mr. Jones' study, on the other hand, brings out what the social and economic factors in progress are doing to the way people live in communities. And in putting this conference into focus I would like to bring into our discussion the thinking of Dean Potts and others of us who worked in planning the conference. -83- You've come here to talk about problems of land tenure-and we say among Negroes, because, occupationally, we are limited to working with Negroes-but we don't think in those terms altogether. What we're concerned with here is working on the foundation of the problems in democracy and how people with low incomes can participate in it. Weare showing you what the changes are doing to these low income people, the "unplanned changes" that are taking place when tractors come in. The people who are maintained make a higher living. When cattle comes in, the people who are maintained make a higher living. The obverse of that picture is that when the people are pushed out, they go to Detroit, Cleveland, and other large centers. And if you want a clear understanding of the total picture, we have it available in the proceedings of the conference held here in June. This copy is available for fifty cents. This bulletin-one hundred and thirty-two pages-has the latest information available on this total picture if anybody wants it. When these people were pushed out as a result of mechanization and they landed in Chicago, for exampleand youll find that 68% of the cases receiving direct relief in Chicago are Negroes; 10% of the population in Cook County are Negroesthen the change begins to take on some kind of picture. Yet, those who are retained for mechanization and for livestock make a higher living. Those who are pushed out end up in Chicago, they make up 68% of the relief load. Those that we plan for-about 70%-have gross incomes of over $1,000 a year. This is a planned community where these former tenants were brought in through plans of Extension Service, TVA, and the Farmers Home Administration. You get here what could come from planning. That brings this conference where we want it. Here we are representing directors of agriculture in many Negro Colleges. It means, then, that we are the only large group of paid people in the world permanently employed for the problems of these kind of people, because all the people we work with are Negroes, and all the Negroes are in the low income category. To the extent that we find a ways and means of raising these people out of their low income level, then we find ways and means of broadening democratic participaton all over the world. So you see where ·this conference had its setting. We did not come here mainly because we're confined to working with the low income group, but we are here trying to see what we can contribute to the raising of the level of living of low income people all over the world who are the victims of the type of economic system that's in operation. So then it seems to me that we take our work in this conference much more seriously; it isn't a Negro problem. It's a world problem. We use the Negro as a laboratory. We are the people directing these experiments to find out the causes and how we are going to raise the level of participation in democratic principles all over the world. I think that that's what Dr. Raper had -84- in mind when he said that what we say here has much more political significance than previously. So, now, the time is open for discussion on both Dr. Raper and Mr. Jones' presentation. Question: (L. J. Washngton). Did you find a sufficient number of farms ,in your typology to be of significance? Answer: I think we did, but I'd like to explain the type of study that we're doing. We weren't trying to get the numbers there were. It's like studying somebody with typhoid to see what he acts like. These are case studies rather than a search for an existing picture. We do have in our bounds a great number of these farms according to county figures as they appear in the census. And, as I said a while ago, we have such figures to validate our typology. For our own study we took small units to study intimately to see what happened and to describe completely. Statement: (L. J. Washington). You have a group that made as high as $4,.000. Then you have some tenants and plantation laborers who made equally as much. You don't have anything to show the farm operating expenses for a plantation hand who had a gross income of $4,000, and then an owner-operator with $4,000. Answer: (L. W. Jones). Our plantation people had gross earnings of that much on the farm, but only a half of that belonged to them, the sharecroppers. But so far as the farm management aspects of it and what their operating costs were, we didn't go into that. Question: 0. N. Freeman). We had an ex-Tuskegee teacher at Lincoln who is now at Wilberforce. I pointed out to him that you sociologists can always tell us what's wrong, but you can never tell us how to correct it. I believe it is still the job of the agriculturists, cooperating with the sociologists on things of socio-economic points of view, to be able to reduce their problem to a doing level. I came from Missouri, as I do to other conferences to find a way and a means to get at the roots of this problem and do something about it. In twenty-nine years of experience and my professional training I have not yet been able to do something about it. I believe that the group here is doing something about it. I believe that the NF A has had enough of the socialistic aspect. If you ever come down the road from Tuscaloosa through Montgomery, you can understand why it is that certain social behavior patterns adverse to the interest of our group are in force. Because when we have poor land, we have poor people. Those folks are just hungry; there isn't enough pie to go around. So 111 -85- go back to my original statement. I believe that we have too many farmers. What we need are better farmers. We need to take into consideration the fact that we don't need as many farmers today on the job. This question then arises; what shall we do with those who have been hanging to the land for years? Question: (c. E. Walker). I want to get clear on one point. Your method of traveling was to go through a total population and pick out those individuals whom you could blend into a unit and then distribute those rather than study a total population, was it not? Answer: (L. W. Jones). We studied a total population. After finding the farm type, we sought to interview where we had fiXed areas by statistical means. Then we went and talked with county agents. We found the best suited communities the most homogeneous and can approach the ideal type. Question: (E. E. Neal). We now come back to Dr. Freeman's question which is: Can we do anything about this problem; can we do anything more than present the facts about what's happening? Answer: That is a collective decision for this group to decide and we would like to have the next five minutes left to us to discuss this queston raised by Dr. Freeman. That is: Can we do something other than present the facts? You want to speak on that Mr. Bertsch? Answer: (H. Bertsch). Yes. I just wanted to make the observation that before we can do anything about anything we've got to find the facts first. That's the very first step. It's like the doctor who must, before administering to anyone, first diagnose the case. Once he finds out what's wrong he applies the treatment. 'I think the proceedings are in that direction. Answer: (L. W. Jones). We didn't present it here this morning, but in this same study we will show how in a community farmers used the resources available in terms of the PMA allotment and aid in the purchase of seed and fertilizer, etc.; how many times a year they had soil conservation; and all other resources available. Generally, we might say here that most of these farmers get very little available funds to aid them. There are reasons why. In one county where the Negroes had pastures they didn't get crimson clover seed. They didn't know about it. Nobody told them. So one big owner got enough crimson clover seed to sow 800 acres on his place, and all other pastures didn't get any. Nobody knew. And that's one thing that all agricultural agents here should go out and challenge-to help their people use these resources. Statement: (L. J. Washington). I'm going to restate a remark I -86- · made here during the Rural Life Council conference. It has reference to the question that Dr. Freeman raised. What are we going to do about it? The first thing we need to do as a group of leaders, in an attempt to correct this intolerable situation that we know is existing is to learn the purpose of these different agencies and programs that are designed to correct just such situations as these are that have been failing. Once we know the purpose of the Production and Marketing Association, the Soil Conservation Service, the Federal Land Bank, the Production Credit Association, the Farmers Home Administration, and all other agencies, private ·and fedeml, that are designed to correct some of the evils of agriculture we can intelligently go out and direct fanners along specific lines about correcting these situations. Therefore, I think if we are to button up just one point on the question Dr. Free~an raised, he will have to go back to Missouri and learn something about farm credit, soil conservation, etc. That is a tremendous job. But once we know why our Congress made it possible to set up federal programs-and in Extension Service also, Mr. Campbell-then they are charged with the responsibility of disseminating information regarding all federal programs. I just wonder how many extension workers know the basic policy of the Soil Conservation Service. And I wonder if they know the purpose of the Tennessee Valley Authority. When they can go out and discuss the purpose of these different programs intelligently, and are able to sit in conference with the local people who are charged with the responsibility of administering these programs, then we will break the bottleneck, Governor Duggan. Mr. Campbell, as an extension representative, and of the church, Dr. Felton, you all have a contribution to make toward the problem. And, when you find time to include on your training program and your other rural church conferences a place to discuss these agencies, to familiarize the people who will go back and talk to farm people and who possess any kind of leadership whatsoever; when they know what is available; then we can start applying a measuring rod on our achievements toward correcting these evils. Question: 0. N. Freeman}. Why do you underestimate the intelligence of this group? (I don't think you wish to consider us so naive that we don't understand these services. It would have been better to state that we have, perhaps, been derelict in making use of the information, The federal government and its agencies, through you, have done the best job of indoctrinating us as to the purpose of the programs. You've come to our vocational -87- teacher-training meetings. We understand it. The problem is that the thing has not been translated into action). What I'm trying to find out is: What can we do to get the thing to a doing level? Statement: (G. W. Conoly). I think, possibly, ' there's one thing that we haven't done that maybe we should do. I heard a statement once that in Denmark the people are more cooperative than in any other section in the world. Whether that's true or not, I don't know. But I think that's one thing we haven't tried. I blundered into something last week. One of our young veteran teachers had gone into his community and stood against the problem of getting tractors for his clients. He had them put in $10 each to make the first payment on their tractor. Then they charged each man $1 per acre for breaking land, each man furnishing his own fuel for the tractor. They broke 2,000 acres last year and made $2,000 on the tractor. They're buying three more tractors now, which means they're . going to have several tractors in the community within the next few years to leave to those young boys who are coming up. (We11 know how to get together and finance projects). To do this he . drew up a charter issued by the State of Florida for this work. He had to teach those young rural boys something about drawing up a charter. Incidentally, I don't think we taught him anything about drawing up a charter in college. He stumbled into it somehow himself. I thought I'd just drop that here as one of the ways out. North Florida was mentioned yesterday. I got Mr. Potts' letter too late to find out what was going on in Florida so far as FHA was concerned. But I did call at our county office. The manager was out of town but the secretary told me that they hadn't made any loans to Negro farmers to buy land because land was too high in this county to even consider a loan. Incidentally, in the lower part of this county the land is sand. DuPont has bought it all up. The farmers who owned that land had to move off immediately; so they have the bad land. The good land is owned by absentee owners-the yankees from all over the world. We could do something about this if the men who are in economics would teach us how to organize for security. Statement: (T. M. Campbell). It seems to me we've got to be more interested in where we are. It's a long way from here to Cornell. If we can get out our experiments and studies right here on the land, I think we'd get what we hope to get. I'm sorry there are no women here. Just men. I think that in keeping men and -88- women rural minded we've done a wonderful thing toward this problem. Let the people know about these facts, these services. They want the facts. To them it's a rounded out process. Statement: (L. J. Washington). We're still talking about the question that Dr. Freeman raised and what we're going to do about it. Yes, we can do something about it. Let me say this: if the Farm Credit Administration is not doing anything about it; if the Soil Conservation Service, the Production Marketing Association, the Farmers Home Administration, and all other federal agencies which are designed to make a contribution to these problems here are not doing anything, maybe there's something wrong with their operations. If the Federal Land Banks are not making loans to Negroes; or if the Farmers Home Administration and ~e Soil Conservation Service or not serving Negroes (they have a basic policy procedure to ~dminister that program by); maybe that policy or that procedure is written in such a manner that it is eliminating some of us. If you know what the specific purpose or the objectives of those agencies are and you know how they are supposed to operate, then youll have a recourse to take, probably with the governor, federal agents, farm credit, the administrators of the Farmers Home Administration, the state director, the Tennessee Valley Authority, or anyone else. Unless we can go and put the actual facts on the table and ask for a hearing on this, you've just got to accept what is in black and white. Statement: (S. B. Simmons). I liked Mr. Jones' speech. Jim, I don't think I have an answer. You raised a pertinent question. I don't think that I've accomplished what I would like to have accomplished. I've had just a little bit of contact-just a little bit-in Washington and in Raleigh. And I've come to realize that they appreciate certain things. I talked to men down here who have come up out of the soil and have made a success out of it; and I'm boping that more of them will get here. Take Mr. Jones' discussion. I couldn't get all out of it that I'd like to have gotten. I'm thinking right now of a community where a factory is putting up a $13,000,000 plant. I'm told they'll bring into that little town 1,500 families to work in that plant. Some of them are going to be colored and . some white. But this creates a problem. Some of the things that he mentioned are going to be involved. As I listened to the discussion this morning (my director isn't here), I don't know if any case studies of that kind have been made in North Carolina. I do not know that any case studies will be made in this area that I have in mind. But some study needs to be done. -89- Statement: (L. A. Potts). I just want to make two statements before presenting the next speaker. One is in answer to Dr. Freeman. I think he asked an important question. So far as I knowand I may be a little behind the times-this is the first most complete cross section of agricultural workers that I have eyer had the pleasure of meeting with to consider any of our basic agricultural problems. That's suggestion one on the question under discussion. Another one is that some of you have forgotten that we have appointed or asked five significant committees to take advantage of all you've heard here this morning, yesterday, and will hear tomorrow, and to combine that into a recommendation so that this will not be just another conference. Too much work has been put into this effort thus far. You have come from long distances. Some of you had to fly in order to get here. This conference is too important to go out and say that it was a successful meeting. And, following Dr. Freeman's suggestion, we ought to do something about improving land tenure. And that's the purpose of this conference. And I think the proceedings of this conference, along with the notes you are taking, ought to be of some value in determining our future course of action. -90- SUGGESTIONS TO AGRICULTURAL' LEADERS FOR PREVENTION OF LAND EXPJ-.0ITATION T. S. BUIE, Regional Director, Soil Conservation Service, USDA, Spartanburg, S. C. Farmers of the Southeast have greater need for avoiding the exploitation of their lands than do those of any other section of the , country. This is true because our lands already have been exploited or abused to a greater extent than have those of any other area of comparable size. So, before considering how we may prevent land exploitation we might well consider some of the factors that have caused serious damage to our lands in the past. The present condition of our land in the Southeast has resulted from a number of causes: 1. The length of time which the land has been used for crops and thus exposed to erosion. 2. The topography and other physical conditions which induce erosion. 3. The climate, with mild winter temperatures and a relatively high rainfall. 4. The type of agriculture, which has been built around annual row crops, such as cotton, corn, peanuts, and tobacco, and 5. Our failure to recognize the need for using and treating each piece of land according to its capabilities. I think the last is by far the most important factor I have mentioned, because if we use our land according to its capabilities and treat it according to its needs, we must take into consideration the topography, the climate, and the type of agriculture in the kind of use and treatment we give the land. How then can we determine the capabilities of the land? Well, there are a number of things that determine this. Among the most important factors are (1) slope, (2) degree and extent of erosion that has already occurred, and (3) the kind of soil. The Soil Conservation Service, in its assistance to local soil conservation districts, provides trained soils men who measure these and other factors in a careful field survey of each farm. On the basis of this survey each field or portion of a field if different in characteristics is classified into one of the eight recognized land capability classes. I won't attempt to go into the details of land classification, but I would like to consider with you for a moment how the physical conditions of the land determine its proper use. Possibly the one outstanding feature of Southern farm lands, which more than any -91- other limits their use, is slope. Recognition of slope as a limitation in land use is something new. As a student in college 35 years ago, I was taught that a suitable rotation would enable continued indefinite use of a field. Some 10 years later, when I found myself a teacher of others, I expounded the same viewpoint and attitude. However, soil conservation research in recent years has shown that the slope of the land is a very important factor, which we cannot disregard if we expect to use our land safely. Because much of the land in the Southeast is rolling or hilly, this presents a very real problem in a row crop economy. It is impossible to use hilly land for row crops without some damage. Research at the Southern Piedmont Conservation Experiment Station at Watkinsville, Georgia, for instance, shows that it is practicable to grow cotton and row crops for a period of some years on land that is level or nearly so without undue soil loss or reduced yields. All that is needed on that kind of land is to follow good soil improvement practices, including adequate use of fertilizers and winter cover crops, and a row crop may safely be grown on the land year after year. On soils with similar characteristics, where the land slopes even as much as 4 to 5 feet in 100, additional measures are required. To protect such land against excessive soil loss, we must use not only the simpler methods such as contour cultivation and rotations, but also terracing and proper water disposal, including vegetated meadow strips to carry off the terrace water safely. Cotton planted on such slopes with no effort to control erosion resulted in a loss of 5.8 tons of soil for each bale of cotton produced. But where measures were taken to protect the land, the soil loss per bale of cotton produced was reduced to 2.9 tons. Land where the slope is still greater, say as much as 8 to 10 feet in 100, cannot be planted to row crops at all without tremendous soil losses. It should be kept continuously in small grain, followed by lespedeza or other close-growing grass or leguminous crops; or better still it should be planted to perennial hay and grazing crops, such as sericea or kudzu or a combination of grasses and legumes for grazing. The soil lost on such slopes at the Watkinsville station in continuous cropping to cotton was 68 tons per bale of cotton produced. Valuable as cotton is, this is too high a price to pay for it. Even conservation measures, including rotations, failed to reduce the soil loss to a point where cotton could be safely planted. So you see, the slope of the land is a tremendously important factor to consider in preventing the exploitative use of the land. If we use even moderate slopes for row crops, we must increase the pro- -92- tective measures as the slope increases. And the steeper slopes should not be used for row crops at all. The second hazard or limitation on the use of land for row crops is the degree and extent of erosion that has already occurred. A certain amount of soil is removed from a sloping field as the result of every rain. At first, only a thin film or sheet of soil is lost. But as more and more topsoil is thus gradually removed, washes or rills eventually begin to appear. Then before too many years, deep gullies develop which cannot be crossed in ordinary farming operations. So the extent to which erosion and especially gullying has progressed on a particular field determines its suitability for growing row crops. This is illustrated by a moderate slope which, if not eroded, might well be terraced and cultivated on the contour. However, if gullies are present, this is not feasible, because it is virtually impossible to cross gullies with terraces. If the rills or gullies are not too close together-say as far as 500 to 1,000 feet apart-they may be sodded and used as waterways. But if they occur more frequently there will be no space between them for row crops and the entire field will have to be planted to a sod crop or trees. The kind of soil is another factor which must be considered in preventing land exploitation. All lands are not adapted to the same crop. This is especially true of crops like tobacco that have specialized soil requirements. Then, too, certain soil types, because they Rre naturally more erodible than others, should be planted to the kinds of crops and used in such a manner as to reduce rather than -encourage erosion. Some soils are not suitable for agricultural use unless drained. Ordinarily, we do not associate drainage with exploitative use of the land. However,' there are instances where land has been damaged by drainage. Soils of organic origin, for example, may even bum if excessively drained. Other soils are of such low natural fertility that it is not economically feasible to drain lands where they occur. So it is essential to know the kind of soil we are dealing with, if we are to avoid exploitative use of the land. Where good soils occur in wet areas, proper drainage will enable us to put them to profitable use and thus relieve the pressure on other land. For instance, the farmer who finds it possible to drain a sIl}all area along a small stream may grow crops of com on this level land, rather than using hillside land for this purpose. Thus proper drainage may serve as one means of avoiding the exploitative use of land. We have seen then, that in order to prevent exploitation of land -93- by using it in accordance with its capabilities, we must consider three principle factors-slope, degree and extent of erosion, and kind of soil. There are other factors involved in determining land capability, but these are the principal ones. Fortunately, facilities are available to any farmer in a soil conservation district to find out the capabilities of every acre of land on his farm, if he wishes to work out a definite plan of conservation farming with assistance of his district. Ordinarily, we consider it desirable, if possible, to use land at less than its highest capability. However, in the South where we do not have much land to spare, we frequently find it necessary to put most of the land on many farms to its highest or most intensive use. This is especially true of the small farms usually found in the hilly sections. On these farms it is generally necessary to use each acre not only within its range of capabilities but to put it to the highest or most intensive use for which it is suited. For instance, if a farmer has land capable of producing 60 bushels of corn to the acre, on which he plans to grow corn, he should use the highest-producing variety of seed, apply adequate amounts of the right kind of fertilizer, and follow cultural and rotation methods which will enable him to produce this quantity of corn each year without deterioration of his land. By producing the highest possible yields of corn, he may be able to make all he needs on a comparatively small acreage of good land, and avoid the exploitation of other lands which are better suited to less intensive use. There are many sources to which agricultural leaders may turn for help in preventing land exploitation. Of course, you will look to your experiment 'stations, both federal and state, for information on your production problems-how much fertilizer to use and what kind, how to control diseases and insects, the variety of crops to grow, and a host of other questions you will have in mind. Then you will find educational information available from such sources as the Extension Service and vocational agriculture teachers. They will furnish you with information and help you interpret it for the individual farmer. I would like to call especial attention to the excellent assistance rendered by specialists in the Extension Service. There are various other agencies such as Production and Marketing Administration, Farmers Home Administration, and Federal Credit Administration which provide financial help to farmers in carrying out sound soil and water conservation programs. Then in your land use problems you should go to your soil conservation district or to the Soil Conservation Service technicians assigned to cooperate with and assist individual districts. Soil conservation districts are locally organized public agencies of the state designed -94- to furnish assistance to all farmers in the proper use and care of their land. I think you will be interested in a few examples of success attained by Negro farmers throughout the Southeast who are cooperating with their local soil conservation districts and thereby taking advantage of the facilities of the Soil Conservation Service. Their experiences show that the surest and safest way to get the increased production we need and prevent the exploitation of our land is by following a sound soil conservation program, based on using the land in accordance with its capabilities. Edgar Smith of Clarke County, Alabama, was recently recognized by the supervisors of the Mobile River Soil Conservation District as their outstanding Negro soil conservation farmer for 1950. Smith bought his 100-acre hill farm with a loan from the Farmers Home Administration in 1941. The first few years he farmed the place, he made an average of 7 bushels of corn and about 100 pounds of seed cotton an acre. Early in 1943, at Smith's request, H. S. Saucier, the Soil Conservation Service technician assigned to the Mobile River District in Clarke County, helped Smith make a conservation farm plan. A visit to his farm now will convince anyone that he and his land are working together. Smith planted kudzu on large gullies on his farm. He has in all 17 acres of kudzu on this steep, erodible land. He has terraced all of his cropland except that in kudzu. He grows crotalaria on 36 acres of his cropland and plants at least 20 acres of cropland to lupine each winter. Last year 'all cropland not in lupine was planted to oats and vetch and grazed during the winter. Livestock were taken off early enough for a good growth of green plants to be turned under. Smith has definite evidence to show that his farm plan has helped him improve his farming operations. In 1949 he grew 1,200 pounds of seed cotton per acre on 12 acres. He averaged 52 bushels of corn per acre on 10 acres he harvested. The rest of his corn was hogged off, but looked like it made as much as that he harvested. Smith's comment on his farm plan is: "It's worth a farm. It's worth nine children fed, clothed, and raised decently. I have a good living and the respect of my comunity. The conservation farm plan helped me to get all this." Henry Josey, of Laurens County, Georgia, said that before he became a cooperator in the Central Georgia Soil Conservation District, he was mainly a row crop farmer, growing cotton, corn, and tobacco. He had no other cash income in case he missed out on one of these -95- crops. He reports that he generally made about 12 to 15 bushels of corn, 150 to 200 pounds of cotton, and less than a half-ton of peanuts to the acre. So he says he had to plant a lot of acres to get anything out of his efforts. He heard about the work being done in the county by some of the farmers with the help of the soil conservation district and got the technician from the Soil Conservation Service to help him work out a conservation farm plan. "Today," Josey says, "I have good terraces in all my fields, 1 have planted several acres of thin land to kudzu, sericea, and wildlife field borders, and 1 have planted Dallis grass, lespedeza, white clover, and a small amount of fescue for permanent pasture. 1 have a small amount of Hereford beef cattle which would 'keep me going if any of my other crops fail." , Josey won second prize in the cotton contest for Laurens County in 1948 and he reports that his corn and peanut yields have just about doubled. Commenting on the value of his farm plan, Josey says, "Now 1 can say the soil conservation plan of farming is my plan of farming for 1 have found it a paying plan." Roosevelt Cross, a sharecropper on the Josey farm, reports that he saw Josey double his yields by following a soil conservation plan of farming so he, too, began to plant soil building crops. He says that he has doubled his yields and that with the improved condition of his soil his crops don't suffer so much during droughts. "I am a changed man as to how to get the most from my row crops," Cross says. "I have learned to take care of my terraces and follow all row crops with soil-building crops." Over in Mississippi, near Greenville, Mose Mason owns a 72-acre farm, adjoining the Mississippi levee, which he bought through the FHA in 1940. He is doing an excellent job of using his land according to its capabilities with the aid of a conservation plan worked out with him by the Washington County Soil Conservation District. He says the soils map in the plan enables him to know what to plant and where. Only a casual glance is needed to tell that Mason and his family are making a good living. When you approach the home you find that it is well kept and well furnished. There is a deep-freeze unit to take care of the surplus food produced on the farm. Mason is three years ahead with his FHA payments. The good work he is doing as a soil conservation district cooperator is indicated by the fact that he won the 1949-50 "Live-at-Home" contest sponsored by the Washington County Livestock Fair, and third place in the "Plant-to-Prosper" contest sponsored by the Memphis Commercial Appeal. It goes without saying that Mason is a leader in his community. -96- When asked how other Negro farmers of the community could be encouraged to put a similar land use program on their farms, he said: "I believe that other people of my race could do the same thing that I have done if they would take advice of the agricultural workers and work hard themselves." Marshall Weathersby became a cooperator in the Simpson County Soil Conservation District in Mississippi in 1949. He said he had been farming all his days, working very hard, but that he had never accomplished much and his land was washing away. Then someone urged him to get a conservation plan for his farm. "I had been growing cotton and com and grazing a few cows on unimproved pasture," Weathersby said. "When I would go into my fields after a rain the water would be running off fast and would be very muddy. I now farm on the contour and grow winter cover crops. I have more than doubled the amount of grazing by improved pasture. Now when I go into my fields after a rain the water is moving away -slow and clear." Weathersby also reports that a representative of the Soil Con. servation Service helped him mark 45 acres of timber and now has much better timber for selective cutting. He said he had cut $800 worth of timber and now has much better timber and a much better stand. "I didn't think I would like that way of farming until I got started," he says, "but now I think it's fine. I really believe conservation farming is the only' way now." Tommie Bibb, a cooperator in the Montgomery County Soil Conservation District in Mississippi, more than doubled his farm income from 1944 to 1950. In 1933, he made $3,300-all from cotton-and about the same in 1945 and 1946. In 1947 he had a short cotton crop and called on the district for help. As a result of the :conservation farming program, his income in 1950 was $7,800, of which $4,000 represented income from milk. Here's what Bibb had in 1944 and 1950: Cotton _ __ 75 Com ____ ____ _ 65 ________ _.-20 _ Hay ______ "_ Grazing crops_____ _____ Pasture _ ___________ _ _ _ Idle land __ __________ 15 Woodland _____ _______ 50 _ _ Cows _________________ 3 House _ ________ __________ __ Milk or dairy bam_____ _ __________ _ ______ Tractor _____ 1944 acres- 22 bales acres-975 b.ushels acres- 15 tons none none acres acres ( home use only) badly run down none none 1950 acres- 19 bales acres-1,006 bushels acres-lost due to weather acres acres none 50 acres 33 ($4,000 annual milk income) new new Grade-A dairy barn new tractor 22 24 25 28 71 -97- In North Carolina, 74-year-old Robert M. Miller had farmed as a sharecropper in Cabarrus County for 45 years. He now owns a nice farm, has paid a debt of $6,000, and has money in the bank. A chance to finance the purchase of the farm, plus hard work and conservation farming is responsible for Miller's unusual success, he says~ As a sharecropper, one year was pretty much like another. In the spring he started a crop. Money or supplies to carryon during the crop season was furnished from time to time by the landlord as an advance on the crop. When the cotton was sold, he paid back the debt. Sometimes there would be a few dollars left over for Christmas and then he would start over again to make another crop. Cotton was all he had to sell. In 1939 a farm not far from where Miller lived was offered for sale and the Farm Security Administration agreed to finance it for him, with 40 years to pay back the loan. Miller hesitated to buy a farm at his age, but his children wanted him to, so he bought the 130acre farm in 1939 and began farming it in 1940. Miller went to see the Soil Conservation Service technician in the Middle Yadkin Soil Conservation District and worked out a conservation plan on the farm. The steepest land was planned for pasture and other farming operations were planned to fit the needs of the land and Miller's farm program. But luck was against him on the first hillside pasture seeded. The season turned dry and he had to seed the pasture over again. Explaining the trouble he had in getting a sod, Miller says, "That pasture sure nailed me down." But he had better luck with his second planting. Showers came and his pasture gave him an income equal to any of his cropland. But Miller didn't put all his eggs in one basket. He has cows and he has hens. "From milk and eggs," he says, "I get an income of $100 a month. If a man has enough coming in like that to get along on, he will come out all right." Although Miller has only half as much labor these days, he is able to farm more land than he did as a tenant. He then worked 40 acres. Now-with less effort he works 100 acres. "I get more money out of milk alone than I used to get out of my cotton crop," he said. I would like to mention briefly two other North Carolina farmers. One is the Rev. E. H. Martin, of Wadesboro, North Carolina, a minister with wide influence among the colored people of his section. He has a 56-acre farm, planned for conservation farming in 1946. He planned, applied, and is maintaining the following practices: Meadow outlet, rotations arranged in contour strips, perennial strips of kudzu and sericea on critical slopes in fields, and improved pasture. -98- Woodrow Ashcraft, on Route 2, Polkton, North Carolina, was a sharecropper and also worked part Hme for the farm owner at a saw mill and operating combine and other farm machinery. He has now purchased the farm and has developed a conservation plan for it with help from the local soil conservation district. In the northern part of this region, Sam Jones, of Appomattox County, Virginia, operates a 172-acre farm. The farm was formerly owned by his family, but was lost because they could not operate it successfully. He bought it back with aid of the Farmers Home Administration. In making the loan, the . FHA insisted that he operate the farm under a soil conservation district farm plan. Jones' yields have consistently gone upward for all of his crops. He was the first Negro farmer in Appomattox County to make more than 100 bushels of corn per acre. In 1950, he made 129 bushels an acre on three acres in a contour strip cropped field. A number of both white and colored farmers have requested assistance from the Natural Bridge Soil Conservation District because of Jones' influence in the neighborhood. His operations have increased to the point that he is now renting additional land. At first he operated the rented land in the usual block system, which until recently was widely used in Vrginia. However, he has notifed the owners that he will not rent the land again unless he is allowed to work it in contour strips. He has found that he loses too much fertilizer and lime unless he strip crops. He feels that although he is protecting the other man's land, that this is incidental to a profitable operation. Another outstanding job of conservation farming is being done by George Green, of near Concord, Virginia. He bought a 100-acre run-down farm in 1945. After observing how other farms had been built up by conservation farming methods, he arranged to have a district plan made for his farm in 1946. He has a good land use program and is strip cropping all his cultivated land. He has good improved pasture, meadow strips as needed, woodland protection, and a good wildlife field border. Green's farm plan includes a definite program for use of lime and fertilizer to maintain and improve fertility of the soil. He says that the first year he was there, 7 acres of corn did not fill his corn crib. In 1949 and 1950 with the same acreage in corn he filled his crib and had to build extra space for corn storage. He estimates his corn yield is four times what it was before he got his conservation program into operation. He also says that red clover would not grow on the farm when he first came there, but he now grows it successfully in all his rotated strips. -99- In South Carolina, Fred Ellerbe, a tenant on the Hattie S. McKay farm near Cheraw, reports that he enjoys living now a lot more than he used to. The change came about in 1946 when Mrs. McKay began cooperating with the Pee Dee Soil Conservation District. Ellerbe share crops with cotton as his main crop and he is in charge of the herd of 114 beef cattle. Before 1946, he says that he planted lots of bags of clover and grass seed, but he didn't know how nor where to plant them. "We did this every year, and still didn't have a permanent pasture, other than a little carpet grass," he says. According to Ellerbe, they used to feed the cows from the barn for about six months before permanent summer and winter pastures were established. Now they feed from the barn only about two months. "Before the soil conservation man showed us how to handle the pastures, we had to save all the shucks, straw, and hay that we could find on the farm. Now we save some oat straw and lespedeza hay," he says. "I have more time to do other things since the cows are making their living grazing the pastures," Ellerbe reports. "I enjoy working with cows and having something that makes living more worth while." I could mention many other successful Negro farmers all over the Southeast. I'm sure you can see from those 1 have mentioned that many individual Negro farmers are doing outstanding work with the help of Soil Conservation Service technicians assigned to their local , soil conservation districts. You who are working throughout the Southeast know many of them. But before closing, I would like to mention an example of how community action is speeding up the application of soil and water conservation on the land. As an outstanding example, I would like to refer to the Liberty Hill Soil Conservation Group in York County, South Carolina. The group was organized in 1946 with Theodore Roddy, a deacon in the Liberty Hill Baptist Church as group leader, and eight Negro landowners as charter members. Earl Glascock, a district supervisor who lived near the community, helped in getting the group started by his example on his own farm and by the aid he gave them. The Rev. Riley, pastor of the Liberty Hill Baptist Church, has actively participated in farm tours and other activities of the group. Regular monthly meetings to discuss conservation, and annual farm tours, followed by a picnic on the church grounds, have been held for the past three years. The influence of the group has reached out to tenant farmers and at present four tenant farmers are members of the group and are carrying out soil conservation plans on their rented farms. The supervisors -100- of the local soil conservation district and the Soil Conservation Service technicians assigned to the district have worked closely with the group in carrying out their soil conservation programs. W. H. Spencer, white farmer in the community, has assisted in making equipment available to the group. Arrangements also have been made for the cooperative purchase of seed and other planting material. Church contributions are reported to have risen sharply during the past four years, which is attributed in part at least to a better type of farming, with more cattle, more improved pasture, and more productive land. A 4-H Club has been organized and the boys and girls are carrying on soil conservation projects . To my way of thinking, the accomplishments of these Negro farmers are very heartening. They show that preventing the exploitation of land is not only possible, but profitable as well. Today as never before, we must strive to our utmost in the hazardous days ahead to conserve the productive capacity of our land, while increasing the production of crops that will be increasingly important in our national defense. I know of no better suggestion to offer to you in your work than that you aid those ·whom you serve in following the example these men have set in using every acre of our land according to its capabilities and treating it according to its needs. oil. -101- DISCUSSION C. L. ELLISON, Director of Agriculture, Fort Valley State College, Fort Valley, Georgia There are three questions r d like to get answered, if possible. We know that soil conservation is important; so the three questions r d like to get answered are: (1) How might we go about getting more district supervisors to serve the farmers? (2) How can we get more county supervisors to serve the people that we represent? (3) How can we get the wishes of the administrators of these various agencies, and the suggestions made by the district supervisors that we have the person who has made the application? On the other hand, the administrators say we don't have them and we'd like to have you make them. T. C.BUIE First, how to go about getting more district supervisors to serve the people we represent. You named, specifically, colored farmers. I would say this: The best way we have found is that our efforts go a great deal further when we are working with groups of farmers than with individuals. You know that in every community or neighborhood there are always eight or ten families that labor together, visit each other, borrow from each other, and when they get sick they help each other. These groups, if they can be brought together with the mutual interests that they have in the neighborhood, could use the services of a technician much more effectively than if he goes to each one individually. Though he would have to talk with them individually to plan and work with one farm. But there are a lot of things that he can talk to them about in a group. Or he could take several of them to one farm and show them there what he means. So I would say that one way would be is for you who are working with your group or with your people in one field or another-maybe it's farm demonstration agent, assistant county agent, vocational teachers, etc.-to get a group of three or four, or half a dozen, in one community and go to the supervisor and say, "We've got a group down there and, we'd like you to have a soil conservation technician come down perhaps Wednesday afternoon, or sometime that we can work out that will be suitable with them, and talk to them about how they can get the job done." I would like to ask Mr. Shepherd, our district conservationist in this immediate territory if he has anything to say. Don't you think that supervisors, generally, would welcome that approach? -102- A. A. SHEPHERD, Soil Conservat'w n Service, Tuskegee, Alabama That's the procedure we have used, more or less, in this territory. And f might say that we have a rather heavy colored population, particularly in Macon, Bullock, and Russell Counties, and the northern part of Barbour County. We, at the present time, have a group working on that basis. We always have a leader or couple of leaders in a~ost every group of families that neighbor together. As Dr. Buie just said, they borrow from each other; they live with each other; they visit each other; and they have common problems. And as long as you stay within that group, or work from a group standpoint, we've found that we can get further faster. T. C.Bum Your second question was with reference to county supervisors. ,c.. L. ELLISON Could I restate the first question please? If I might, r d like to state it in this fashion: How might we go about getting Negro personnel to serve Negro people? In this area we work in a bi-racial system and, it's hard for us to get over to the Negro farmers this point: that we work in a bi-racial system, but in this program it's a "uniracial" system. T. C.Bum Our employment of people is from the Civil Service registers. We can't go out and employ just whom we would like to; we have to take them as they come to us on the Civil Service register. I don't believe that we've ever failed to employ as technicians any qualified Negroes whose names were submitted by the Civil Service Commission. All of us who are working for the advancement of the South know that the number of qualified trained Negro personnel is not as high, proportionally, as that of the white. I think the answer I gave Dr. Patterson on that some years ago when we discussed the same question in my office was that we have employed every qualified Negro technician whose name has come to us. And I think, Dr. Patterson, that if you can get some more trained for us, we could use them. I don't know of any cases (there may have been some) where a Negro farmer has not received the same consideration in the planning and carrying out of the plans of his farm as a white farmer. I can see quite clearly the problem that you state there in some cases where, in some fields, you have the Negro representative to serve them. -103- C. W. CLIFT, Head, Division of Plant and Soil Science, Tuskegee Institute, Alabama I can't understand why we left land as the last thing. The question was asked last evening by Mr. Robinson as to whom we were trying to serve. I think we got down as far as the sharecropper. That leaves the land. Land is a very important factor. We have been wondering why there is so much migration from the farm; why young men leave the farm, go to school, and do not return. One of the problems there is the land. It isn't productive enough to entice them to return to the soil. A committee met to discuss soil conservation, but since the subject is so broad we were not able to do very much with it. We believe much more time is needed, and, perhaps just such a meeting as this is necessary in order for us to treat this subject fully. But, as I said in the beginning, we're getting the bull by the horns. J. N. FREEMAN, Director of Agriculture, Lincoln University, Jefferson City, Missouri Dr. Buie, I noticed that you put emphasis on degree of slope. The problem in some of our states-and you mentioned it in speaking of the everglades and other pieces of land very high in organic matter -is the lowlands. I'm wondering if the Soil Conservation Services have a program for lowlands. Our problem in Missouri, and throughout the South, is the large areas that need reclar:nation, a land use, and I suppose because of high rainfall and drainage conditions, a conservation program. To what extent have you placed emphasisas you have in the hilly sections of the Piedmont, Spartanburg, etc. -in the lower country of South Carolina, say down in the coastal plain section. T. C.BuIE I can answer your question only with reference to that area and not Missouri, because I'm not familiar with Missouri. We do have, along the Atlantic Seaboard, a very comprehensive program of land use. That usually starts with the design by the Soil Conservation Service in cooperation with the district of the major outlet. That is, we pick up the principal streams where the army engineers stop. Above that, we start in then and layout a plan for straightening, widening, or deepening, or whatever the channel may take, in order to provide an outlet for the land; keeping in mind that suitability of the land marks cultivation as it drains. If the large area as shown by the government surveyors is beach or will cost too much, it is left to swamp or wildlife. -104- But if it appears that it's an area where wealth is concentrated, we layout the major outlet plans. We layout the plans, but we don't do the work. Then, usually, a group of farmers come together informally and do that work. Then we layout for the individual farmer the sort of grain that he needs. One point we ought to keep in mind is that we're not promoting that idea. In other words, the Soil Conservation Service has no .object in promoting the sale of this land, or promoting the drainage for sale. That will only come as a result of the interest of the local people, and would not be done in advance of speculative purchases or anything like that. C. L. ELLISON The next question has to do with the need for more and better trained Negro personnel. To what extent does your program finance this training program? T. S. Bum We don't do that. We can help by making personnel available for occasional lectures, but I ·don't believe our fund could be spent for . that specific purpose. E. E. NEAL, Director, Rural Life Council, Tuskegee Institute, Alabama - Mr. Ellison wants to know what the requirements are for a person to qualify as a soil conservationist. T. S. Bum Broadly speaking, we think they should be reared on the farm and have a farm background at least. And they should meet whatever requirements are set up by the Civil Service Commission for the particular job. -105- EVALUATION OF AGRICULTURAL WORKERS CONFERENCE ON LAND TENURE DR. ARTHUR RAPER, Bureau of Agricultural Economics, United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, D. C. The launching of this conference was, I think, on the proper note. Namely, that farm tenure in the South is important, and that the farm tenure of Negroes is of local, regional, national, and international significance. Early in this conference it was pointed out that land ownership provides a basis for sound democratic ways in a rural community, particularly in the South. Local Significance of Landownership in the South As the members of this conference have talked about land tenure, they have defined the distinctive aspects of the matter as affected by plantation farming and by the race situation. The upshot of all that has been said in this: The farm tenant in the South occupies a distinctively inferior place, economically and socially in the life of the rural community. The owner-operator occupies a place much more nearly parallel with that of the landlord than that of the farm tenant. Therefore, it seems clear that every effort possible should be made to increase the number of family-sized farms . Also, attention might well be given to the matter of formulating means by which part-time farmers and even farm workers can purchase a home of their own. This matter we will discuss later. The matter of a rural family not owning its own home need not necessarily be associated with low status, but in the rural South, as we all know, this usually has been the case. Land tenure in Iowa and Illinois is not a problem as in the South, although a much higher proportion of the farm lands are operated by tenants in Iowa and Illinois than in the South. Let me say that over: There is not nearly so high a percentage of the land in the South being cultivated by people who do not own it as is in the States of Iowa and Illinois. Some of the biggest farms in the United States are operated by people who don't own them, and who don't want to. What they want to do is operate them. They can get a five or tent year lease. They have a written contract, and will turn "o courts if necessary. The result is that the big tenant operator is the economic and social equal of the landowner. There is some evidence that there is a trend away from the larger operators owning their land. In the Imperial Valley, and Central Valley of California-where on irrigated lands the yields are exceptionally high-the operators of the largest farms do not seem to want -106- to own the land. The young man who finishes an agricultural course in college and goes into farming in the Middle West and western regions, often prefers to take the $10,000 or $15,000 in cash or credit that he can raise and buy some machinery, and make certain he's got enough resources to get the right kind of fertilizer and good seed. Or he may buy up a half hundred steers off the range every few months, fatten them with his own alfalfa or grain feed, and put them on the market. That's what he's using his money for. He may have a higher income than the man who owns his land. No economic or social demarcation is connected with the tenant. This Conference may not have spent enough time on trends here in the South, and elsewhere. Now, what will happen in the South as it becomes mechanized? Will it get to looking like Iowa? And, if it were to get to looking like Iowa, who would drive the tractors? Who would operate our cottonpicking machines? The cotton-picking machines cost more than the corn-picking machine or the grain combine. The fellow who operates the cotton-picker will have to know his job-and in the long run will get good pay, and have a position in the local community. Farm tenure in the South is still seen almost wholly in a framework of the past. We seem to lIssume it will remain the same. But will it? What differences will take place in population numbers and characteristics? In economics? In politics? In rural institutions and organizations? If the farm tenure patterns of the South change, what segments of the pattern will change early, and what segments later? What .has happened already may give us a clue: The number of nonowners has decreased greatly in the past two decades, and the status of the remaining non-owners seems to have changed little, if any. The Essence of the Tenure Problem In this Conference, much more emphasis has been centralized on the status of families as related to tenure than on numerical changes that have taken place in the farm tenure groups. That is as it should be, for no group of citizens in a democracy should ever assume that a problem is being solved merely because it is decreasing in size. There are several angles of farm tenure that need to be brought to the front of our minds. In the session last night a very basic question came up: Who is it that we agricultural workers are trying to serve? The farmers who already own land? The more secure tenants? Do we have any approach to the cropper and wage hands, except to help make them good croppers and wage hands? That's getting at the essence of the matter. These questions were discussed for quite a while, very realistically, almost too realistically at times to be wholly -107- polite! It is interesting that a better analysis could occur in the rump session than in the Conference as a whole. But, that is natural enough, for it is often easier for a score of people than for a hundred to come to grips with the heart of a problem. The answers to the questions raised will indicate whether there is any real program now in operation to help the lower half of the Negro farm population. The general conclusion reached in this Conference is that there is no program. Should there be a program? What would the program be? Would it require new legislation, or not? What suggestions can the Negro agricultural workers assembled here make? Here are questions that deserve the careful study of the best minds of the region, in private and in public life. I have great faith in the capacity of the white and Negro people of the South to work out a problem once they set themselves to the task. In this Conference, we have talked as if home ownership was significant only when a man lives on a farm and makes a total 'living there. We all know that isn't the total picture, for numerous rural families are part-time farmers and laborers of one type or another. We need to realize that if a man works as a carpenter, if he works at what we call public labor, it's better for him to live in a house that he owns-if it is on but one acre-than it is for him to live in a tenant house. The program of the Farmers Home Administration meets a real need; but the very definition of its area of application emphasizes that there are other needs still remaining. Out of a conference of this kind might well come some thinking, even some committee, which would have the responsibility to define these other needs and suggest ways of meeting them. The South is much better off because of the program of the Farmers Home Administration. Fortunately, the Farm Ownership Program has insisted that any farm sold to a tenant be large enough for that family to live well on. I am in entire sympathy with that. Nobody in the Department of Agriculture wants a Federal agency to come into one region and set up puny, sorry little home ownership units, and go into another region and set up good ones. Let's operate by the same basic standards around the whole country. Fortunately, every time we apply a national standard in the South it lessens the differential between the South and other regions. But let me emphasize the other side of the situation. Namely, that the higher the standard of ownership in the South, the larger is the proportion of the farm population automatically left out of the program. It has become increasingly clear in this Conference that the present farm programs are not prepared-by definition of responsibility, or personnel-to -108- meet a wide range of problems down at the bottom of the farm tenure ladder in the South. Unreached Tenure Groups Need to Be Defined Let us see what the opportunities are for naming of a committee that will define these unreached tenure groups. What kind of action should be taken? It is usually cheaper for the public, and for individuals and groups of citizens, to undertake and carry through actions that are necessary to this long-run welfare than to let the job go undone. Action in public education, soil conservation, farm credit, and other activities provide numerous cases in point. It would be false economy not to have these. It may be equally false economy not to have yet other areas served which still remain undefined. Attention will need to be given to a program that does not apply equally to the whole nation. I say this in view of the fact that whereas there are many dependent farm tenants in the South, there are very few of them in some other parts of this country. Any activity designed to assist dependent tenants and rural laborers to become home owners will need to be worked with great realism-with reference to the experiences and hopes of the people. The type of activity that is needed will not be easy, but it is of great importance regionally, nationally, and internationally. Let us remember., that in a democracy we recognize that public services should be made available to meet the needs of the people as defined by themselves. We need to remember too, that an increasing number of Southern people-Negro as well as white-will be making their living otherwise than primarily from farming. Every time a new tractor is bought the number of people who live by part-time farming or by non-farm occupations increases. When we put in the TVA, we encouraged more part-time framing. H another World War should come we would be challenged to use our human and physical resources much more effectively than in World War II. Under the present defense program, more industrial goods will be needed, and industry will increase in the South because it is here that there is the greatest pool of under-used labor. The South is the area-if and when we begin pushing toward anything that approximates a battle for survival-that industry will seek, and as industry expands an increasing proportion of Negroes are going to be part-time farmers or live wholly by off-farm work. These present and future part-time farmers and off-farm workers need to be homeowners, quite as much as farm families. And for the same basic reason, namely to perform more efficiently as independent democratic citizens. How many families who are now dependent farm tenants, part-time -109- farmers, and rural laborers could be helped to become home owners? I think the number is large. This will need to be accomplished: devise assistance in the form of supervised loans for homeownership in a framework which encourages the families themselves to make their own full contribution in the form of individual and group labor. This will keep the cost down; and encourage the people themselves to appreciate the opportunities to raise their level of living. We heard the Georgia State Extension Supervisor, Mr. Stone, tell us in yesterday's session how in Wilkes County, Ga., the number of Negro landowners was increased by over one hundred in three years. This was not done through a Government activity, but under the program of a private condensed milk company that needed to be assured of a constant supply of milk. The Number of Homeowners Can Be Increased It is my belief that a large portion of Negro families in the South would qualify for assistance to become homeowners, under any reallistie overall program either private or public. The same thing that happened in Wilkes County could happen in other counties in Georgia, and throughout the South. There is evidence, too, that part-time farmers who work as carpenters or at public work can buy a home, if an appropriate assistance is available. The old assumption that some people don't want anything but just a living, and that if you pay them more they'll work less has proven too expensive to be longer defended. From time to time I have had the opportunity to test this assumption. Let me recite one instance. The Negro sawmill workers in Greene County, Georgia, were getting 12c and hour in 1939 . . In the spring of 1942 the same workers were receiving 50c an hour. The facts are that the men were working more regularly at the higher wage than they had at the lower. A couple of the workers when they first got the larger pay got drunk, and went on a spree. But the vast majority got a little better clothes, had their teeth fixed, kept their children in school more regularly, and maybe bought a second-hand car. They did just about the same things you and I would have done. The important part of this story is that the workers and the sawmill operators were both better off under the higher wage than they had been under the lower. This goes to the heart of the farm tenure problem of the South. As agricultural workers it is highly important that we demonstrate our own understanding of the kind of experiences . these people had. This Conference places before us anew a challenge of long standing. We are better equipped than heretofore to meet it effectively. For we now know well that when the people themselves want to do -110- something, the battle for democratic progress is more than half won. A man can be made to do what he doesn't want to do, but he'll drag his feet; give him a chance to do what he wants to do, and he11 work ghidly. In dosing, let me emphasize that I'd like to see a committee appointed by this Conference to give full consideration to undefined problem areas of land tenure in the South-Who are the unreached groups, and what type of. program would be of more value? The Committee should work with representatives of the Farm Ownership Program of the Farm Security Administration, the Farm Credit Administration, the Cooperative Agricultural Extension Service, the Social Security Board, and representatives of other interested public and private agencies who have information and a concern about land tenure in the South. The Committee might report back to the next annual meeting of this Conference, or in such other ways as the Executive Committee of this Confercence determines. We all know of the great contributions that have already been made; we also know there is a vast lot still undone. I think I express our common faith when I say, we can do the job if we keep on working together at it. -111- APPENDIX TABLE I.-NUMBER OF OPERATORS IN EACH TENURE-COLOR GROUP PER 1,000 MALES 20 YEARS OLD AND OVER GAINFULLY EMPLOYED ON FARMS, SOUTH, 1930 AND 1940 Tenure and color of operator Owners _____________________________________________ ____________________________________ White ______________________________________________ ________ ____________ _______________________________ ______ Nonwhite ___________________________________________________________________________ Tenants ______________________________________________________________ ~________________________________ ' White ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Nonwhite ___________________________________________________________~_ Croppers ______________"_________________________________________________________________________ White _______________________ ___________________________________________ _______________________ ______________________________________ Nonwhite _________________________ ~--- 1940 1930 Number 358 448 153 214 224 182 129 77 259 Number 330 411 143 234 230 238 176 123 301 260 236 318 Laborers ___ _______________________________________________________________________ 299 White ___________________________________________________________________________________________ 251 ____________________________________________________ 406 __ Nonwhite __________________________________ 1 Excluding croppers. Calculated from U. S. Census data. For explanatory information see "Trends in the Tenure Status of Farm Workers in the United States Since 1880," Bureau of Agricultural Economics, Washington, D. C., July, 1948. -112- TABLE 2.-PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF FARM OPERATORS BY TENURE AND COLOR, AND THE NUMBER OF FARMS, SOUTH, SELECTED YEARS Tenure and color of operator 1945 1940 1935 1930 1925 1920 1910 1900 Percent All farm operators ___ __________ __ _ 100.0 White ___________________________ _ 76.9 _ _____ Nonwhite ____________________________ 23.1 Full owners ____ ___ ______________ 52.4 ___ _ White _____ _ _________________________ 60.8 Nonwhite ____ ______ ______ ___ ___ _____ 24.2 Part owners ______ ____________________ 6.7 __ White ___________________ ___________ _ 7.5 _ Nonwhite _ ____________ _____ ___ _ 4.2 _ __ _ _ __________________ _ Managers ___________ White _____ _________ ________ ____ ______ Nonwhite _ _______________ ___________ _ 0.5 0.6 0.1 Percent 100.0 77.4 22.6 44.2 51.0 20.9 7.2 8.0 4.6 0.5 0.6 0.1 48.2 40.5 74.5 18.0 10.4 44.0 PerPercent cent 100.0 100.0 76.2 72.7 23.8 27.3 39.2 45.7 18.4 6.9 7.6 4.4 0.5 0.6 1 PerPercent cent 100.0 100.0 73.4 71.2 26.6 28.8 42 ..6 51.0 19.2 5.9 6.6 4.2 0.3 0.4 0.1 51.1 42.0 76.5 19.9 12.1 41.4 43.8 53.7 19.3 6.0 6.7 4.2 0.6 0.7 0.2 49.6 38.9 76.2 17.5 10.0 36.2 Percent 100.0 71.3 28.7 42.9 52.3 19.7 6.9 7.8 4.9 0.5 0.7 0.1 49.6 39.2 75.3 Percent 100.0 71.7 28.3 47.2 57.4 21.4 5.1 5.6 3.8 0.7 0.9 0.2 47.0 36.1 74.6 36.9 44.8 15.9 7.0 7.8 4.7 0.5 0.7 0.1 55.5 46.6 79.3 24.1 16.4 44.6 Tenants ___________________________ _ 40.4 ______ White ____ ____________ ____________ 31.1 _____ _ _________ _________ 71 .5 Nonwhite ________ Croppers __________________ ______ 15~ 5 _ White ________________ _____________ 8.0 _ Nonwhite _ _ _ __ ________ _ _ ______ 40.6 __ _ 53.5 46.1 77.1 20.9 13.3 45.2 Thou- Thou- Thou- Thou- Toou- Thou- Toou- Thousands sands sands sands sands sands sands sands Number of farms ________________ .2,881 1 3,907 3,422 3,224 3,131 3,207 3,098 2,620 0.05 percent or less. • Not available. Bureau of Agricultural Economics. Compiled from U. S. Census of Agriculture. -113- TABLE 3.-PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF LAND IN FARMS, BY TENURE AND COLOR OF OPERATOR, AND ACRES OF LAND IN FARMS, SOUTH, SELECTED YEARS Tenure and color of operator 1945 1940 1935 1930 1925 1920 1910 1900 Percent Total land in farmL ___________ 100.0 White ____ ____ ______ _ __________ _____ 91.9 __________________ 8.1 Nonwhite ________ Full owners ________________. ________ 47.1 White ___ _____________ ___ _ ____________ 48.6 ____________ ______ 30.5 _____ Nonwhite ___ Part owners ____________________ 18.9 __ ___ White ___ _ ________________ _______ _____ 20.0 Nonwhite _ ____________ _______ ______ 6.5 _ Managers _____________________________ ________ _ ___________ ___ White ________ ______ Nonwhite ____________________ 7.7 8.3 0.8 Percent Per. cent Percent Percent 100.0 89.5 10.5 51.5 54.1 29.0 11.8 12.5 5.5 5.1 5.6 0.5 31.7 27.8 65.0 7.1 4.6 28.8 Percent 100.0 88.2 11.8 51.9 55.0 28.9 11.1 11.9 5.1 6.4 7.1 0.9 30.6 26.0 65.0 6.4 4.0 24.5 Percent 100.0 88.0 12.0 54.8 58.2 30.2 10.3 10.8 6.7 7.0 7.8 0.8 28.0 23.3 62.4 Percent 100.0 89.3 10.7 50.4 52.8 29.8 11.2 12.0 4.8 14.2 15.7 1.1 24.2 19.4 64.3 100.0 100.0 100.0 91.6 90.5 89.0 8.4 9.5 11.0 41.4 42.8 26.9 17.7 18.7 6.9 7.6 8.3 0.6 33.2 30.3 65.6 · 6.3 4.2 29.2 42.3 44.2 23.9 13.5 14.4 5.7 6.7 7.4 0.5 37.5 34.1 69.9 7.9 5.4 32.3 42.3 44.6 23.8 13.1 13.9 6.5 8.0 8.9 0.7 36.6 32.5 68.9 9.2 6.4 31.7 Tenants ____________________ ____________ 26.3 ___ __________ 23.1 ___ White _________ _______ ________________________ 62.2 . Nonwhite _ _ _ ______ 5.0 Croppers ______________ ___ White _ ______ _____ ________________ 3.1 _ . _ Nonwhite __________________ 26.8 1945 1940 1935 1930 1925 1920 1910 1900 Million Million Million Million Million Million Million Million acres acres acres acres acres acres acres acres Land in farms ____________ 378 __ 370 376 343 324 350 354 362 1 Not available. Bureau of Agricultural Economics. Compiled from U. S. Census of Agriculture. -114- TABLE 4 .-PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF VALUE OF LAND AND BUILDINGS, BY TENURE AND COLOR OF OPERATOR, AND VALUE OF FARMS, SOUTH, SELECTED YEARS Tenure and color of operator 1945 Per- 1940 Per- 1935 Per- 19~0 1925 , 1920 ·1910 PerPerPer- 1900 Per- Per- cent cent cent cent cent cent cent cent Total value _________ ___________________ 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 White ________________________________ 91.4 91.4 91.0 88.7 88.8 85.3 ·87.8 88.4 ________________________ 8.6 8.6 9.0 11.3 Nonwhite _ 11.6 14.7 12.2 11.2 47.2 45.8 44.1 Full owners ______________________ 51.7 55.5 49.3 52.2 51.6 White ______ _ _________________ ______ 54.1 49.3 48.2 47.4 54.3 56.1 59.6 55.4 24.0 21.0 18.9 Nonwhite _______________________ 27.0 23.7 20.5 24.0 21.9 _ Part owners _______________________ 14.7 7.2 13.9 · 11.3 11.0 7.9 8.1 9.0 __________________________ 15.5 White ___ 11.9 ' 11.7 7.6 8.3 8.7 9.4 14.6 Nonwhite ___________________ 6.1 4.3 5.4 5.5 4.4 4.2 6.3 6.1 Managers _________________________ 6.1 6.9 4.4 5.1 5.8 5.7 3.5 5.7 White ______ _____________________ 6.5 7.6 5.0 5.7 6.1 6.3 6.3 3.8 Nonwhite _________________________ 1.1 1.5 0.9 0.7 1.0 1.2 0.8 1.0 Tenants ___________________________ -' 27.5 38,2 33.7 33.2 37.1 39.2 37.1 30.4 White ______________________________ 23.9 32.0 28.8 25.2 29.9 33.6 34.7 32.5 _____________ 65.8 Nonwhite __________ 70.5 74.3 68.5 69.0 72.8 74.7 73.0 Croppers _______________________ 6.7 _ 8.0 9.2 11.3 9.8 9.7 White __________ 4.1 5.2 6.2 7.7 5.8 6.3 Nonwhite "____ ~ _______________ 35.0 37.8 39.5 39.5 37.7 32.8 1940 1910 1900 1945 1935 1930 1925 1920 Million Million Million Million Million Million Million Million Dollars DolUsrs DolUsrs DolUsrs DolUsrs DolUsrs DolUsrs DolUsrs Value of Farms ____ 13,149 9,716 8,737 12,344 11,539 15,157 7,353 3,279 1 Not available. Bureau of Agricultural Economics. Compiled from U. S. Census of Agriculture. -115- TABLE 5.- AVERAGE ACREAGE PER FARM, BY TENURE SELECTED YEARS Tenure and color of operator 1945 Acres AND COLOR OF OPERATOR, SOUTH, 1940 Acres 1935 Acres 1930 Acres 1925 Acres 1920 Acres 1910 Acres 1900 Acres All farm operators 131.1 White ________ 156.6 Nonwhite _ 46.2 _ Full owners __ 118.0 White _______ 125.2 _ _ Nonwhite _ 58.2 Part owners __ 368.8 White ________ 419.7 Nonwhite _ 71.2 _ __ Managers _ ___ 2,202.5 White _ _____ 2,259.9 __ _ Nonwhite _ 547.6 Tenants ----- --- 85.1 White ________ 116.1 Nonwhite __ 40.2 Croppers ---- 42.4 White ___ ___ 60.6 30.5 Nonwhite 1 123.1 145.8 45.5 115.5 122.3 58.7 302.5 342.1 68.3 2,092.0 2,126.3 479.3 84.9 109.0 40.0 43.1 58.9 30.2 109.9 130.7 43.6 118.7 126.6 56.7 217.0 246.1 56.2 1,598.1 1,625.9 473.5 77.0 96.5 39.5 41.7 52.8 31.2 106.4 130.3 42.9 122.0 129.7 64.1 199.5 231.3 59.5 1,587.9 1,651.4 321.8 70.0 91.0 37.3 40.7 51.2 30.5 103.5 126.2 40.8 125.2 133.8 61.6 205.3 240.4 53.2 1,503.9 1,583.6 277.7 64.1 83.6 34.6 36.9 47.5 28.3 109.2 135.2 44.8 129.2 138.3 66.9 203.4 241.6 54.5 1,225.1 1,333.9 207.8 67.3 90.4 38.2 40.2 54.5 30.4 114.4 141.3 47.9 146.1 157.1 73.3 169.3 195.3 65.9 1,514.7 1,612.1 291.5 64.5 83.8 39.6 138.2 172.1 52.1 147.5 158.4 72.6 305.1 369.4 65.5 2,734.1 2,962.8 269.0 71.2 92.5 44.9 Not available. Bureau of Agricultural Economics. Compiled from U. S. Census of Agriculture. -116- TABLE 6.-AVERAGE VALUE OF LAND AND BUILDINGS PER FARM, BY TENURE OF OPERATOR, SOUTH, SELECTED YEARS Tenure and color of operator 1945 1940 1935 1930 1925 1920 AND COLOR 1910 1900 Dollars Dollars All farm operators _______ ______ 4,564 3,231 White ________________ 5,424 3,818 _____ Nonwhite ____ _ 1,701 1,222 Full owners _____ 4,508 ____ 3,452 White ________________ 4,819 3,697 Nonwhite ______ 1,896 1,403 Part owners __ ______ 9,982 6,236 _ White _____________ 11,267 7,016 Nonwhite __________ 2,461 1,628 Managers ________ 60,530 40,674 ____ Whi!:e ___________ 61,671 41,230 _ Nonwhite _ ____ 27,635 20,562 _____ • Tenants _______________ 3,103 2,229 White ____ _ __________ 4,163 _ 2,819 Nonwhite _________ 1,566 1,132 Croppers ___________ 1,981 1,433 White _ __________ 2,775 1,908 Nonwhite ____ 1,464 _ 1,049 1 Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars 2,553 3,050 966 2,984 3,221 1,104 4,194 4,740 1,176 3,829 4,675 1,580 4,577 4,938 1,~72 3,685 4,454 1,558 4,465 4,831 1,780 4,891 5,644 1,636 4,727 5,661 2,414 5,318 5,719 2,561 6,396 7,413 2,421 2,374 2,923 1,011 2,885 3,135 1,234 3,077 3,520 1,312 1,251 1,542 513 1,470 1,602 570 1,768 2,087 580 12,050 12,845 3,480 811 1,076 485 6,014 6,959 1,835 32,294 40,269 32,680 41,472 16,717 16,302 1,772 2,222 912 1,117 1,406 845 2,704 3,482 1A§9 1,802 2,213 1,400 36,686 36,543 23,233 38,204 39,151 24,393 13,337 12,166 8,643 2,670 3,450 1,486 1,819 2,315 1,417 3,637 4,656 2,352 2,633 3,284 2,190 1,613 2,149 920 Not available. Bureau of Agricultural Economics. Compiled from U. S. Census of Agriculture. -117- TABLE 7.-PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF FARM OPERATORS IN EACH TENURE COLOR GROUP BY YEABS ON FARM, EAST SOUTH CENTRAL DIVISION, 1940' Tenure and color of operator Total number reporting Less than 5 years of occupancy 5 to 9 years 10 to 14 yel!ls AND . 15 'years and over Percent _ ___ All fann operators _ __________ 1oo.o _ _ ______ White _ ______________ ____ 100.0 _________ 100.0 __ Nonwhite _________ ___________________ 100.0 _ Full owners _ _______ 100.0 White ______________________ _____ _____ _ 100.0 __________ Nonwhite _ __ ____ _ Part owners ______ _______ 100.0 ________ _____ __________ 100.0 White ___ ______ _______________ 100.0 ___ Nonwhite ___ _____ ______ Managers __ _________ ___ 100.0 _ ________ 100.0 ____ White __ _____ ___ __________ Nonwhite _ _________ _ 100.0 _ _________________ 100.0 _____ Tenants ___________ ___ __________ ~____ loo.0 White ____________ ______ ____ _ 100.0 ____ _ Nonwhite _ ____ ______ Croppers ____~ ______ _______ 100.0 ________________ _ _ __________ 100.0 White _ _ _________ 100.0 _____ Nonwhite _______ 1 Percent 46.3 43.5 54.1 23.3 23.6 19.7 29.4 30.1 25.3 56.5 56.6 54.4 68.1 72.9 61.6 72.8 79.3 68.3 Percent 17.2 16.6 19.1 16.6 16.8 14.8 19.0 19.3 17.0 21.2 21.1 23.6 17.5 15.7 19.9 16.5 12.9 19.0 Percent 11.2 11.6 10.2 14.9 14.9 15.7 15.8 15.8 15.9 10.6 10.7 8.8 7.4 6.3 8.9 6.1 4.8 7.0 Percent 25.3 28.3 16.7 45.2 44.7 49.8 35.8 34.8 41.8 11.7 11.6 13.2 7.0 5.1 9.6 4.6 3.0 5.7 . East South Central Division comprises Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, and Mississippi. Bureau of Agricultural Economics. Compiled from U. S. Census of Agriculture. -118- TABLE 8.-PERCENTAGE OF FARMS REpORTING SPECIFIED ITEMS, EAST SOUTH CENTRAL DIVISION, AND AVERAGE VALUE OF MACHINERY ANP EQUIPMENT PER FARM REpORTING, SOUTH, BY TENURE AND COLOR OF OPERATOR, 1940' Specified items Tenure and color of Tractors operator Motortrucks Percent 6.5 8.4 1.3 Alitomobiles Percent 26.1 31.7 lO:2 Electric Dwellings line lighted within by elec~ mile tricity Percent 31.0 32.8 25.9 Percent 14.3 18.0 3.8 Average value Tele- of implephones ments and . machinery Percent 8.7 11.5 0.6 Percent All farm operators ___ 3.6 White ------------------ 4.7 Nonwhite 0.5 Dollars 298 352 84 314 340 104 594 672 124 2,719 2,750 1,648 201 259 72 113 158 69 Full owners ------------ 4.7 White - ---------------- 5.1 Nonwhite -------- 0.9 Part owners ------------ 8.3 White --------------- 9.4 Nonwhite ------- ---- 1.4 _______________ 53.6 Managers _ _______________ 53.9 White _ Nonwhite ___________ 46.9 _________ 1.9 Tenants ___ White ------------------ 3.0 Nonwhite ------------ 0.3 Croppers .-------------- 1.1 White - -------------. 2.1 Nonwhite --------- 0.4 1 9.7 lO.3 3.7 11.8 13.0 4.2 39.0 39.0 39.5 3.0 4.7 0.8 1.3 2.7 0.4 ·36.2 38.0 17.4 35.1 38.1 16.9 56.3 56.9 38.3 16.1 21.7 8.5 12.3 18.1 8.2 33.7 35.1 20.3 33.4 34.3 27.5 64.0 64.2 58.0 28.2 29.2 26.8 31.2 30.6 31.6 21.0 22.6 5.3 18.9 20.9 6.6 50.3 50.8 34.6 7.7 lO.8 3.4 6.0 9.0 3.9 14.0 15.2 1.0 12.8 14.8 0.9 37.7 38.4 18.5 3.4 5.6 0.5 2.2 4.4 0.6 East South Central Division comprises Kentu'!r' Tennessee, Alabama, and Mississippi. Bureau of Agricultural Economics. Compil from U. S. Census of Agriculture. -119- TABLE 9.-PERCENTAGE OF FARMS REpORTING SPECIFIED ITEMS BY TENURE AND COLOR OF OPERATOR, SOUTH, 1945 Specified items Tenure and color Runof operator ning water Electricity MeKitchen chansink ical rewith frigdrain eration Power washn ' Milking ing "omb mesmachines machine Radio Percent Pel'cent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent All operators _________ 18.5 20.9 20.4 17.7 2.1 0.7 34.5 64.3 White __________ ________ 23.5 42.4 74.7 26.2 22.8 0.9 26.9 2.7 ___________ 2.3 9.4 Nonwhite 30.8 1.9 1.7 1.0 0.1 0.1 _________ 24.8 Full owners _ 43.5 73.1 28.2 28.0 23.1 1.8 0.7 White _________________ 27.4 47.5 77.7 31.3 2.0 0.8 31.1 25.8 1 Nonwhite ____________ 4.0 12.6 37.3 4.2 3.8 2.5 0.2 Part owners ____________ 28.4 30.2 8.5 42.3 77.9 32.7 31.1 2.3 White __________________ 33.0 47.5 84.0 38.0 36.0 35.2 9.9 2.5 ____________ 2.8 13.3 43.8 3.1 Nonwhite 3.4 2.5 0.6 1.0 _______________ 73.6 _ 78.4 96.2 59.8 53.4 37.6 18.9 Managers 9.4 White ________________ 75.6 __ 80.2 97.9 61.1 54.6 38.9 19.6 9.8 Nonwhite ___________ 29.0 39.4 59.6 29.9 26.5 7.5 3.2 0.4 _________ 8.0 Tenants ____ 8.2 8.1 1.2 21.0 50.1 9.0 0.4 14.8 13.5 13.6 66.0 White ________________ 12.6 30.3 2.0 0.6 1 Nonwhite ____________ 1.6 8.0 27.6 0.8 0.1 0.9 0.4 _____ _________ 3.6 Croppers 40.2 3.8 3.8 2.8 0.3 0.1 16.7 White "_______________ 7.3 28.1 0.7 0.3 58.9 8.5 8.6 6.7 1 Nonwhite ____ 1.3 28.2 0.8 0.7 0.4 0.1 9.4 1 Less than 0.05 percent. Bureau of Agricultural Economics. Compiled from U. S. Census of Agriculture. -120- TABLE 10.-AVERAGE EKJ'ENDITURE PER FARM REpORTING FOR SPECIFIED ITEMS, BY TENURE AND COLOR OF OPERATOR, EAST SOUTH CENTRAL DIVISION, 19391 Tenure and color of operator Building material Lim- CommerImple- Gasoline ing cial Feed ments. & kerosen~ Labor mateferti'1 machm- and 01 ery rial lizer Total Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars All farm Operators 115 White __ ______ 121 _______ Nonwhite __________ 52 Full owners _______ 118 White --------------- 121 Nonwhite __________ 65 Part owners _ ____ 118 ___ .:.. White ______________ 123 _ Nonwhite _________ 59 Managers _ ___________ 852 White _________ _ ______ 863 Nonwhite _________ 518 Tenants ----------White _____________ _ __ Nonwhite _________ 1 35 35 19 34 34 19 34 34 13 158 159 68 33 34 19 49 52 38 49 50 38 65 69 42 512 520 280 43 48 38 74 81 29 80 84 31 101 110 33 1,098 1,121 422 48 55 28 146 170 33 170 183 46 214 238 54 1,104 1,115 714 80 105 25 42 49 11 48 50 17 72 78 23 527 532 394 23 30 9 167 182 53 168 173 70 249 265 88 2,313 2,351 1,166 97 114 41 628 690 235 667 695 286 853 917 312 6,564 6,661 3,562 401 473 191 77 87 31 East South Central Division comprises Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, and Mississippi. Bureau of Agricultural Economics. Compiled from U. S. Census of Agriculture. -121- TABLE 11.-AVERAGE NUMBER OF LIVESTOCK PER FARM REpORTING BY TENURE AND COLOR OF OPERATOR, SOUTH, 1945 Mules and mule colts Cows All and cattle heifers and 2 years calves old and over Tenure and color of operator Horses and colts Hogs and pigs Sows and gilts Sheep and lambs Goats and kids Number Number Number Number Number Number Number Number All farm operators _____________ 2.1 51.4 7.4 2.2 105.9 2.2 11.5 6.7 59.6 13.1 7.6 8.3 2.5 107.3 White - --- ------ 2.2 2.3 4.5 19.3 Nonwhite 3.9 2.4 4.7 1.6 1.7 1.7 Full owners ---------- 2.1 White -------------.- 2.2 Nonwhite 1.7 2.1 2.1 1.6 2.8 3.0 1.8 7.0 7.1 4.0 2.2 2.3 1.7 1.9 2.0 1.6 10.7 11.3 4.8 27.4 30.7 5.4 145.0 148.8 46.9 7.1 8.8 3.3 3.9 5.2 2.5 6.3 6.7 2.9 15.6 17.3 3.3 78.0 79.8 32.2 4.2 5.2 2.1 2.5 3.2 1.7 7.9 7.9 5.3 10.4 11.4 5.8 40.1 40.8 27.0 5.6 6.6 4.4 4.7 6.0 3.9 2.4 2.4 1.7 2.6 2.9 1.7 8.0 8.1 6.4 1.8 2.0 1.5 1.6 1.8 1.4 72.7 73.3 13.9 175.4 178.4 15.7 419.4 428.8 116.5 147.3 151.3 17.3 47.6 50.5 14.4 46.2 49.8 5.7 74.7 81.7 2.6 251.0 252.5 27.3 39.0 55.3 4.0 12.8 20.1 3.9 Part owners -------. White ------------Nonwhite ---------Managers -------------White ---------------Nonwhite ---------______________ Tenants _ White --------------Nonwhite ---------Croppers __________ ._ _ White -------------Nonwhite -------- 2.5 2.6 1.8 9.7 9.6 12.0 1.9 2.0 1.7 1.7 1.9 1.6 Bureau of Agricultural Economics. Compiled from U. S. Census of Agriculture. -122- TABLE 12.-AVERAGE VALUE PER FARM REpORTING AND PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF FARM PRODUCTS SOLD OR USED BY FARM HOUSEHOLDS, BY TENURE AND COLOR OF OPERATOR, SOUTH, 1945 All fann products Tenure and color of operator Sold or used by fann households Average per fann Percentage distribution Percent 100.0 84.7 15.3 Sold Average per fann Dollars 1,637 1,823 1,029 Percentage distribution Percent 100.0 85.2 14.8 Dollars All farm operators _______________________ 1,979 White ________ _________________________________ 2,190 Nonwhite ____________________________________ 1,292 Full owners ____________________________________ 1,692 _________ _____________ ______ _________ 1,791 White ___ ___ _ Nonwhite ____________________________ ~__ 889 Part owners _____ _______ _______________________ 3,880 White _________________________________________ 4,339 Nonwhite _________ _ __________________________ 1,303 Managers ____ ______________________________ 18,119 ____ White _________ ______________________________ 18,538 ________ 6,677 Nonwhite __________________________ ___ Tenants ____________"_______________________ 1,798 White ___~--------------------------------- 2,061 Nonwhite ________________________________ 1,424 ________________________ 1,673 Croppers __________ 44.6 49.6 16.9 13.4 15.0 4.4 5.3 6.2 0.4 36.7 29.2 78.3 13.2 7.0 47.2 1,331 1,423 592 3,458 3,902 968 17,549 17,959 6,322 1,496 1,718 1,178 1,415 1,599 1,296 42.4 47.3 14.1 14.4 16.2 4.1 6.2 7.2 0.5 37.0 29.3 81.3 13.5 7.0 50.6 ~o~!:hit~--~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~=~~~~~~~~~ ~:~~~ Bureau of Agricultural Economics. Compiled from U. S. Census of Agriculture. -123- TABLE 13.-COMPARISON OF SPECIFIED ITEMS BY TENURE AND COLOR OF OPERATOR, SOUTH, SELECTED YEARS Percentage of operators Tenure and color of operator On all weather ro~ds' working off of farm 2 Average age of operator" Persons residing on farm' Cash wages l1 er farm" Percent All farm operators ---------------- 44.2 White ---------------------------------- 45.6 Nonwhite --------.------------------- 32.9 F ull owners ---. ---------------------White --------------------------------Nonwhite --------------------------Part owners ____________________________ _ _ White ------.-----------.--.-----------Nonwhite ---------------------------46.9 48.7 28.7 47.4 50.1 31.4 Percent 14.6 16.7 7.3 19.5 20.1 13.8 13.1 13.5 10.9 5.8 5.8 5.8 10.4 13.1 5.3 6.6 9.2 4.5 Years 48.1 48.6 46.6 52.0 51.8 53.5 47.5 46.9 47.6 46.2 46.1 47.2 43.2 42.7 44.0 Number 4.3 4.2 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.4 5.1 5.0 5.3 9.9 10.1 5.7 4.5 4.5 4.6 4.4 4.5 4.4 Dollars 489 550 141 402 423 139 907 994 186 5,225 5,314 2,216 330 410 129 189 250 120 Managers -----. -.-. ----- .....--------------- 71.9 White ---------------------------------- 72.3 Nonwhite ---------------------------- 61.7 Tenants -------------------------------- 37.6 White -------._----------.-------------- 40.4 Nonwhite -_._ --------------------_ 33.8 .-. Croppers -----------.-------------------. 39.8 White -------------------------------- 42.2 Nonwhite -------------------------- 38.2 1 2 Except dirt roads, 1945. Farm operators reporting 100 or more days of work off of their farms for payor income, 1939. • 1945. • Average, 1945. • Average amount of cash wages paid for labor, per farm, 1944. Bureau of Agricultural Economics. Compiled from U. S. Census of Agriculture. - 124-