1>
rF
t
K
'^^^.'^17.-^17^^1
"^
Given By
17. S. SUPT. OF DOCimTENTS
^
CITORY
Vol. Ill - pt. 9 ch. Ill
FARMERS AND FARM PRODUCTION
IN THE UNITED STATES
(A COOPERATIVE REPORT)
Tobacco and Peanut Producers
and Production
SPECIAL REPORTS
1954
Census
Agriculture
^^
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
BUREAU OF THE CENSUS
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE
WASHINGTON • 7956
il'J' 6^' ''^'''^ oi (i^JLCny^y\
/
U. S. Department of Agriculture
Ezra Taft Benson, Secretary
Agricultural Research Service
Byron T. Shaw, Administrator
U. S. Department of Commerce
Sinclair Weeks, Secretary
Bureau of the Census
Robert W. Burgess, Director
United States
c
ensus
Agriculture
t .f 1 !■» «»'''*^'^1?'^M M']!;*^
1954
Volume
SPECIAL REPORTS
Part 9
Farmers and Farm Production in the United States
(A Cooperative Report)
Chapter III
Tobacco and Peanut
Producers and Production
CHARACTERISTICS OF FARMERS and FARM PRODUCTION •
PRINCIPAL TYPES OF FARMS •
BUREAU OF THE CENSUS
Robert W. Burgess, Director
AGRICULTURE DIVISION
Ray Hurley, Chief
Warder B. Jenkins, Assistant Chief
AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE
Byron T. Shaw, Administrator
FARM AND LAND MANAGEMENT RESEARCH
Sherman E. Johnson, Director
PRODUCTION ECONOMICS RESEARCH BRANCH
Carl P. Heisig, Chief
Boston Public Library
Superiiitfndpnt of Documents
JUL 1 7 1957
e
^3
SUGGESTED IDENTIFICATION
U. S. Bureau of the Census. U. S. Census of Agriculture: 19i4. Vol. Ill, Special Reports
Part 9, Farmers and Farm Production in the United States.
Chapter III, Tobacco and Peanut Producers and Production
U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington 25, D. C, 1956.
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington 25, D. C.
or any of the Field Offices of the Department of Commerce, Price 40 cents (paper cover)
PREFACE
The purpose of tliis report is to present an analysis of the characteristics of farmers and farm production
for the most important types of farms as shown by data for the 1954 Census of Agriculture. The analysis
deals with the relative importance, pattern of resource use, some measures of efficiency, and problems of
adjustment and change for the principal types of farms.
The data given in the various chapters of this report have been derived largely from the special tabula-
tion of data for each type of farm, by economic class, for the 1954 Census of Agriculture. The detailed
statistics for each type of farm for the United States and the principal subregions appear in Part 8 of Volume
III of the reports for the 1954 Census of Agriculture.
This cooperative report was prepared under the direction of Ray Hurley, Chief of the Agriculture Divi-
sion of the Bureavi of the Census, U. S. Department of Commerce, and Kenneth L. Bachman, Head, Produc-
tion, Income, and Costs Section, Production Economics Research Branch, Agricultural Research Service of
the U. S. Department of Agriculture.
Jackson V. McElveen, Agricultural Economist, Production, Income, and Costs Section, Production
Economics Research Branch, Agricultural Research Service of the U. S. Department of Agriculture, super-
vised a large part of the detailed planning and analysis for the various chapters.
The list of chapters and the persons preparing each chapter are as follows:
Chapter I Wheat Producers and Wheat
Production
A. W. Epp,
University of Nebraska.
Chapter II Cotton Producers and Cotton
Production
Robert B. Glasgow,
Production Economics Research
Branch,
Agricultural Research Service,
United States Department of
Agriculture.
Chapter III Tobacco and Peanut Producers
and Production
R. E. L. Greene,
University of Florida.
Chapter IV Poultry Producers and Poultry
Production
William P. Mortenson,
University of Wisconsin.
. Dairy Producers and Dairy Pro-
duction
P. E. McNall,
University of Wisconsin.
Chapter VI .
Chapter VII..
Western Stock Ranches and Live-
stock Farms
Mont H. Saunderson,
Western Ranching and Lands
Consultant,
Bozeman, Mont.
Cash-grain and Livestock Pro-
ducers in the Corn Belt
Edwin G. Strand,
Production Economics Research
Branch,
Agricultural Research Service,
United States Department of
Agriculture.
Chapter VIII- . Part-time Farming
H. G. Halcrowj^
University of Connecticut.
Chapter IX.
Agricultural Producers and Pro-
duction in the United States —
A General View
Jackson V. McElveen,
Production Economics Research
Branch,
Agricultural Research Service,
United States Department of
Agriculture.
The editorial work for this report was performed by Caroline B. Sherman, and the preparation of the
statistical tables was supervised by Margaret Wood.
Chapter V.
December 1956
UNITED STATES CENSUS OF AGRICULTURE: 1954
REPORTS
Volume I. — Counties and State Economic Areas. Statistics for counties include number of farms, acreage, value, and farm operators;
farms bv color and tenure of operator; facilities and equipment; use of commercial fertilizer; farm labor; farm expenditures; livestock and
livestock products; specified crops harvested; farms classified by type of farm and by economic class; and value of products sold by source.
Data for State economic areas include farms and farm characteristics by tenure of operator, by type of farm, and by economic class.
Volume I is published in 33 parts.
Volume n. — General Report. Statistics by Subjects, United States Census of Agriculture, 1954. Summary data and analyses of
the data for States, for Geographic Divisions, and for the United States by subjects.
Volume III. — Special Reports
Part 1. — Multiple-Unit Operations. This report will be similar to
Part 2 of Volume V of the reports for the 1950 Census of Agri-
culture. It will present statistics for approximately 900
counties and State economic areas in 12 Southern States and
Missouri for the number and characteristics of multiple-unit
operations and farms in multiple units.
Part 2. — Ranking Agricultural Counties. This special report will
present statistics for selected items of inventory and agricul-
tural production for the leading counties in the United States.
Part 3. — Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, District of Columbia, and
U. S. Possessions. These areas were not included in the 1954
Census of Agriculture. The available current data from vari-
ous Goverimient sources will be compiled and published in
this report.
Part 4. — Agriculture, 1954, a Graphic Summary. This report will
present graphically some of the significant facts regarding
agriculture and agricultural production as revealed by the 1954
Census of Agriculture.
Part 5. — Farm-Mortgage Debt. This will be a cooperative study
by the Agricultural Research Service of the U. S. Department
of Agriculture and the Bureau of the Census. It wiU present,
by States, data based on the 1954 Census of Agriculture and a
special mail survey conducted in January 1956, on the num-
ber of mortgaged farms, the amount of mortgage debt, and the
amount of debt held by principal lending agencies.
Part 6. — Irrigation in Humid Areas. This cooperative report by
the Agricultural Research Service of the U. S. Department of
Agriculture and the Bureau of the Census will present data ob-
tained by a mail survey of operators of irrigated farms in 28
States on the source of water, method of applying water, num-
ber of pumps used, acres of crops irrigated in 1954 and 1955,
the number of times each crop was irrigated, and the cost of
irrigation equipment and the irrigation system.
Part 7. — Popular Report of the 1954 Census of Agriculture. This
report is planned to be a general, easy-to-read publication for
the general public on the status and broad characteristics of
United States agriculture. It will seek to delineate such as-
pects of agriculture as the geographic distribution and dif-
ferences by size of farm for such items as farm acreage, princi-
pal crops, and important kinds of livestock, farm facilities,
farm equipment, use of fertilizer, soil conservation practices,
farm tenure, and farm income.
Part 8. — Size of Operation by Type of Farm. This will be a coop-
erative special report to be prepared in cooperation with the
Agricultural Research Service of the U. S. Department of Agri-
culture. This report wiU oont.iin data for 119 economic sub-
regions (essentially general type-of-farming areas) showing the
general characteristics for each type of farm by economic class.
It will provide data for a current analysis of the differences
that exist among groups of farms of the same type. It will
furnish statistical basis for a realistic examination of produc-
tion of such commodities as wheat, cotton, and dairy products
in connection with actual or proposed governmental policies
and programs.
Part 9. — Farmers and Farm Production in the United States.
The purpose of this report is to present an analysis of the
characteristics of farmers and farm production for the most
important types of farms as shown by data for the 1954 Census
of Agriculture. The analysis deals with the relative importance,
pattern of resource use, some measures of efficiency, and prob-
lems of adjustment and change for the principal types of farms.
The report was prepared in cooperation with the Agricultural
Researcli Service of the U. S. Department of Agriculture.
The list of chapters (published separately only) and title
for each chapter are as follows:
Chapter I — Wheat Producers and Wheat Production
II — Cotton Producers and Cotton Production
III — Tobacco and Peanut Producers and Production
IV — Poultry Producers and Poultry Production
Y— Dairy Producers and Dairy Production
VI — Western Stock Ranches and Livestock Farms
VII — Cash-Grain and Livestock Producers in the Corn
Belt
VIII — Part-Time Fanning
IX — Agricultural Producers and Production in the
United States — A General View
Part 10. — Use of Fertilizer and lime. The purpose of this report
is to present in one publication most of the detailed data com-
piled for the 1954 Census of Agriculture regarding the use of
fertilizer and lime. The report presents data for counties.
State economic areas, and generalized type-of-farming areas
regarding the quantity used, acreage on which used, and
expenditures for fertilizer and lime. The Agricultural Research
Service cooperated with the Bureau of the Census in the prep-
aration of this report.
Part 11. — Farmers' Expenditures. This report presents detailed
data on expenditures for a large number of items used for farm
production in 1955, and on the living expenditures of farm
operators' families. The data were collected and compiled
cooperatively by the Agricultural Marketing Service of the
U. S. Department of Agriculture and the Bureau of the Census.
Part 12. — Methods and Procedures. This report contains an
outline and a description of the methods and procedures used
in taking and compiling the 1954 Census of Agriculture.
INTRODUCTION
<;
w
Pi
<
u
o
o
u
w
Q
<
o
o
cq
D
oo
U
§
o
o
u
w
2 s|s „ f
Z -Si S I
OS s^»aou.
INTRODUCTION
Purpose and scope. — Amorican agiicvilture is exceedingly diverse
and is undergoing revolutionary changes. Farmers and their
famines obtain their income by producing a large variety of
products under a large variety of conditions as well as from sources
other than farming. The organization of production, type of
farming, productivity, income, expenditures, .size, and character-
istics of operators of the 4.8 million farms in the United States
vary greatly. Agriculture has been a dynamic, moving, adjusting
part of our economy. Basic changes in farming have been occurring
and will continue to be necessary. Adjustments brought by tech-
nological change, by changing consumer wants, by growth of
population, and by changes in the income of nonfarm people, have
been significant forces in changing agriculture since World War II.
The transition from war to an approximate peacetime situation
has also made it necessary to reduce the output of some farm
products. Some of the adjustments in agriculture have not pre-
sented relatively difficult problems as they could be made by the
transfer of resources from the production of one product to another.
Others require substantial shifts in resources and production.
Moreover, a considerable number of farm families, many of whom
are employed full time in agriculture, have relatively low incomes.
Most of these families operate farms that are small when compared
with farms that produce higher incomes. The acreage of land and
the amount of capital controlled by the operators of these small
farms are too small to provide a very high level of income. In
recent years, many farm families on these small farms have made
adjustments by leaving the farm to earn their incomes elsewhere,
by discontinuing their farm operations, and by earning more non-
farm income while remaining on the farm or on the place they
farmed formerly.
One objective of this report is to describe and analyze some of
the existing differences and recent adjustments in the major types
of farming and farm production. For important commodities and
groups of farms, the report aims to make available, largely from
the detailed data for the 1954 Census of Agriculture but in a more
concise form, facts regarding the size of farms, capital, labor, and
land resources on farms, amounts and sources of farm income and
expenditures, combinations of crop and livestock enterprises,
adjustment problems, operator characteristics, and variation in use
of resources and in size of farms by areas and for widely differing
production conditions. Those types of farms on which production
of surplus products is important have been emphasized. The
report will provide a factual basis for a better understanding of
the widespread differences among farms in regard to size, resources,
and income. It will also provide a basis for evaluating the effects
of existing and proposed farm programs on the production and
incomes of major types and classes of farms.
Income from nonfarm sources is important on a large number
of farms. About 1.4 million of the 4.8 million farm-oper.itor
families, or about 3 in 10, obtain more income from off-farm sources
than from the sale of agricultural products. More than three-
fourths of a million farm operators live on small-scale part-time
farms and ordinarily are not dependent on farming as the main
source of family income. The.se part-time farmers have a quite
different relation to adjustments, changes, and farm problems
than do commercial farmers. A description of and facts regarding
these part-time farms and the importance of nonfarm income for
commercial farms are presented in Chapter 8.
Except for Cluipter 8, this report deals with commercial farms
(see economic class of farm). The analysis is limited to the major
types of agricultural production and deals primarily with geo-
graphic areas in which each of the major types of agricultural
production has substantial significance.
Source of data. — Mo.^t of the data presented in this report are
from special compilations made for the 1954 Census of Agriculture,
although pertinent data from research findings and surveys of the
U. S. Department of Agriculture, State Agricultural Colleges, and
other agencies have been used to supplement Census data. The
detailed Census data used for this report are contained in Part 8 of
Volume III of the reports of the 1954 Census of Agriculture.
Reference should be made to that report for detailed explanations
and definitions and statements regarding the characteristics and
reliability of the data.
Areas for which data are presented. — Data are presented in
this report primarily for .selected economic subregions and for the
United States. The boundaries of the 119 subregions u.sed for the
compilation of data on which this report is based are indicated by
the map on page vi. These subregions represent primarily general
type-of-farming areas. Many of them extend into two or more
States. (For a more detailed description of economic subregions,
see the publication "Economic Subregions of the United States,
Series Census BAE; No. 19, published cooperatively by the Bureau
of the Census, and the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, U. S.
Department of Agriculture, July 1953.)
DEFINITIONS AND EXPLANATIONS
Definitions and explanations are given oidy for some of the more
important it«ms. For more detailed definitions and explanations,
reference can be made to Part 8 of Volume III and to Volume II of
the reports of the 1954 Census of Agriculture.
A farm. — For the 1954 Census of Agricult\ire, places of 3 or
more acres were counted as farms if the annual value of agricultural
[iroducts, exclu.sive of home-garden products, amounted to $150
or more. The agricultural products could have Ix-en either for
home use or for sale. Places of less than 3 acres were counted as
farms only if the annual value of sales of agricultural products
amounted to $150 or more. Places for which the value of agricul-
tural products for 1954 was less than these minima because of crop
failure or other unusual conditions, and places operated at the time
of the Census for the first time were counted as farms if normally
they could be expected to produce these minimum quantities of
agricultural products.
All the land under the control of one person or partnership was
included as one farm. Control may have been through ownership,
or through lease, rental, or cropping arrangement.
Farm operator. — A "farm ojierator'' is a person who operates
a farm, either performing the labor himself or directly supervising
it. Ho may be an owner, a hired manager, or a tenant, renter, or
sharecropper. If he rents land to others or has land cropped for
him by others, he is Usted as the operator of only that land which
he retains. In the ca.se of a partnership, only one partner was
included as the operator. The number of farm operators is con-
sidered the same as the number of farms.
VIII
FARMERS AND FARM PRODUCTION
Farms reporting or operators reporting. — Figures for farms
reporting or operators reporting, based on a tabulation of all farms,
represent the number of farms, or farm operators, for which the
specified item was reported. For example, if there were 11,922
farms in a subregion and only 11,465 had chickens over 4 months
old on hand, the number of farms reporting chickens would be
1 1,465. The difference between the total number of farms and the
number of farms reporting an item represents the number of farms
not having that item, provided the inquiry was answered
completely for all farms.
Farms by type. — The classification of commercial farms by
type was made on the basis of the relationship of the value of
sales from a particular source, or sources, to the total value of all
farm products sold from the farm. In some cases, the type of
farm was determined on the basis of the sale of an individual farm
product, such as cotton, or on the basis of the sales of closely re-
lated products, such as dairy products. In other cases, the type
of farm was determined on the basis of sales of a broader group of
products, such as grain crops including corn, sorghums, all small
grains, field peas, field beans, cowpeas, and soybeans. In order to
be classified as a particular type, sales or anticipated sales of a
product or group of products had to represent 50 percent or more
of the total value of products sold.
The types of commercial farms for which data are shown, to-
gether with the product or group of products on which the classi-
fication is based are:
Product or group of products amount-
ing to 50 percent or more of the
Type of farm value of all farm products sold
Cash-grain Corn, sorghum, small grains, field
peas, field beans, co\\'peas, and
soybeans.
Cotton Cotton (lint and seed).
Other field-crop Peanuts, Irish potatoes, sweet-
potatoes, tobacco, sugarcane, sug-
ar beets for sugar, and other
miscellaneous crops.
Vegetable Vegetables.
Fruit-and-nut Berries and other small fruits, and
tree fruits, nuts, and grapes.
Dairy Milk and other dairy products.
The criterion of 50 percent of the
total sales was modified in the
case of dairy farms. A farm for
which the value of sales of dairy
products represented less than 50
percent of the total value of farm
products sold was classified as a
dairy farm if —
(a) Milk and other dairy prod-
ucts accounted for 30
percent or more of the
total value of products
sold, and
(h) Milk cows represented 50
percent or more of all
cows, and
(r) Sales of dairy products, to-
gether with the sales
of cattle and calves,
amounted to 50 percent
or . more of the total
vahie of farm products
sold.
Poultry Chickens, eggs, turkeys, and other
poultry products.
Livestock farms other than Cattle, calves, hogs, sheep, goats,
dairy and poultry. wool, and mohair, provided the
farm did not qualify as a dairy
farm.
Product or group of products amount-
ing to 50 percent or more of the
Type of farm value of all farm products sold
General Farms were classified as general
when the value of products from
one source or group of sources
did not represent as much as 50
percent of the total value of all
farm products sold. Separate
figures are given for three kinds
of general farms:
(a) Primarily crop.
(b) Primarily livestock.
(c) Crop and livestock.
Primarily crop farms are those for
which the sale of one of the
following crops or groups of
crops — vegetables, fruits and
nuts, cotton, cash grains, or other
field crops — did not amount to
50 percent or more of the value
of all farm products sold, but
for which the value of sales for
all these groups of crops repre-
sented 70 percent or more of the
value of all farm products sold.
Primarily livestock farms are those
which could not qualify as dairy
farms, poultry farms, or livestock
farms other than dairy and
poultry, but on which the sale
of •livestock and poultry and
livestock and poultry products
amounted to 70 percent or more
of the value of all farm products
sold.
General crop and livestock farms are
those which could not be classi-
fied as either crop farms or live-
stock farms, but on which the
sale of all crops amounted to at
least 30 percent but less than 70
percent of the total value of all
farm products sold.
Miscellaneous This group of farms includes those
that had 50 percent or more of
the total value of products ac-
counted for by sale of horticul-
tural products, or sale of horses,
or sale of forest products.
Farms by economic class. — A classification of farms by eco-
nomic class was made for the purpose of segregating groups of
farms that are somewhat alike in their characteristics and size of
operation. This classification was made in order to present an
accurate description of the farms in each class and in order to
provide basic data for an analysis of the organization of agriculture.
The classification of farms by economic class was made on the
basis of three factors; namely, total value of all farm products
sold, number of days the farm operator worked off the farm, and
the relationship of the income received from nonfarm sources by
the operator and members of his family to the value of all farm
products sold. Farms operated by institutions, experiment sta-
tions, grazing associations, and community projects were classified
as abnormal, regardless of any of the three factors.
P^or the purpose of determining the code for economic class and
type of farm, it was necessary to obtain the total value of farm
products sold as well as the value of some individual products
sold.
The total value of farm products sold was obtained by adding
the reported or estimated values for all products sold from the
farm. The value of livestock, livestock products except wool and
mohair, vegetables, nursery and greenhouse products, and forest
INTRODUCTION
IX
products was obtained by the enumerator from the farm operator
for each farm. The enumerator also obtained from the farm
operator tlie quantity sold for corn, sorghums, small grains, hays,
and small fruits. The value of sales for these crops was obtained
by multiplying the quantity sold by State average prices.
The quantity sold was estinuited for all other farm products.
The entire quantity produced for wool, mohair, cotton, tobacco,
sugar beets for sugar, sugarcane for sugar, broomcorn, hops, and
mint for oil was estimated as sold. To obtain the value of each
product sold, the quantity sold was multiplied by State average
prices.
In making the classification of farms by economic class, farms
were grouped into two major groups, namely, commercial farms
and other farms. In general, all farms with a value of sales of
farm products amounting to $1,200 or more were classified as
commercial. Farms with a value of sales of $250 to $1,199 were
classified as commercial only if the farm operator worked off the
farm less than 100 days or if the income of the farm operator and
members of his family received from nonfarm sources was less than
the total value of all farm products sold.
Land in farms according to use. — Land in farms was classified
according to the use made of it in 1964. The classes of land
are mutually exclusive, i. e., each acre of land was included only
once even though it may have had more than one use during the
year.
The classes referred to in this report are as follows:
Cropland harvested. — This includes land from which crop.*;
were harvested ; land from which hay (including wild hay) was
cut; and land in small fruits, orchards, vineyards, nurseries, and
greenhouses. Land from which two or more crops were reported
as harvested was to be counted only once.
Cropland used only for pasture. — In the 1954 Census, the
enumerator's instructions stated that rotation pasture and all
other cropland that was used only for pasture were to be in-
cluded under this class. No further definition of cropland
pastured was given the farm operator or enumerator. Per-
manent open pasture may, therefore, have been included under
this item or under "other pasture," depending on whether the
enumerator or farm operator considered it as cropland.
Cropland not harvested and not pastured. — This item includes
idle cropland, land in soil-improvement crops only, land on
which all crops failed, land seeded to crops for harvest after
1954, and cultivated summer fallow.
In the Western States, this class was subdivided to show
separately the acres of cultivated summer fallow. In these
States, the acreage not in cultivated summer fallow represents
largely crop failure. There are very few counties in the West^
ern States in which there is a large acreage of idle cropland or
in which the growing of soil-improvement crops is an important
use of the land.
In the States other than the Western States, this general
class was subdivided to show separately the acres of idle crop-
land (not used for crops or for pasture in 1954). In these States,
the incidence of crop failure is usually low. It was expected
that the acreage figure that excluded idle land would reflect
the acreage in soil-improvement crops. However, the 1954
crop year was one of low rainfall in many Eastern and Southern
States and, therefore, in these areas the acreage of cropland not
harvested and not pastured includes more land on which all
crops failed than would usually be the case.
Cultivated summer fallow. — This item includes cropland
that was plowed and cultivated but left unseeded for several
months to control weeds and conserve moisture. No land
from which crops were harvested in 1954 was to be included
under this item.
Cropland, total. — This includes cropland harvested, cropland
used only for pasture, and cropland not harvested and not
pastured.
Land pastured, total. — This includes cropland used ordy for
pasture, woodland pastured, and other pasture (not cropland
and not woodland) .
42,3020 — 57 2
Woodland, total. — This includes woodland pastured and
woodland not pastured.
Value of land and buildings. — The value to be reported was
the approximate amount for which the land and the buildings on
it would sell.
Off-farm work and other income. — Many farm operators receive
a part of their income from sources other than the sale of farm
products from their farms. The 1954 Agriculture Questionnaire
included several inquiries relating to work off the farm and non-
farm income. These inquiries called for the number of days
worked off the farm by the farm operator; whether other members
of the operator's family worked off the farm; and whether the
farm operator received income from other sources, such as sale
of products from land rented out, cash rent, boarders, old age
assistance, pensions, veterans' allowances, unemployment com-
pensation, interest, dividends, profits from nonfarm business,
and help from other members of the operator's family. Another
iiKiuiry asked whether the income of the operator and his family
from off-farm work and other sources was greater than the total
value of all agricultural products sold from the farm in 1954.
()IY-farm work was to include work at nonfarm jobs, businesses,
or professions, whether performed on the farm premises or else-
where; also, work on someone else's farm for pay or wages. Ex-
change work was not to be included.
Specified facilities and equipment. — Inquiries were made in
1954 to determine the presence or absence of selected items on
each place such as (1) telephone, (2) piped running water, (3)
electricity, (4) television set, (5) home freezer, (6) electric pig
brooder, (7) milking machine, and (8) power feed grinder. Such
facilities or equipment were to be counted even though tem-
porarily out of order. Piped running water was defined as water
piped from a pressure system or by gravity flow from a natural
or artificial source. The enumerator's instructions stated that
pig brooders were to include those heated by an electric heating
element, by an infrared or heat bulb, or by ordinary electric bulbs.
They could be homemade.
The number of selected types of other farm equipment was also
obtained for a sample of farms. The selected kinds of farm
equipment to be reported were (1) grain combines (for harvesting
and threshing grains or seeds in one operation) ; (2) cornpickers ;
(3) pickup balers (stationary ones not to be reported); (4) field
forage harvesters (for field chopping of silage and forage crops) ;
(5) motortrucks; (6) wheel tractors (other than garden); (7)
garden tractors; (8) crawler tractors (tracklaying, caterpillar);
(9) automobiles; and (10) artificial ponds, reservoirs, and earth
tanks.
Wheel tractors were to include homemade tractors but were not
to include implements having built-in power units such as self-
propelled combines, powered buck rakes, etc. Pickup and truck-
trailer combinations were to be reported as motortruck.^. School
buses were not to be reported, and jeeps and station wagons were
to be included as motortrucks or automobiles, depending on
whether used for hauling farm products or supplies, or as passenger
veliicles.
Farm labor.— The farm-labor inquiries for 1954, called for the
number of persons doing farmwork or chores on the place during
a specified calendar week. Since starting dates of the 1954 enumer-
ation varied by areas or States, the calendar week to which the
farm-labor inquiries related varied also. The calendar week was
September 26-October 2 or October 24-30. States with the
September 26-October 2 calendar week were: Arizona, Cahfoniia,
Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana,
Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico,
FARMERS AND FARM PRODUCTION
New York, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania,
Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont,
Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. States with the October
24-30 calendar week were : Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Georgia,
IlUnois, Indiana, Iowa, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, North
Carolina, Ohio, South Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia.
Farmwork was to include any work, chores, or planning necessary
to the operation of the farm or ranch business. Housework,
contract construction work, and labor involved when equipment
was liired (custom work) were not to be included.
The farm-labor information was obtained in three parts:
(1) Operators working, (2) unpaid members of the operator's family
working, and (3) hired persons working. Operators were consid-
ered as working if they worked 1 or more hours; unpaid members
of the operator's family, if they worked 16 or more hours; and
hired persons, if they worked any time during the calendar week
specified. Instructions contained no specifications regarding age
of the persons working.
Regular and seasonal workers. — Hired persons working on
the farm during the specified week were classed as "regular"
workers if the period of actual or expected employment was 150
days or more during the year, and as "seasonal" workers if the
period of actual or expected employment was less than 150 days.
If the period of expected employment was not reported, the
period of employment was estimated for the individual farm
after taking into account such items as the basis of payment,
wage rate, expenditures for labor in 1954, and the type and
other characteristics of the farm.
Specified farm expenditures. — The 1954 Census obtained data
for selected farm expense items in addition to those for fertilizer
and lime. The expenditures were to include the total specified
expenditures for the place whether made by landlord, tenant, or
both.
Expenditures for machine hire were to include any labor in-
cluded in the cost of such machine hire. Machine hire refers to
custom machine work such as tractor hire, threshing, combining,
silo filling, baling, ginning, plowing, and spraying. If part of the
farm products was given as pay for machine hire, the value of the
products traded for this service was to be included in the amount
of expenditures reported. The cost of trucking, freight, and
express was not to be included.
Expenditures for hired labor were to include only cash pay-
ments. Expenditures for housework, custom work, and contract
construction work were not to be included.
Expenditures for feed were to include the expenditures for
pasture, salt, condiments, concentrates, and mineral supplements,
as well as those for grain, hay, and mill feeds. Expenditures for
grinding and mixing feeds were also to be included. Payments
made by a tenant to his landlord for feed grown on the land rented
by the tenant were not to be included.
Expenditures for gasoline and other petroleum fuel and oil were
to include only those used for the farm business. Petroleum
products used for the farmer's automobile for pleasure or used
exclusively in the farm home for heating, cooking, and lighting
were not to be included.
Crops harvested. — The information on crops harvested refers
to the acreage and quantity harvested for the 1954 crop year. An
exception was made for land in fruit orchards and planted nut
trees. In this case, the acreage represents that in both bearing
and nonbearing trees and vines as of October and November 1954.
Hay. — The data for hay includes all kinds of hay except soy-
bean, cowpea, sorghum, and peanut hay.
Livestock and poultry. — The data on the number of livestock
and poultry represent the number on hand on the day of enumera-
tion (October-November 1954). The data relating to livestock
products and the number of livestock sold relate to the sales made
during the calendar year 1954.
LABOR RESOURCES
The data for labor resources available rejjresent estimates based
largely on Census data and developed for the purpose of making
comparisons among farms of various size of operations. The
labor resources available are stated in terms of man-equivalents.
To obtain the man-equivalents the total number of farm opera-
tors as reported by the 1954 Census were adjusted for estimated
man-years of work off the farm and for the number of farm opera-
tors 65 years old and over. The farm operator was taken to rep-
resent a full man-equivalent of labor unless he was 65 years or
older or unless he worked at an off -farm job in 1954.
The man-equivalent estimated for farm operators reporting spec-
ified amounts of off-farm work were as follows:
Estimated
Days worked off the farm in 1964 man-equivalent
1-99 days 0. 85
100-199 days . 50
200 days and over . 15
The man-equivalent for farm operators 65 years of age and older
was estimated at 0.5.
Man-equivalents of members of the farm operator's family were
based upon Census data obtained in response to the question
"How many members of your family did 15 or more hours of farm
work on this place the week of September 26-October 2 (or, in
some areas, the week of October 24^30) without receiving cash
wages?" Each family worker was considered as 0.5 man-equiva-
lent. This estimate provides allowance for the somewhat higher
incidence of women, children, and elderly persons in the unpaid
family lal)or force.
In addition, the number of unpaid family workers who were
reported as working 15 or more hours in the week of September
26-October 2 was adjusted to take account of seasonal changes in
farm employment. Using published and unpublished findings of
the U. S. Department of Agriculture and State Agricultural Col-
leges, and depending largely upon knowledge and experience with
the geographic areas and type of farming, each author deter-
mined the adjustment factor needed to correct the number of
family workers reported for the week of September 26-October 2
to an annual average basis.
Man-equivalents of hired workers are based entirely upon the
expenditure for cash wages and the average wage of permanent
hired laborers as reported in the 1954 Census of Agriculture.
Value of or investment in livestock. — Numbers of specified
livestock and poultry in each subregion were multiplied by a
weighted average value per head. The average values were com-
puted from data compiled for each kind of livestock for the 1954
Census of Agriculture. The total value does not include the value
of goats. (For a description of the method of obtaining the value
of livestock, see Chapter VI of Volume II of the reports for the
1954 Census of Agriculture.)
Value of investment in machinery and equipment. — The data
on value of investment in machinery and equipment were developed
for the purpose of making broad comparisons among types and
economic classes of farms and by subregions. Numbers of specified
machines on farms, as reported by the Census, were multiplied by
estimated average value per machine. Then the total values ob-
tained were adjusted upward to provide for the inclusion of items
of equipment not included in the Census inventory of farm
machinery.
INTRODUCTION
XI
The estimates for average value of specified macliines and tlie
proportion of total value of all machinery represented by the
value of these machines were based largely on published and un-
published data from the "Farm Costs and Returns" surveys con-
ducted currently by the Agricultural Research Service, U. S.
Department of Agriculture.' Modifications were made as needed
in the individual chapters on the basis of State and local studies.
The total e.stimated value of all machinery for all types and
economic classes of farms is approximately equal to the value of
all machinery as estimated by the U. S. Department of Agriculture.
Value of farm products sold, or gross sales. — Data on the
value of the various farm products sold were obtained for 1954 by
two methods. First, the values of livestock and livestock prod-
ucts sold, except wool and mohair; vegetables harvested for sale;
nursery and greenhouse products; and forest products were
obtained by asking each farm operator the value of sales. Second,
the values of all other farm products sold were computed. For the
most important crops, the quantity sold or to be sold was obtained
for each farm. The entire quantity harvested for cotton and
cottonseed, tobacco, sugar beets for sugar, hops, mint for oil, and
sugarcane for sugar was considered sold. The c|uantity of minor
crops sold was estimated. The value of sales for each crop was
computed by multiplying the quantity sold by State average
prices. In the case of wool and mohair, the value of sales was
computed by multiplying the quantity shorn or clipped by the
State average prices.
Gross sales include the value of all kinds of farm products sold.
The total does not include rental and benefit, soil conservation,
price adjustment. Sugar Act, and similar payments. The total
does include the value of the landlord's share of a crop removed
from a farm operated by a share tenant. In most of the tables,
detailed data are presented for only the more important sources
of gross sales and the total for the individual farm products
or sources will not equal the total as the values for the less impor-
tant sources or farm products have been omitted. (For a detailed
statement regarding the reliability and method of obtaining the
value of farm prodticts sold, reference should be made to Chapter
IX of Volume II of the reports for the 1954 Census of Agriculture.)
livestock and livestock products sold. — The value of sales for
livestock and livestock products includes the value of live animals
sold, dairy products sold, poultry and pouhry products sold, and
the calculated value of wool and mohair. The value of bees,
honey, fur animals, goats, and goat milk is not included.
The value of dairy products includes the value of whole milk and
cream sold, but does not include the value of butter and cheese,
made on the farm, and sold. The value of poultry and products
includes the value of chickens, broilers, chicken eggs, turkeys,
turkey eggs, ducks, geese, and other miscellaneous poultry and
poultry products sold. The value does not include the value
of baby chicks sold.
Crops sold. — Vegetables sold includes the value of aU vegetables
harvested for sale, but does not include the value of Irish potatoes
and sweetpotatoes.
The value of aU crops sold includes the value of all crops sold
except forest products. The value of field crops sold includes the
value of sales of all crops sold except vegetables, small fruits and
berries, fruits, and nuts.
1 Farm Costs and Returns. 1955 (with comparisons). Agriculture Information Bulletin No. 1.58, Agricultural Research Service. U. S. Department of Agriculture, June 1956.
CHAPTER III
TOBACCO AND PEANUT PRODUCERS AND PRODUCTION
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
The other field-croj) farms
Distribution
Estimating number of tobacco and peanut farms.
TOBACCO FARMS
Classes and types of AnuTican-grown tobacco
Relative importance of tol.)acco in the United States
Variation in acres and production of tobacco per farm
Producing areas
Flue-cured tobacco
Burley tobacco
Maryland tobacco
Dark-fired and air-cured types
Cigar-tobacco types
Trends in acres, yield, and production
Acreage
Yield
Production
Disposition of supplies
Trends in per capita consumption
Manufacture of products
Exports of leaf tobacco
Stocks
Tobacco programs and policies, 1035-55
Number, resources, and characteristics of specialized
tobacco farms
Number and use of resources
Distribution of farms and selected resources, by eco-
nomic class of farm
Variation in types of farming in specified tobacco
areas
Tenure of operator
Production conditions by economic class of farm producing
various types of tobacco
Size of farm
Color, tenure, and age of operator
Land use
Livestock
Labor used
Farm mechanization and home conveniences
Capital investment
Production expense
Page
5
5
7
8
9
9
11
11
12
12
12
12
U
U
14
14
14
14
16
16
18
18
20
21
21
22
22
23
23
26
26
26
29
30
TOBACCO FARMS— Continued
Income and efficiency levels
Sources of farm income
Gross income minus specified expenses
Efficiency levels of farm operation
Summary and problems
PEANUT FARMS
Types and varieties of peanuts
Major producing regions
Virginia-North Carolina region
Georgia-Alabama-Florida region
Oklahoma-Texas region
Trends in acres, yield, and production
Acreage
Yield
Production
Disposition of supplies
Trends in consumption
Crushing for oil
Feed, seed, farm loss, and shrinkage
Exports
Programs and policies, 1933-55
Number, resources, and characteristics of specialized
peanut farms
Number and use of resources
Distribution of number and selected resources by
economic class of farm
Variation in types of farming in specified peanut areas.
Tenure of operator
Production conditions on peanut farms by economic class
of farm in selected peanut areas
Size of farm
Color, tenure, and age of operator
Land use
Livestock
Labor used
Farm mechanization and home conveniences
Capital investment
Production expense
Income and efficiency levels
Source of farm income
Gross income above specified expenses
Efficiency levels of farm operation
Summary and problems ...
CHARTS AND MAPS
other field-cro]) farms, number, 1954
Tobacco harvested, acreage, 1954
Peanuts grown for all purposes, acreage, 1954
Sweetpotatoes, acreage, 1 954
Sugarcane cut for sugar or for sale to mills, acreage, 1954
Irish potatoes, acreage, 1954
Sugar beets harvested for sugar, acreage, 1954
Selected tobacco and peanut subregions : 1954
Farms operated by croppers, number, 1954
Acres of tobacco harvested as a percent of cropland harvested: 1954
Tobacco-growing districts of the United States
Acreage, yield per acre, and production of tobacco, by types. United States, 1920-55
Tobacco products: Consumption per capita 15 years old and over, in the United States and by overseas forces: 1920-55.
Tobacco, leaf: Used in manufacture of tobacco products. United States, 1920-1955
Exports of tobacco from the United States, by crop years: 1925-55
Tobacco, flue-cured: Supply, disappearance, and farmer's price. United States, 1920-55
Tobacco, Burley: Supply, disappearance, and farmer's price, United States, 1920-55 -
2
Page
31
31
31
31
34
37
37
37
88
38
39
39
41
41
41
42
42
42
43
43
44
44
46
46
46
47
47
48
48
49
49
50
51
52
52
52
53
54
54
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
7
8
10
13
14
15
15
16
^
CONTENTS
CHARTS AND MAPS— Continued
Page
Acres of peanuts harvested for all purposes as a percent of cropland harvested: l'J54 ;i(i
Farms reporting peanuts as a percent of all farms: 1954 :i7
Peanuts picked and threshed: Acreage, yield per acre, and production, by areas, United States: 1910-55 40
Peanuts: Percent acreage picked and threshed is of total acreage grown alone for all purposes, by areas and for United States,
1925-55 ' 41
Peanuts: Supply and disposition, United States, 1910-55 41
STATISTICAL TABLES
Table—
1. — Number and percentage of farms reporting tobacco, percentage of cropland harvested in tobacco, and percentage cash income
from tobacco is of total cash income from crops and total cash farm income, bv Census periods. United States: 1919 to
1954 '. 9
2. — Number of farms reporting tobacco harvested and proportion of farms harvesting various acreages, bv types of tobacco and
States, United States: 1954 "_ _ _" 9
3. — Number of farms reporting tobacco harvested and proportion of farms harvesting various number of pounds, by types of
tobacco and States, United States: 1954 10
4. — Tobacco: Acreages allotted by types. United States: 1940 to 1956 18
5. — Flue-cured and Burley tobacco — number of allotments and percentage distribution by acre-size groups, United States: 1956_ 18
6. — Tobacco: Total United States production, average price received by farmers, quantities pledged for Commodity Credit Cor-
poration loans, total stocks, and Commodity Credit Corporation holdings, by type, by crop years: 1946 to 1955 19
7. — Number of farms and resources for all commercial farms and other field-crop farms in the United States, and in selected to-
bacco areas: 1954 19
8. — Proportion that number of farms, resources used, and gross sales on commercial farms in s|)ecifie tobacco areas were of the
total for all commercial farms in the United States: 1954 20
9. — Number of commercial farms in the United States and distribution of other field-crop farms in selected tobacco areas, by
economic class of farm: 1954 "_ 20
10. — Selected resources on other field-crop farms in specified tobacco subregions, by economic class of farm: 1954 21
11. — Selected resources on other field-crop farms in selected tobacco areas and distribution anicjng various economic classes of
farms: 1954 21
12. — Number and percent distribution of commercial farms, by type of farm in selected tobacco areas: 1954 21
13. — Color and tenure of farm operators on other field-crop farms in specified tobacco areas, by economic class of farm: 19.'j4 22
14. — Number and size of other field-crop farms in selected areas in specified tobacco subregions, by economic cla.ss of farm: 1954.. 22
15. — Percent distribution, by size of farm of other field-crop farms in specified tobacco subregions, by economic class of farm; 1954. 23
16. — Color and tenure of operator of other field-crop farms in selected tobacco subregions, by economic class of farm: 1954 24
17. — Distribution of farm operators by age on other field-crop farms in selected tobacco subregions, by economic class of farm: 1954. 24
18. — Average acreage per farm for specified uses of land on other field-crop farms in selected tobacco subregions, by economic class
of farm : 1954 25
19. — Average acreage of crops grown on other field-crop farms in selected tobacco subregions, by economic class of farm: 1954 26
20. — Distribution of farms reporting by acres of tobacco harvested for other field-crop farms in selected tobacco subregions, b.v
economic class of farm: 1954 _.". 27
21. — Average number of livestock per farm on other field-crop farms in selected tobacco subregions, by economic class of farm: 195 1. 27
22. — Source of labor on other field-crop farms in selected tobacco subregions, by economic class of farm : 1954 28
23. — Work off farm by farm operators of other field-crop farms in selected tobacco subregions, by economic class of farm: 1954 28
24. — Specified facilities and equipment for farm and home on other field-crop farms in selected tobacco subregions, by economic
class of farm: 1954 1 28
25. — Capital investment on other field-crop farms in selected tobacco subregions, by economic class of farm: 1954 29
26. — Specified farm expenditures on other field-crop farms in selected tobacco s\ibregions, by economic class of farm: 1954 30
27. — Use of commercial fertilizer on other field-crop farms in selected toljacco subregions, by economic class of farm: 1954 31
28. — Source of farm income on other field-croj) farms in selected tobacco subregions, by economic class of farm: 1954 32
29. — Gross income of operator and family above specified e.xpenses on other field-croi) farms in selected tobacco stibregions, by
economic class of farm: 1954 "_ 3:3
30. — Selected measures of efficiency on other field-crop farms in selected subregions, by economic class of farm: 1954 33
31. — Land in farms, cropland harvested, and capital investment, commercial family-operated, flue-cured and Burley tobacco farms:
1940, 1945, 19.50, and 1955 ." .' 35
32. — Number and percentage of farms reporting peanuts, percentage of cropland harvested in peanuts, and percentage cash inconu;
from peanuts is of total cash income from crops and total cash farm income, by Census periods. United States: 1929-54. 30
33. — Domestic food use of peanuts for the United States: 1910 to 1954 42
34. — Peanuts: Acreage, support level, price received by farmers, quantity pledged for price support loans, and quantity purch;iscd
under price su])port programs: 1935 to 1955 43
35. — Number of farms and resources for all commercial farms and other field-crop farms in the United States and in selected peanut
subregions: 1954 4,5
36. — Proportion that number of farms, resources u.sed, and gross sales on commercial farms in specified peanut areas were of the
total for all commercial farms in the United States: 1954 45
37. — Number of commercial farms atid specified characteristics per farm for the United States and for selected peanut subregions:
1954 ^.._. 45
38. — Number of commercial farms in the United States and di.stribution of other field-crop farms in specified peanut subregions,
by econonuc class of farm: 1954 4(5
39.^ — Selected resources on other field-crop farms in specified peanut stibregions and distribution among various economic classes of
farms: 1954 4(j
CONTENTS
STATISTICAL TABLES— Continued
Page
40. — Number of commercial farms and proportion of farms in various type classifications in specified peanut snbregions: 1954 46
41. — Color and tenure of farm operators on other field-crop farms in specified peanut subregions, by economic class of farm: 1954. 47
42. — Number and size of other field-crop farms in specified peanut subregions, by economic class of farm: 1954 47
43. — Percent distribution, by size of farm of other field-crop farms in specified peanut subregions, by economic class of farm: 1954^ 47
44. — Color and tenure of operators of other field-crop farms in specified peanut subregions, by economic class of farm: 1954 48
45. — Distribution of farm operators by age, on other field-crop farms in specified peanut subregions, by economic class of farm: 1954_ 48
46. — Average acreage per farm for specified uses of land on other field-crop farms in specified peanut subregions, by ■economic class
of farm: 1954 49
47. — Average acreage of selected crops grown on other field-crop farms in specified peanut subregions, by economic class of farm:
1954 49
48. — Distribution of farms reporting, by acres of peanuts harvested, for other field-crop farms in specified peanut subregions, by
economic class of farm : 1954 50
49. — Average number of livestock per farm on other field-crop farms in specified peanut subregions, by economic class of farm: 1954. 50
50. — Source of labor on other field-crop farms in .specified peanut subregions, by economic class of farm: 1954 50
51. — Work off farms by farm operators of other field-crop farms in specified peanut subregions, by economic class of farm: 1954-. 51
52. — Specified facilities and equipment for farms and homes on other field-crop farms in specified peanut subregions, by economic
class of farm: 1954 51
53. — Use of commercial fertilizer and liming materials on other field-crop farms in specified peanut subregions, by economic class
of farm :1954 51
54. — Capital investment on other field-crop farms in specified peanut subregions, by economic class of farm: 1954 52
55. — Specified farm expenditures on other field-crop farms in specified peanut subregions, by economic class of farm: 1954 52
56. — Source of farm income of other field-crop farms in specified peanut subregions, by economic class of farm: 1954 53
57. — Gro.ss income of operator and family above specified expenses on other field-crop farms in specified peanut subregions, by
economic class of farm: 1954 53
58. — Selected measures of efficiency on other field-crop farms in specified peanut subregions, by economic class of farm: 1954 54
59. — Average size and value of land and buildings per farm, selected counties in peanut areas: 1940 to 1954 55
4
TOBACCO AND PEANUT PRODUCERS AND PRODUCTION
R. E. L. Greene
INTRODUCTION
Tobacco and peanut farms are highly important in several
southern and eastern areas of the United States. Current interest
in these types of farming is increased because of their prominence
in farm policy discussions. Tabulations available from the 1954
Census of Agriculture now permit the analysis of production condi-
tions prevalent on these farms in the major production areas.
While major attention is given to tobacco and peanut farms
some information is given on the location of other types of field-
crop farms such as Irish potatoes, sugarcane for sugar, and sugar
beets. In general these crops are grown in rather distinct and
restricted areas in the United States.
The classifieation of farms by type was made on the basis of the
relation of the value of sales from a particular source or sources
to the total value of all farm products sold from the farm. A
farm was classified as of a particular type if sales or anticipated
sales of a product or a group of products represented 50 percent
or more of the total value of products sold. Other field-crop
farms included the farms on which 50 percent or more of the total
value of products sold was from tobacco, peanuts, Irish potatoes,
sweetpotatoes, sugarcane, sugar beets for sugar, and other mis-
cellaneous crops. In terms of the total number of commercial
farms in the United States in 1955, these other field-crop farms
comprised 7.7 percent of all farms and contained 2.9 percent of all
land in farms, and 3.7 percent of all cropland harvested in 1954.
The Other Field-Crop Farms
Distribution. — Other field-crop farms included a number of
minor field crops other than tobacco and peanuts. Many of
these were grown in fairly restricted localities. (See Figure 1.)
If thought of by areas, however, there is, necessarily, some over-
lapping in areas where two or more of these crops were grown.
Tobacco was the important cash crop on other field-crop farms
in North Carolina, South Carolina, Kentucky, Tennessee, Vir-
ginia, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Con-
necticut (see Figure 2). Tobacco was the important cash crop
on many of the farms in southeastern Georgia, but there were also
a number of specialized peanut farms in parts of this section.
Peanuts constituted the important cash crop on other field-
crop farms in the northeastern corner of North Carolina, the
southeastern corner of Virginia, and the southern parts of Alabama
and Georgia (see Figure 3). They were also important on some
farms in Oklahoma and Texas but broomcorn and sweetpotatoes
were also main crops on some of the farms in about the same loca-
tions (see Figure 4). Sweetpotatoes formed the chief cash crop
on some of the farms in Louisiana, but sugarcane for sugar was the
prevailing cash crop on other crop farms in this State (see Figure 5) .
The important cash crop on so-called other-crop farms in Maine,
Minnesota, North Dakota, Colorado, and eastern Idaho, was
Irish potatoes (see Figure 6). In most of the Western States
sugar beets for sugar was the dominant crop (see Figure 7). More
than 90 percent of all other field-crojj farms were located in the
South; on the majority of these farms tobacco was the largest
source of income.
OTHER FIELD- CROP FARMS
NUMBER. 1954
Figure 1
/ ^> X
^ \ /
LMTED ETATES TOTAL
1. 557, 039
TOBACCO HARVESTED
ACREAGE. 1954
ITT "
T
^
rj^
m
-\ n
L
\
ri
\
^si?^
Vr
IDOT-t.0O0 ACRES \
[-.OoNn JUIT BASiSl
FlGUBE 2
PEANUTS GROWN FOR ALL PURPOSES*
ACREAGE. 1954
FlQUKE 3
423020—57-
FARMERS AND FARM PRODUCTION
SWEET POTATOES
ACREAGE, 1954
UNTTED STAIT3 TOTAL
261.051
Figure 4
SUGARCANE CUT FOR SUGAR OR FOR SALE TO MILLS
ACREAGE. 1954
UNTIED STATES TOTAL
278.587
i ttPiurrmwi Of taaxfux
Figure ;">
r^^^Tr-— -^
IRISH PO
ACREAGE
fATOES
. 1954
Vn
rv
A— ^^ \
t'
rT^M~~~h
1
4 ^^
5
^
i
V',\ Lj~~~^
h~V^
>l
//
^
ni \rJ~ — r-^"— p
y
-T
s
/
I-
A
UMTCD STATCS TOTAL X,r~
1.210.672
1 ooes NOT WCLUDC acflEacE refl faRMS with less
THAN £0 BUSHELS HARVESTED )
\ /^ lOOT-SOO ACRES
i -If (COwrr utaT M9S)
-J
:5
u& ccMRTicNi a rnmrnu
w«u.
w.
■■' BiftCMi Of n« CCHSiK
I'^IGURE 6
SUGAR BEETS HARVESTED FOR SUGAR
ACREAGE. 1954
Figure
SELECTED TOBACCO AND PEANUT SUBREGIONS: 1954
LEGEND
TOBACCO
IV;;'..^ FLUE-CURED
[^A^BURLEY
I SOUTHERN MARYLAND
I DARK AIR CURED
r 1 PEANUTS
U S OEMRTMENT OF COMMERCE
euRE«U or THE CENSUS
Figure 8
TOBACCO AND PEANUT PRODUCERS AND PRODUCTION
Estimating Number of Tobacco and Peanut Farms
Data for otiier field-crop farms do not show the number of
farms of each of the specialty type included in the total for the
group. One way to obtain data for farms of a gi\en type is to
select subregions in whicn the crop is of major importance. This
procedure was followed in tins report. Figure 8 shows the sub-
regions selected for stud> ing tobacco and peanut farms. Sub-
regions for tobacco were subgrouped in order to compare tobacco
farms by types of tobacco.
The grouping of s\ibregions according to areas where tobacco
or peanuts are of major importance makes it possible only to
approximate the number of farms in each group. This is true
because of the overlapping of production areas. For example,
subregion 21 was designated as a peanut area, but tobacco is
important in counties in North Carolina that are a part of the
North Carolina tobacco area. Subregion 38 was summarized
with the flue-cured tobacco subregions but peanuts are a main
crop on a number of farms in parts of this area. In many cases
the farms will produce both tobacco and peanuts. Some sub-
regions were not included because several crops included in the
other field-crop group were grown there. Some tobacco or peanut
farms were not included because data for the subregions where
there were comparatively few of these farms were not summarized.
In presenting data in this report, tne number of farms in the
subregions included wore assimied to be a rough approximation
of the number of speciaUzed tobacco or peanut farms in tlie United
States in 1954. In each case, the number of farms growing tobacco
or peanuts is less than the total nmnber of other field-crop farms
because of the overlapping of crops included in the other field-crop
classification.
When considering the data in this report, it is necessary to
keep in mind the Census definition of a farm. If a landlord has
croppers or other tenants, the land assigned each cropper or tenant
is enumerated as a separate farm even though the landlord may
operate the entire holding essentially as one farm with respect
to supervision, equipment, rotation practices, purchase of supplies,
or sale of products. Croppers are very numerous in both tobacco
and peanut areas (see Figure 9). For some items the amount
reported for the landlord's part of the farm ma.y have applied to
cropper and tenant farms comprising part of the landholding.
FARMS OPERATED BY CROPPERS
NUMBER. 1954
H 50UIHEASTERM
SOUTHEflN
T COUNTIES
MISSOuni 3.457
TOTAL 276.029
Figure 9
TOBACCO FARMS
Tobacco is a native American crop. It was being grown in
this country by the Indians when Columbus discovered America.
It was introduced to the white race who rapidly spread its growth
to many distant lands. Tobacco was a prized export crop between
the Colonies and the mother country and became a valuable article
of trade between the Colonies and the Indians.
The history of the early struggles in the production of tobacco
in this country with recurring periods of surpluses, low prices, and
attempted restrictions on production, and the slow evolution of
marketing methods, are among the most interesting chapters of
the agricultural history of America.
Contrary to popular opinion, the tobacco in common use today
is not that which the settlers found growing in the Indian villages
in the Tidewater part of Virginia. The tobacco grown by the
Indians was coarse and strong; it belonged to the species Nicotiana
rustica L. beheved to have originated in Mexico. The English
colonists brought in and adopted the milder more aromatic
varieties of A^. tabacum then grown in tropical countries, which
is believed to have originated in Brazil. Seed of both species
seems to have been introduced into Europe, by early Spanish
explorers.'
The production of tobacco is highly localized, primarily because
of the influence of climate and soil on the properties of the leaf.
States with the largest acreage are North Carolina, Kentucky,
Tennessee, Virginia, South Carolina, and Georgia (see Figure 2).
Other States with important sections in tobacco are Maryland,
Pennsylvania, Ohio, Connecticut, Wisconsin, and Florida. The
percentage of cropland in tobacco, harvested in 1954, is shown in
Figure 10.
Classes and Types of American-Grown Tobacco
Tobacco grown in one area possesses characteristics that dis-
tinguishes it from tobacco grown in another area. These charac-
teristics result from the combination of soil and climatic conditions,
variety of seed, methods of cultivation and fertiUzation, and
methods of harvesting and curing. In recognition of distinct
differences in tobacco which affect demand and uses, tobacco in
the several producing areas has been grouped into classes and types
as follows:
I. Cigarette, smoking, and chewing types.
A. Class 1, Flue-cured types.
1. Type 11-a, Old Beit flue-cured.
2. Type 11-b, Middle Belt flue-cured.
3. Type 12, Eastern North Carolina fl\ie-cured.
4. Type 13, South CaroUna flue-cured.
5. Type 14, Georgia flue-cured.
B. Class 2, Fire-cured tj'pes.
1. Type 21, Virginia fire-cured.
2. Type 22, Eastern fire-cured,
ville).
3. Type 23, Western fire-cured.
C. Class 3-A, Light air-cured types.
1. Type 31, Hurley.
2. Type 32, Southern Maryland.
D. Class 3-B, Dark air-cured types.
1. Type 35, One-Sucker.
2. Type 36, Green River.
3. Type 37, Virginia sun-cured.
(Clarksville and Hopkins-
(Paducah and Mayfield).
' For a more detailed description of classes and types of tobacco and production areas, see United States Department of Agriculture Circular 249, American Tobacco
Types, Uses and Markets, by Charles E. Gage, June 1942.
8
FARMERS AND FARM PRODUCTION
:U.
ACRES OF TOBACCO HARVESTED AS A PERCENT OF CROPLAND HARVESTED; 1954
(COUNTY UNIT BASIS)
1^ li
-*
LEGEND
PERCENT
I I UNDER 2 5 SJSSI 1 0 0 TO 12 4
W3i 2 5 TO 49 OBB 12 5 TO 14,9
ESJyJI 5 0 TO 7 4 ■■ 15 AND OVER
WSk 7.5 TO 9.9
us DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE"
P
^O.
UNITED STATES AVERAGE
0.5 PERCENT
MAP NO A54-3eO
BUREAU OF THE CENSUS
Figure 10
II. Cigar types.
A. Class 4, Cigar-filler types.
1. Typo 41, Pennsylvania seedleaf.
2. Type 42, Gebhardt.
3. Type 43, Zimmer or Spanish.
4. Type 44, Dutch.
B. Class 5, Cigar-binder types.
1. Type 51, Connecticut Broadleaf.
2. Type 52, Connecticut Havana seed.
3. Type 53, New York and Pennsylvania Havana seed-
4. Type 54, Southern Wisconsin.
5. Type 55, Northern Wisconsin.
C. Class 6, Cigar-wrapper types.
1. Type 61, Connecticut Valley shade grown.
2. Type 62, Georgia and Florida shade grown.
III. Miscellaneous.
A. Class 7, Type 72, Louisiana Perique.
Classes of tobacco differ from each other in notable respects-
Types within a class differ in minor respects. For example, the
contrast between the large, heavy, gummy, dark-brown leaves of
fire-cured tobacco and the thinner brighter colored leaves of
flue-cured tobacco are very marked. The flue-cured tobacco,
instead of being heavy and gummy, is of light body, i.s fine tex-
tured and oily, but is relatively free from gum — to achieve these
characteristics this tobacco is raised on the light, sandy soils of
the southeastern seaboard. The same varieties, if raised on
heavier soils, such as those of hmestone origin, would yield heavier-
bodied tobacco that would not make the same response to flue-
curing teclmiques and would not be suited to the uses for which
flue-cured tobacco is demanded.
Toljacco grown in certain areas has been selected and handled
to produce the qualities of leaf that best meet the requirements
of manufacturers. Variations between types, comparing any
given class of tobacco, may consist of differences in color, body,
quality in a general sense, or in the response to fermentation and
aging, during the storage period. These differences, which are
important from a manufacturer's standpoint, come mainly from
differences in soil and climate, since within a class the varieties of
seed, and cultural and curing methods are, in general, the same.
Relative Importance of Tobacco in the United States
Tobacco is an important crop in the agricultural economy of
this country. According to estimates of the U. S. Department
of Agriculture in 1954, the proportion of the total cropland
harvested in tobacco in the United States was small, only 0.5
percent. (See Table 1.) As it is a crop with a high value per
acre it accounted for a larger proportion of the total cash income
than the acreage would indicate. In 1954, cash income from
tobacco was 8.6 percent of the total cash income from all crops
and 3.8 percent of the total cash farm income. Significantly, in
6 States tobacco contributed 15 percent or more of the cash farm
income. They wyere Connecticut, 15 percent; Tennessee, 17
percent; Virginia, 18 percent; South Carolina, 23 percent;
Kentucky, 45 percent; and North Carolina, 54 percent.
The proportion that acres'in tobacco is of cropland harvested
in the United States has been about the same each Census period
since 1919 (see Table 1). The number of farmers growing tobacco
in 1954 was a fifth more than the number in 1934. The proportion
that tobacco makes up of total cash income from crops or total
cash farm income in the United States has been fairly constant in
each of the Census years since 1934.
Variation in Acres and Production of Tobacco Per Farm
Production of tobacco requires a large amount of labor, most
of which is hand labor. The quantity of tobacco grown depends
partly on the acres a family can harvest. This, together with the
TOBACCO AND PEANUT PRODUCERS AND PRODUCTION
Table 1. — Number and Percentage of Farms Reporting
Tobacco, Percentage of Cropland Haf^vested in Tobacco,
and Percentage Cash Income From Tobacco is of Total
Cash Income From Crops .^nd Total Cash Farm Income,
BY Census Periods, United States: 1919 to 1954
Farms reporting
tobacco
Percent
of crop-
land har-
vested 111
tobacco
Percent cash
income from
tobacco is of —
Year
Number
Percent
of all
farms
Cash
Income
from
crops '
Total
cash
farm
Income ■
1954
61.S, 346
531,922
490, 685
498, 34S
422, 161)
432, 975
396, 352
448. 672
10.7
9.9
8.4
8.2
6.2
6.9
6.2
7.0
0.5
.4
.6
.0
.4
.5
.4
.5
8.6
7.2
7.6
S.2
7.9
5.4
4.8
6.6
3.8
1949
3 2
1944
1939
1934 -- -..
3.4
3.5
3.7
1929
2.5
1924 .._ -
1919
2.5
3.4
NA Not available.
1 Does not include governmental payments,
of Agriculture.
Estimates of the V. S. Department
allotment program, results in a .small acreage and production per
farm. In 1954, the majority of farmers who grew flue-cured
tobacco reported from 2.5 to 4.9 acres and only 34 percent grew
more than 5 acres (see Table 2). Of the farmers growing Burley
tobacco, 47 percent reported less than 1 acre and only 1 7 percent
reported more than 2.5 acres. Growers of dark fire-cnrcd tobacco
had larger acreages than growers of dark air-cured tobacco.
Growers of Southern Maryland tobacco and growers of cigar
types tended to have slightly larger acreages than growers of flue-
cured tobacco. Pounds of tobacco produced per farm varied
about the same way that acreage was distributed (see Table 3).
But with the exception of Southern Maryland and cigar types of
tobacco, less than 10 percent of the growers in each type produced
as much as 10,000 pounds of tobacco per farm.
Producing Areas *
Production of various types of tobacco is highly localized, for
no crop is more susceptible to slight changes in soils and .subsoils.
The chief determining and limiting factor is soil. There are only
a few places where two or more types can be grown interchangeably.
There are even very limited transition zones wherein types can be
alternated or shifted. The major classes and types of tobacco
grown in this couiiti-y are given on pages 7 and 8. Figure 11 shows
the location of tobacco-growing districts in the United States,
which are found mainly in the States on the Atlantic seaboard and
in Kentuckj' and Tennessee.
Flue-cured tobacco. — About three-fifths of the production of
tobacco in this country is flue-cured. The demand for it lioth
domestic and foreign, arises primarily from the use in cigarette
manufacture. The production of flue-cured tobacco has been
under some kind of control program since 1933. However, with
a guaranteed market and support price, it is probable that more
farmers grow the crop than would do so under free production and
market conditions. Acreage controls extending over many years
have fostered an intensive type of cultivation which has con-
siderably increased the yields per acre. More intensive practices
and higher yields have raised the labor inputs per acre.
Flue-cured tobacco is produced in Virginia, North CaroUua,
South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, and to a small extent in
Alabama. The territory is divided into two general districts
commonly referred to as Old Belt and New Belt. They correspond
roughly to the jihysiograpliic provinces known as the Piedmont
and the Atlantic Coastal Plain. The New Belt group, types 12
to 14, differs markedly from the Old Belt tobacco, type 11, the
latter being generally heavier in body and darker in color. Differ-
ences between types within the New Belt group may be traced
primarily to variations in soil.
Table 2. — Number of Farms Reporting Tobacco Harvested
AND Proportion of Farms Harvesting Various Acreages,
by Types of Tobacco and States, United States: 1954
Number
of farms
reporting
tobacco
harvested
Percent of farms harvesting—
State
Un-
der
0.5
acres
0.6 to
0.9
acres
1.0 to
2.4
acres
2.5 to
4.9
acres
5.0 to
9.9
acres
10.0
to
19.9
acres
20.0
acres
and
over
Flue-cured tobacco
226, 020
134, 695
34, 372
27, 972
23, 045
5,733
203
0.9
.5
2.1
.7
.9
.8
89.2
2.1
1.3
4.8
2.0
2. 1
3.7
7.4
20.6
15.4
28.2
31.7
22.4
35.6
2.9
42.0
40.9
44.3
45,7
42.4
37.0
.5
30.0
36.2
19,1
18.0
2a 7
16.9
4.1
5.4
1.4
1.7
3.3
4.4
0.3
North Carolina
.3
South Carolina
.1
.2
VirRinla.
.2
Florida
1.6
Alabama
Burley tobacco
All farms
Kentucky
Tennessee .
238, 4.58
116. 620
70, 082
19,051
1,3, 913
8,478
6.902
3,407
1,005
10.9
6.8
15.0
12.1
25.8
8.3
9.5
23.1
73.9
36.6
27.3
48.3
38.9
44.7
37.2
45.1
63.9
21.2
34.9
38.9
30.9
38.4
26.6
31,0
33,3
21.2
4.8
13.1
20.2
6.1
9.0
2.4
17.1
9.8
1.8
.1
3.9
6.9
.6
1.6
.4
5.5
2.1
0.5
.8
.1
.1
.1
.8
0.1
(Z)
Vijginia '
North Carolina
Ohio3
(Z)
(/'.)
West Vir'^inia
Southern Maryland tobacco
Maryland
6,601
0.3
1.1
11.8
17.7
33.3
27.8
8.0
Dark flre-cured tobacco
All farms
13, 805
6,682
7,183
3.7
4.8
2.6
7.1
7.0
7.2
40.1
43.5
37.0
35.8
34.5
37.0
12.3
9.6
14.8
1.0
.6
1.4
(Z)
.1
To nnessee
m
Dark air-cured tobacco
16,717
13, 151
3, 666
24.8
21.3
38.0
30.6
30,7
30.1
35.6
38.0
26.4
8.0
9.0
4.6
1.0
1.0
.9
(Z)
(Z)
Kentucky
Cigar-filler tobacco
Pennsvivanla ^
4.8S6
0.4
0. 9 16. 3
26.7
40.4
14.6
0.7
Cigar-binder tobacco
All farms
Cormocticiit
5,029
660
4,369
1.7 4.6
.8 -
1.8 5.3
32.1
9.1
3,5.6
38.2
22.7
40.5
16.4
23.5
4.7
26.5
2.3
17.4
Iowa. Minnesota, and Wis-
con.sin
15.3 1.5
Clgai--wrapper tobacco
\11 farms
243
79
164
0.4
20.0
6.3
27.4
28.8
31.6
27.4
21.0
19.0
22.0
12.3
12.7
12.2
16.9
30.4
Massaclmsettsand Vermont-
.6
10.4
Z Less than 0.05 percent.
1 Also includes dark air-cured tobacco grown in Virginia.
2 Also includes cigar-filler tobacco grown in Ohio.
3 Also includes cigar-binder tobacco grown m Pennsylvania.
Old Belt tobacco, type 11, is grown on the loam and sandy
loam soils of the Piedmont derived from underlying granite,
gneiss, slate, etc., and underlaid usually with heavy clay subsoils.
This area embraces the Piedmont country of southern Virginia
and northern North Carolina. Its terrain varies from undulating
to hilly with mountainous portions on the west. About four-fifths
of the land is in farms. The average size of the commercial to-
bacco farm is about 78 acres, of which 4 to 5 acres will be in tobacco
each year. Production of the crop is rather equally divided at
present between tenant- and owner-operated farms. Tobacco is
the main enterprise on most farms, but livestock, especially dairy-
ing, is definitely increasing. This area is also the center of the
cigarette manufacturing industry. Winston-Salem is the leading
The discussion in this section is based partly on a prelimiuaiT niamiscrlpt being prepared on the "System of Economic Arciis" by Donald J. Bogue and C. L. Bciilo.
10
FARMERS AND FARM PRODUCTION
Table 3. — Number of Farms Reporting Tobacco Harvested and Proportion of Farms Harvesting Various Number of
Pounds, by Types of Tobacco and States, United States: 1954
state
All farms
North Carolina
South Carolina
Georgia
VirgiDia
Florida
Alabama
All farms
Kentucky
Tennessee
Virginia '
North Carolina
Ohio'
Indiana.
West Virginia
Kansas and Missouri
Maryland.
as
Percent of farms harvesting—
^
a
a.
g^
°Im
=-«>
O) ^
^■a
M.O
fTS
sn
"^ 3
S^
2^
sy
sa
't^
o^
gs.
gS.
sa
gc.
t^
^
^
-
<M
CO
IQ
Flue-cured tobacco
Barley tobacco
Southern Maryland tobacco
5,601
4.5
3.7
5.3
10.5
33.6
o o
226, 020
1.6
4.1
5.7
6.0
13.4
27.9
32.3
134, 695
.7
2.5
4.0
4.5
10.7
27.4
38.3
34, 372
4.4
8.4
8.8
8.3
17.0
28.8
20.7
27, 972
2.5
6.8
9.8
9.3
20.0
27.4
20.3
23,045
1.1
3.6
5.6
6.9
14.3
30.5
31.4
5,733
1.2
5.4
8.5
9.8
18.5
25.5
21.8
203
7.4
13.8
12.3
13.8
25.6
18.2
8.4
238, 468
8.0
17.2
20.0
14.7
14.6
14.5
8.8
115,620
3.9
11.6
16.7
13.8
15.3
19.7
14.8
70, 082
13.5
26.2
23.9
14.8
12.3
8.3
1.8
19, 061
9.3
17.3
20.6
18.9
18.1
12.6
3.0
13, 913
13.1
21.4
22.7
17.0
14.9
8.8
1.9
8,478
5.5
14.6
21.1
13.6
14.0
15.8
12.0
6,902
7.2
18.9
24.9
15.8
14.7
12.3
6.4
3,407
17.0
28.6
27.8
12.2
10.1
3.9
.4
1,005
6.5
11.4
14.6
8.4
10.9
18.8
21.0
9.0
11.9
3.6
3.9
6.7
9.3
.5
2.3
4.2
.2
.3
.2
3.4
9.4
23.0
State
All farms.
Kentucky
Tennessee
All farms.
Kentucky
Tennessee
Pennsylvania 3--
All farms.
Iowa, Minnesota, and
Wisconsin
Connecticut
Percent of farms harvesting—
OS
o —
ga
■^•a
ga
2g
ga
° 2
Dark fire-cured tobacco
13, 865
6,682
7,183
3.4
7.3
10.4
10.8
19.3
26.6
18.3
4.6
7.5
11.4
11.8
21.9
26.1
14.3
2.2
7.1
9.4
9.8
16.9
27.1
22.1
Dark air-cured tobacco
16,717
13, 161
3, 566
19.3
17.1
27.3
24.2
23.3
27.3
20.2
20.6
18.4
12.3
13,1
9.3
11.8
12.5
9.3
8.9
9.6
6.3
3.0
3.4
1.8
Cigar-filler tobacco
0.0 1.2 3.0 3.8 6.5 19.4 33.0 32.5
Cigar-binder tobacco
All farms
Coimecticut.
Massachusetts and
Vermont
6,029
4,309
660
1.2
2.6
6.0
8.0
13.2
28.0
26.8
1.3
.8
2.9
7.0
8.9
2.3
15.1
.8
30.1
14.4
27.2
24.2
Cigar -wrapper tobacco
243
79
0.4
2.0
4.1
26.8
19.0
30.5
28.8
25.3
30.5
0
3.1
6.1
3.9
2.4
5.4
0.3
.4
.3
7.6
57.5
37.9
55.7
29.2
' Also includes dark air-cured tobacco grown in Virguiia. ' Also Includes cigar-filler tobacco grown in Ohio. ' Also includes cigar-binder tobacco grown in Pennsylvania.
TOBACCO-GROWING DISTRICTS OF THE UNITED STATES
TYPE
C>
^^FLUE-CURED
[m FIRE -CURED
K%%j LIGHT AIR-CURED
gw^DARK AIR -CURED
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
CIGAR-FILLER
CIGAR-BINDER
CIGAR-WRAPPER
MISCELLANEOUS
MAP NO. A34-93S
BUREAU OF THE CENSUS
FlQUBE 11
TOBACCO AND PEANUT PRODUCERS AND PRODUCTION
11
industrial city of North Carolina and the largest center for tobacco
products in the Nation. The area also has extensive textile and
furniture interests. Greensboro has large textile mills and is the
principal distribution center in this area. Other major cities are
Durham, cigarette manufacture; High Point, furniture and hosiery;
and Danville and Burlington, textiles. The Virginia part of the
subregion is more rural than the part in North Carolina.
Types 12, 13, and 14, comprising the New Belt group, are grown
on the more sandy, gravelly soils of marine origin in the Coastal
Plain. Type 12, Eastern Carolina tobacco, is produced in a part
of North Carolina lying east of the fall lino belonging to the Coastal
Plain. The most intensive area of production is in the area that
makes up subregion 24. It constitutes an intensive agricultural
section and the density of farm population is greater in this sub-
region than in any other part of the United States of comparable
size. This is true, whether considered per square mile of farmland
or of total land area. Most of the farms have less than 50 acres of
cropland. Tenant farmers outnumber owners. Although most
farmers speciaUze in tobacco, cotton is grown on many of the farms.
Corn is the leading crop from the standpoint of acreage but only
minor quantities are sold. Livestock products are a relatively
small element in the farm cash economy. Most of the farmers do
not engage in off-farm work, and those who do, work only for
relatively short periods.
Type 12 tobacco is also important in subregion 22, which has a
wider variety of soils than subregion 24. Soil types range from
white sands to black loams. The well-drained, light sandy loams
are best for tobacco, cotton, peanuts, swoetpotatoes, and early
truck crops. The dark, heavy, imperfectly drained loams are
used more for corn, soybeans, Irish potatoes, and late truck crops.
In general, the northern counties derive more income from soy-
beans and Irish potatoes, while tobacco is much more important
h the southern counties. In contrast to subregion 24, the majority
of the farmers own their farms and the percentage of Negro farmers
is much lower.
Type 13, South Carolina tobacco, is grown in the northern part
of South Carolina and a small adjoining district of southern North
Carolina. The agriculture here has made a partial transition from
cotton to tobacco so that tobacco is now the leading cash crop.
The agricultural land is interspersed with large acreages of swamp
or other poorly drained land. In the best parts the density of farm
population per sciuare mile of farmland reaches a level of from CO
to 70 persons, comparable with that in subregion 24. Tenant
farmers outnumber owners among commercial operators bj' a 3 to
2 margin. Corn is the leading crop from the standpoint only of
acreage. The livestock industry is not highly developed and there
is a deficit in the production of dairy products. With the large
number of work animals, there is also a shortage of feed grains,
despite the large acreage of corn.
Type 14 tobacco is produced mostly in the southern part of
Georgia, although a few million pounds are produced in noithern
Florida and a small quantity in Alabama. The local traditional
cotton economy of the early part of this century was very hard
hit by the boll weevil. The majority of the cotton was of the Sea
Island variety, which proved particularly susceptible to the weevil
and was wiped out within a few years. Farmers adjusted to the
decrease in cotton production by introdvicing flue-cured tobacco
and by expanding the production_of peanuts,'livestock, and water-
melons. Cotton, still grown on some farms, provides less than
10 percent of the total value of farm products sold.
The Georgia-Florida flue-cured tobacco belt is the youngest in
the country. It had about 11,000 acres of tobacco in 1919, and
more than 125,000 acres in 1954. Tobacco is the chief money
crop. Peanuts, depended upon considerably in parts of the belt,
are raised both for sale as nuts and for use in feeding Uvestock,
especially hogs. Naval stores, gum, and truck crops, particularly
watermelons, are other major sources of farm income. This belt,
which corresponds mostly to subregion 38, is one of the most di-
versified agricultural sections in the South, but the average level
of farm income cannot be considered high. Many farms in the
Georgia part of the belt are small. The farmers are noticeably
younger than in most other parts of Georgia and Florida. Much
of the agricultural development is of fairly recent origin. In a
reasonably typical Georgia county, it has been estimated tha
one-third of the land well-suited for farming has not yet been
cultivated.
Burley tobacco. — Burley is classed as a light air-cured type. It
is the second most important type of tobacco grown in the United
States. Earlier, the great requirement for Burley tobacco was for
the manufacture of chewing and smoking tobacco. With the
increase in cigarette production, larger and larger quantities have
been used for this purpose. At present, more than 85 percent of
the domestic use of Burley is in the manufacture of cigarettes.
The outstanding States for the production of Burley are Ken-
tucky, Tennessee, Virginia, and North CaroUna. But some is
grown in Ohio, Indiana, West Virginia, Kansas, and Missouri.
The most intensive districts of Burley tobacco production are
subregion 44, the Kentucky Bluegrass subregion; subregion 45,
the eastern and western Highland Rim subregion of Kentucky and
Tennessee; and subregion 32, the Southern Appalachian Ridge
subregion.
The slopes of the Kentucky Bluegrass subregion are less steep
than the more hilly areas to the southeast. The subregion con-
tains excellent pastureland, so livestock farming is an important
part of the economy. But more than three-fifths of the farms are
cash-crop farms. Livestock is also an important enterprise on
many of the farms that grow tobacco. The level of living is high
m comparison with the other Burley tobacco areas.
The eastern and western Highland Rim subregion borders the
Nashville Basin on the east and west. Tlic land is steep and
eroded. Many of the farms are self-sufficient. This is the most
thoroughly rural subregion in the United States, with more than
90 percent of the people Uving in the open country or in villages
of less than 2,500 inhabitants. However, a httle less than half of
the working force is engaged primarily in farming. About one-
fifth is in manufacturing and construction, the remainder in trades
and .services. About 92 percent of the population is white. To-
bacco is produced mostly in the northern two-thirds of the sub-
region. The production is from relatively small plots and a mini-
mum of power machinery is used. The mean size of tobacco
farms is about 75 acres with an average of about 1.6 acres in to-
bacco. Most of the tobacco farms sell some Uvestock. In addi-
tion, most of the farmers supplement their income with the sale
of milk, eggs, and chickens.
The Southern Appalachian Ridge and Valley subregion consists
of the central part of the Appalachian Great Valley and the Ridge
and Valley area. The chief cities are Chattanooga and Knoxville.
There are several smaller industrial cities. The industrial de-
velopment of the subregion has been greatly stimulated through
the establishment of the Tennessee Valley Authority. The manu-
facture of textiles, machinery, chemicals, aluminum, and paper are
among the important industries.
Despite the prevalence of adverse topography, about two-thirds
of the land is in farms. A little more than half the farms are
classified as residential or part-time. Farms average about 70
acres. The amount of land in farms has been decreasing because
of the abandonment of liilly land and the removal of farmland for
u!3e as dams or reservoirs. About 90 percent of the commercial
farms are tobacco, dairy, livestock, or general livestock farms.
The acreage of tobacco per farm is small so most tobacco farmers
supplement their income with the sale of livestock or Uvestock
products.
Maryland tobacco. — Maryland tobacco is classed with Burley
as Ught air-cured and some strains resemble the stand-up varieties
of that type in appearance and habit of growth. However, much
Maryland tobacco is known as broadleaf ; the leaves are broad, and
12
FARMERS AND FARM PRODUCTION
they droop instead of standing erect, Lilve Burley, Maryland
tobacco is almost free of gum. The major use of this type is in
cigarette blends to improve burning quality.
Maryland tobacco is produced in five counties in Southern
Maryland which lie in a peninsula between the Potomac River
and Chesapeake Bay. It is all coastal plain, but of a mature,
dissected stage, having many more slopes and low hills than are
typical of the Atlantic Coastal Plains as a whole.
For more than 300 years the culture and cconomj' of these
counties has been based on tobacco. The crop has been cultivated
here longer than in any other part of the United States except the
Connecticut River Valley. Leaching and three centuries of row-
crop cultivation have made the soils of Southern Maryland acid,
eroded, and severely deficient in organic matter. This causes
serious problems in the maintenance of crop quality and yields.
Cattle and hogs are the only important source of farm income
other than tobacco. Although this area is adjacent to Washing-
ton, D. C, it is completely rural, the largest settlement has only
1,000 people. It is becoming a rural residential district for people
who work in the metropolitan area and a resort district of the
summer-cottage type as it has a long frontage of water and is in
easy driving distance of both Baltimore and Washington. Some
outside work within the counties is being furnished by the Naval
Powder Plant at Indian Head and the large Naval Air Base at
Patuxent River.
Dark-fired and air-cured types. — For the purpose of this report
all types of dark tobacco have been grouped together. Tobacco
that is cured in heat and smoke of open fires is called fire-cured or
dark-fired. Its principal domestic use is in the manufacture of
snuff. Some is used in manufacturing tobacco byproducts such
as nicotine sulphate and tobacco extracts. Small quantities are
used in making Tosconi-type cigars, and chewing and smoking
tobacco.
The dark air-cured tobaccos are One-sucker, Green River, and
Virginia sun-cured. They contain no cigarette grades, and are
used in manufacturing chewing tobacco and to a smaller extent
in smoking tobacco and snuff. One-sucker tobacco and some of
the dark-fired types 22 and 23 are used by the "rehandling trade"
for processing and exporting to the west coast of Africa.
Dark types of tobacco are grown in Virginia along the upper
James and lower Appomattox Rivers and in Kentucky and Tennes-
see. In the latter States production is found east of the Tennessee
River around Hopkinsville, Ky., and Clai-ksville and Springfield,
Tenn.; west of the Tennessee River from Paducah, Ky., south-
ward to Henry and Weakley Counties, Tenn,; and in several
counties lying near the Ohio River to the south and west of
Henderson, Ky.
The dark tobacco district in Virginia is in a zone of transition.
The economy is one of important but highly localized manufac-
turing, lumbering, and small-scale farming. Richmond, the
largest city, is a manufacturing center. Other centers of industry
are Petersburg and Lynchburg. Settlement outside the areas of
these cities is rather sparse. Many of the counties have only
20 to 25 ))ersons per square mile. The agriculture is rather diver-
sified, and is conducted mostly on a small-scale; less than half the
farms are considered commercial.
Tobacco has long been the main cash crop but production has
declined with the decrease in demand for dark tobacco. The
largest crops are corn and hay, and livestock products form the
bulk of farm sales. Dairying, poultry, and beef cattle are of
almost equal importance. Farms primarily devoted to the sale
of livestock products are likely to be more prosperous than those
that specialize in tobacco production. The soils are not inher-
ently highly productive, but respond well to good management.
Through the years many farms have been abandoned. Never-
theless, this country appears to have considerable in the way of
agriculture potentials. Differences in present productivity of
faxms appear to be due more to proper management and avail-
ability of capital than to natural resources.
That part of Kentucky and Tennessee that produces fire-cured
and dark air-cured tobacco is located mainly in the Pennyroyal
and Jackson Purchase subregion. It has been known for gene-
rations as the Black Patch. It consists of two distinctively
different types of land. The Jackson Purchase area, which lies
west of the Tennessee River, is below the fall line and consists
of fall-line hills and coastal plains. The Pennyroyal area is
above the fall line and is a somewhat broken and hilly country.
Here, as in the Virginia area, tobacco has lost much ground due
to the decrease in demand for dark tobacco, but the crop still
dominates the agriculture. Many of the farms that grow tobacco
also receive a part of their income from livestock and livestock
products.
Cigar-tobacco types. — Cigar tobaccos are classified as cigar-
filler types, cigar-binder types, and cigar-wrapper types. The
most important filler type of American grown tobacco is Pennsyl-
vania broadleaf, type 41, grown in the Pennsylvania counties of
Lancaster, York, Chester, Lebanon, Berks, and Dauphin. Other
tj'pes of cigar-filler tobacco are grown in the Miami Valley in
southwestern Ohio, mostly in Darke, Preble, Butler, Miami,
Montgomery, and Warren Counties.
The tobacco in Pennsylvania is grown in subregion 16. This
county is semimountainous for it lies on the eastern edge of the
Appalachian Mountains. Manufacturing is the principal source
of livelihood with apparel textile-mill products, food products,
primary metals, and machinery, the leading kinds. Agriculture
is the second largest source of employment. About two-thirds
of the land is in farms and more than half of the farmland is in
crops. Tobacco is grown as a special crop in the Lancaster part.
For the subregion as a whole, the agriculture is of a general and
diversified type. Dairying is the principal type of farming, but
it is supplemented with income from poultry, livestock, and cash
crops. Fruit is the leading cash crop, with vegetables a minor
supplement.
Cigar-binder types are grown in the valley of the Connecticut
River from near the Massachusetts State line to Glastonbury,
Conn. Scattering acreages are found in northern Pennsylvania
and southern and central New York, and in Wisconsin, Georgia,
and Florida, Wrapper types of cigar tobacco are grown in the
Connecticut Valley and in Georgia and Florida.
The Connecticut Valley is the most important area for both
binder and wrapper types. The economy of the area is centered
around manufacturing which provided 43 percent of the total
State employment in 1950. The industry is diversified with
specialties in textiles, machinery, pulp and paper, and rubber
products. Tobacco provided about 20 percent of the total farm
income in 1954. Dairy and poultry production are the other
main types of agriculture.
Trends in Acres, Yield, and Production
The form in which tobacco is used — smoking, chewing, and
snuff — is the same today as it was when the white man discovered
this country. Nevertheless, over the years there have been
marked shifts as between kinds and forms of use. The general
direction has been from "strong" tobacco to "mild," from cigars
to cigarettes, from chewing to pipe smoking. Changes in mode
of consumption and preference of consumers for the lighter
rather than the heavier-bodied tobaccos have had marked effects
on trends in production in the various tobacco areas. A knowl-
edge of these trends contributes to an understanding of some of
the agricultural problems of the areas and growers.
Acreage. — The total acres in tobacco in the United States has
not shown much change from the acreage reached during World
War I. During the 191.5-19 period, the average acreage was
1,639,300 compared with 1,690,140 acres during 1950-54. There
have been pronounced shifts in acres in certain types of tobacco.
TOBACCO AND PEANUT PRODUCERS AND PRODUCTION
ACREAGE, YIELD PER ACRE, AND PRODUCTION OF TOBACCO, BY TYPES, UNITED STATES, 1920-1955
13
ACRES
(THOUSANDS)
1,800
1,500 -
1,000
500
POUNDS
(PER ACRE)
1,200
YIELD PER ACRE
600
POUNDS
(MILLIONS)
1,000
500
1920
423020—57 4
1930
1940
FiOURE 12
1950
I960
54C- 64
14
FARMERS AND FARM PRODUCTION
Acres in flue-cured and Burley tobaccos have increased only mod-
erately since 1920 (see Figure 12). Acres in Maryland tobacco,
although small, were about two-thirds greater in 1954 than in
1920. The big shifts have been in dark-fired and air-cured types
Comparing 1920-24 with 1950-54, the average acres in dark-fired
and air-cured types declined from 412,000 acres to 77,000 acres, or
81 percent. During this same period acres in cigar types decreased
from 167,000 to 81,000 acres.
Of the total acres in tobacco in the 1920-24 period, 44 percent
was in flue-cured, 20 percent in Burley, 2 percent in Southern
Maryland, 24 percent in dark-fired and air-cured, and 10 percent
in cigar types. Total acres in tobacco were almost the same in the
1950-54 period as in the 1920-24 period, but in the latter, as a re-
sult of shifts in types, 62 percent was in flue-cured tobacco, 26
percent in Burley, 3 percent in Southern Maryland, 4 percent in
dark-fired and air-cured types, and 5 percent in cigar types.
Yield. — Since the passage of the Agricultural Adjustment Ac^
of 1933. major control programs have afi^ected the production and
marketing of most types of tobacco. Advances in technology,
coupled with more intensive practices of farmers who wanted to
grow more pounds on the "allotted" number of acres, have resulted
in significant increases in yields per acre for most types of tobacco.
The average yield of all tobacco increased from 819 pounds in
the 1910-14 period to 1,292 pounds in the 1950-54 period, or 58
percent. Most of the increase in yield has come since control
programs were adopted, with the largest increase in pounds during
the 1945-49 period. Yield per acre of flue-cured and Burley to-
baccos almost doubled from 1920 to 1954 (see Figure 12). Unlike
most types, yield per acre in Southern Maryland tobacco increased
only slightly during the last 35 years: 786 pounds in the 1920-24
period and 836 pounds in the 1950-54 period. Yield per acre of
dark-fired and air-cured types increased about 58 percent from 1920
to 1954. Yield per acre of the cigar tj'pe increased from an average
of 1,176 pounds in the 1920-24 period to 1,498 pounds in the 1950-
54 period.
Production. — Although there has not been a large change in
acres of tobacco, higher yields per acre have brought a noteworthy
increase in production. Average production of all tobacco in 1950-
54 was 2,184 million pounds compared with 1,046 million pounds in
1910-14. Between 1920 and 1954, production of both flue-cured and
Burley more than doubled. Production of Maryland tobacco in-
creased the same as the increase in acres, or 62 percent. Produc-
tion of dark-fired and air-cured types in 1954 was only one-fourth
of the production in 1920. Production of cigar types declined
from 224 million pounds in 1920 to 75 million pounds in 1934,
Production increased again during the latter part of the 1930's and
during the war years but was fairly constant from 1946 to 1950.
It has declined again since that time — in 1954 it was 100 million
pounds less than in 1920.
Since yield per acre has changed more for some types than fcr
others, the change in the proportion that various types makes up
of total production has been different from that of acreages. Of
the total pounds of tobacco grown in the United States during the
1920-24 period, 37 percent was flue-cured, 21 percent Burley, 2
percent Maryland, 25 percent dark-fired and air-cured, and 15
percent cigar types. In the 1950-54 period, of the total pounds,
61 percent was flue-cured, 27 percent Burley, 2 percent Maryland,
4 percent dark-fired and air-cured, and 6 percent cigar types.
Disposition of Supplies
From 1950 to 1954, of the total disappearance of tobacco each
year, about three-fourths was in domestic uses and one-fovirth
was exported. The use for domestic purposes depends largely on
per capita consumption, for only a very small proportion of the
crop is used for other purposes.
Trends in per capita consumption. — The big increase in domestic
use of tobacco from 1940 to 1953 was due to an mcrease in per
capita consumption of tobacco products and to an increase in the
number of people of smoking age. With the e.xception of the
depression years, consumption per person 15 years and over in the
United States was fairly constant from 1920 to 1940, varying from
8.75 to 9 pounds (see Figure 13). Consumption per person
(including overseas armed forces) increased about 40 percent
during the war years and reached a peak of 12.46 pounds in 1945.
Consumption decHned sHghtly after 1945 and was approximately
12 pounds per person of 15 years and over, from 1946 to 1950.
Consumption was at an all time high in 1952 and 1953. It de-
clined slightly in 1954 and increased slightly in 1955 but still was
5.8 percent below the peak reached in 1952.
TOBACCO PRODUCTS: CONSUMPTION PER CAPITA, 15 YEARS
OLD AND OVER, IN THE UNITED STATES AND BYOVERSEAS
FORCES: 1920-1955
Lbs,
Unstemmed Processing Weight
Reflecting the change from ".strong" to "mild" tobacco and
especially the increase in use of cigarettes, the trend in consump-
tion per person 15 years and over has been different for different
products. The consumption of tobacco in the form of cigarettes
increased about 5 times from 1920 to 1955 or from 1.89 pounds to
9.83 pounds. Use for smoking, chewing, and snuff declined almost
steadily each year, from 4.33 pounds in 1920 to 1.12 pounds in
1955. Average con.sumption in the form of cigars has declined
since 1920 but has remained fairly constant since 1932.
Manufacture of products. — In only 7 years from 1920 to 1955
was there a decrease compared with the preceding year in the
amount of tobacco used in the manufacture of tobacco products
(see Figure 14). The peak year was in 1952 when 1,526 million
pounds were used — an increase of 138 percent over the 640 million
pounds in 1920. Total leaf used in tobacco manufacture declined
4.3 percent from 1953 to 1954 but about half of this loss was
regained in 1954.
In 1955 cigarettes accounted for a httle more than four-fifths of
the total leaf used in tobacco manufacture compared with a little
more than one-half in 1935-39 and slightly more than one-fifth in
1920-24. The increase in leaf used in cigarette manufacture was
a sharp contrast to the amount u.sed in the manufacture of smoking
and chewing tobacco which was only one-third as much in 1955 as
in 1920. The total quantity of leaf used in the manufacture of
both snuff and cigars declined only moderately from 1920 to 1955.
Exports of leaf tobacco. — Exports of leaf have always been a
significant factor in the disposition of tobacco crop. In 1955, leaf
tobacco was the third ranking agricultural export in dollar value,
exceeded only by wheat and cotton. The total value of unmanu-
factured toVjacco exported exceeded $356 million. Over the years,
with the increase in the quantity of tobacco used for domestic
purposes, the proportion that exports make up of total disappear-
ance has declined. In the 1925-29 period, exports were 43 percent
of disappearance but decHned to 26 percent in the 1950-54 period.
TOBACCO AND PEANUT PRODUCERS AND PRODUCTION
15
TOBACCO, LEAF: USED IN MANUFACTURE OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS, UNITED STATES, 1920-1955
Unstemmed Processing Weight Equivalent
Figure 14
From 1925 to 1955, the peak year in exports was 1929 when 679
miUion pounds (farm-sales weight) were exported (see Figure 15).
Exports declined sharply during the war and reached a low of 189
million pounds in 1940. After the cessation of ho-stilities they
increased rapidly; 657 million pounds were exported in 1946. Since
1948 exports have amounted to 500 million pounds or more each
year.
Flue-cured leaf accounts for slightly more than four-fifths of the
total exports. Gradually exports of dark type tobacco have
decreased. Since the war, exports of both Burley and cigar types
EXPORTS OF TOBACCO FROM THE UNITED STATES, BY CROP YEARS! 1925-55
Farm- Soles Weigtit
1955
16
FARMERS AND FARM PRODUCTION
have increased. Shifts in consumer demand in foreign countries,
as in the United States, for various kinds of tobacco products,
mostly account for the increases in exports of certain types of leaf
and the decline in others.
The United Kingdom has long been the principal export outlet
for tobacco. Exports to China, the second most important
prewar export outlet for United States leaf, have about disappeared.
On the other hand, exports to the Netherlands, Germany, Ireland,
the Philippines, and several other countries are now above prewar
levels.
Favorable factors contributing to the export of tobacco in the
last few years have been an improvement in economic conditions
in many importing countries and the large United States imports
from abroad which enable other countries to buy from this country.
A very significant factor in the quantity exported in the postwar
years has been the assistance to foreign countries under the
various programs sponsored by the United States Government.
Stocks. — The general practice of tobacco manufacturers is to
carry on hand enough tobacco for more than a year of operation.
This is done in order that the leaf may "age." Then too, by blend-
ing the leaf of two or more years' growth, it is possible to smooth
out variations that may come from differences in the effects of
seasonal weather conditions on the crops.
Although the major types of tobacco have been grown under
marketing quotas and acreage allotments most of the years since
1938, production during the last 10 years has tended to exceed
the quantity used and exported. This has resulted in a progressive
increase in stocks of tobacco on hand at the end of the crop year
in relation to the disappearance of tobacco during the year.
During the 1925-29 period the ratio of stocks to disappearance
was 1.3 to 1. During the 1950-54 period the ratio was 1.7 to 1.
Of the total production of tobacco, flue-cured accounts for
about three-fifths of the total and Burley, one-fourth. The
change in the stocks of these two types accounts for most of the
change in total stocks. At the beginning of the war stocks of
flue-cured were high but were reduced during the war and postwar
years (see Figure 16). Stocks have been increasing since then.
The ratio of stocks to disappearance during the 1950-54 period
was 1.4 to 1. Stocks of Burley tobacco were decreased only
slightly during the war and have continued to increase since that
time (see Figure 17). The ratio of Burley stocks to disappearance
in the 1950-54 period was 2 to 1.
Tobacco Programs and Policies, 1935-55
Since the depression of the early thirties, various control pro-
grams have been carried on in an effort to regulate the production
of tobacco from year to year in line with requirements of domestic
manufactures and for export. The first legislative basis for
control programs was provided by the Agricultural Adjustment
Act of 1933.
The production-adjustment program for tobacco was terminated
as a result of the Supreme Court decision in January 1936, which
invalidated the production control program carried out through
contracts between the Federal Government and Individual
farmer and financed by processing taxes. However, tobacco
programs were continued in 1936 and 1937 under the Soil Conser-
vation and Domestic Allotment Act. This Act was designed
to increase agricultural income primarily through payments for
reducing soil-depleting acreages and the adoption of land u.se and
farm practices which would conserve and build up soil fertility.
The acreage control features of the new conservation program
included the establishment of base acreages of soil-depleting
crops of which tobacco was one, and payments to farmers for
diversion of land from those base acreages to soil-conserving uses.
Under this act production control became a byproduct whereas
it was a primary object of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of
1933.
In February 1938, Congress enacted the Agricultural Adjust-
ment Act of 1938 which has provided the legislative basis for the
tobacco programs in effect since that time. The purpose of the
1938 act was as follows:
TOBACCO, FLUE CURED: SUPPLY, DISAPPEARANCE AND FARMER'S PRICE, UNITED STATES, 1920-55
Farm Sales Weight
Mil. Lbs.
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
♦ Per Lb.
60
45
30
15
PRICE /
f^-
/ <
^^V
J^
/ \
/ SUPPORT
/ LEVEL
\
y
1920 1925 1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955
FiGUBE 16
TOBACCO AND PEANUT PRODUCERS AND PRODUCTION
17
TOBACCO, BURLEY: SUPPLY, DISAPPEARANCE AND FARMERS PRICE UNITED STATES, 1920-55
Form Soles Weight
« Per Lb.
60
1920
Mil. Lbs.
600
500
400
300
200
100
1
DISAPPEARANCE^ /-_— ~>s
^
->>^
>-'-<
^
-
^
w
1
EXPORTS
_-iSfc-r-
^
^
M
i
^
11
1
1
1
1
1
■
1
! DOMESTIC i
1
-_
955 1920
Figure 17
1930
1940
1950 1955
54C-I23
(1) To conserve the Nation's soil resources and use them
efficiently.
(2) To assist in the marketing of farm products for domestic
consumption and exports.
(3) To regulate interstate and foreign commerce in cotton,
wheat, corn, tobacco, and rice so as to —
(a) Minimize violent fluctuations in supplies, marketings,
and prices of farm commodities;
(b) Protect consumers by maintaining adequate reserves
of food and feed; and
(c) Assist farmers in obtaining a fair share of national
income.
To conform with previous decisions of the Supreme Court, the
acreage allotment and payment portions of the jjrograms were
separate and distinct from the marketing-quota portions. Acreage
allotments were set up under the agricultural conservation pro-
gram but marketing quotas became operative only under specified
supply conditions and only if approved in a grower referendum.
Following the rejection of marketing quotas by tobacco growers
for the 1939 season, a series of legislative amendments were made
in the adjustment program. The most significant change provided
that the Secretar}' of Agriculture could establish farm acreage
allotments as a measure of the marketing quotas for farms rather
than establisliing marketing quotas in pounds. The 1940 program
established the basic features of tobacco control programs to be
followed in subsequent years. These basic features were (1) the
conversion of marketing quotas to acreage allotments subject to
specific provisions relating to minimum allotments, (2) permitting
actual production on allotted acreage to be marketed penalty free,
(3) a loan and purchase program to support prices at predeter-
mined levels of parity, and (4) the adjustment of acreage allot-
ments as the long run technique of adjusting supplies to needs
and thereby increasing prices.
Table 4 shows the nvimber of allotted acres for various kinds of
tobacco for which marketing quotas were in effect from 1940 to
1956. Tobacco programs were retained throughout the war even
though for other commodities production controls were reversed.
The wartime i^rogram was characterized by two general tendencies:
(1) The expansion of acreage allotments for flue-cured and Burley
tobacco after 1942 to meet wartime demands with emphasis on
expanding production on small farms to meet increased war needs
and (2) the inability of farmers to fully plant their expanded allot-
ments due to wartime shortages of labor, fertilizer, barn space, and
other facilities.
Pohcies followed also resulted in, especially for Burley tobacco,
a large increase in the total number of allotments and spread of
allotted and harvested acreage to sparse producing areas.
In the postwar period, adjustments have been made in national
acreage allotments from the expanded levels of World War II in
order to bring production more in line with needs. In 1956, the
acreage allotted for flue-cured tobacco was 70.6 percent of the peak
reached in 1946 and the allotment for Burley tobacco was only
50.7 percent of the peak acreage in 1945. This reduction in acreage
has resulted in very small allotments for many tobacco growers.
In 1956, on flue-cured tobacco farms, 52 percent of the growers had
allotments of less than 3 acres; 79 percent of the Burley producers
had allotments of less than 1 acre (see Table 5).
To support the price of tobacco, the Government has continued
the loan and purchase program. Table 6 shows the average sup-
port price, the amount of tobacco pledged to the Commodity
Credit Corporation for loans and the amount of stocks held by the
Commodity Credit Corporation for flue-cured, Burley, and dark
tobaccos for the period 1946-55.
18
FARMERS AND FARM PRODUCTION
Table 4. — Tobacco; Acreages Allotted by Types, United States: 1940 to 1956
Year
Flue-cured
Burley
Southern
Maryland i
Fire-cured
Dark air-
cured 1
Virginia
Cigar-filler '
and binder ^
Total
758. 210
761, 659
841, 222
895, 462
1,095,127
1,118,488
1, 257, 226
1, 246, 766
908, 000
959, 463
968, 695
1, 119, 481
1,127,371
1, 044, 543
1,063,135
1.007.023
887. 684
374. 605
374. 285
378. 720
470. 533
688. 833
608. 899
557. 335
468. 641
463. 192
468. 338
418. 260
472. 176
474, 747
432. 746
399, 451
309, 326
308, 707
1, 132, 815
1941
84,317
80, 935
88,682
36. 809
36. 781
» 39, 263
1, 266, 070
1,336,658
1943
1,493.940
1. 683. 960
1.727,387
1946
117,614
116, 110
77. 342
65. 667
66. 560
66.899
56. 773
67.096
65. 847
60.504
60,113
47,908
43, 739
33, 443
30, 377
26, 659
26. 651
26. 673
26. 476
23.248
21. 006
20,730
1,980.082
1947
1,875,261
1,481.977
1. 523, 735
4.360
4,349
4,756
4,935
6,111
5,746
6,626
1, 474, 314
48,072
1, 727, 628
1, 690, 320
1953 .-
65,311
49,383
46, 877
46,587
38,372
1, 670, 490
1, 684, 669
1, 440, 191
53, 353
1,364,386
' Marketing quotas not in effect in years for which no data were shown.
2 Includes types 42, 44, 51, 52, 63, 64, and 65.
3 Quotas terminated for 1943 prior to harvest.
Source: United States Department of Agriculture.
Table 5. — Flue-cured and Burley Tobacco — Number of
Allotments and Percentage Distribution by Acre-size
Groups, United States: 1956
Size of allotment
Flue-cured
tobacco
Burley
tobacco
212, 750
' 306. 169
Percent distribution
14.0
18.9
17.4
16.6
9.5
16.9
5.2
1.4
.2
19.6
0 60 to 0 99 acre - _- _ - .-
69.1
14.2
2 00 to 2 99 acres - -
3.6
3 00 to 3 99 acres - -- - - --
1.8
5 00 to 9 99 acres . _ _ .
.9
.2
.1
50 00 acres or more - - - -
(Z)
Total
100.0
100.0
Source: ITnitc'd States Department of Agriculture.
Z 0,0,^ pcrct'iit or less.
1 Co]n[)il(Ml jirior to enactment of Public Law 426 and does not inclutle an estimated
600 "new farms."
2 Data not available. 14 percent of allotments are less than 1 acre.
Even though the average price received by farmers has often
averaged above the support level, a considerable proportion of
the crop has been pledged to the Commodity Credit Corporation
in various years. This agency now owns sizable stocks of tobacco.
A study of the history of tobacco control programs indicates
that they developed out of an attempt to solve a wide variety of
problems. Over the years as problems changed the programs
were modified. The present situation would indicate that new
adjustments may be necessary in tobacco programs.
Number, Resources, and Characteristics of Specialized
Tobacco Farms
Data on other field-crop farms were summarized for the follow-
ing subregions (see map on p. 5) in estimating the number of
specialized tobacco producers and in determining resources used
and characteristics of tobacco farms.
Types of tobacco Subregion
1. Flue-cured tobacco 22,23,24,25,36,37,38
2. Burley tobacco 31,32,33,44,45,52
3. Southern Maryland tobacco 19
4. Dark-fired and air-cured tobacco 20, 53
Note. — Data were not summarized for cigar types of tobacco.
Number and Use of Resources
Tobacco is an intensive crop requiring a large amount of hand
labor. It uses less land and capital resources than many of the
other major farm enterprises. Table 7 shows the total amount
of agricultural resources and the amount of gross income from
various sources for all commercial farms in the United States and
for all commercial farms and specialized tobacco farms in the
selected areas. (Other field-crop farms in tobacco areas will here-
after be designated as tobacco farms although in some cases pea-
nuts represent the dominant source of income. On a few farms
miscellaneous field crops other than peanuts or tobacco represent
the primary source of income.) The proportion of total agricul-
ture resources used by specialized tobacco producers are shown
in Table 8.
There were 293,566 farms classified as other field-crop farms in
these tobacco subregions. This number accounts for approxi-
mately 9 percent of the commercial farms shown by the 1954
Census. It includes 57 percent of the total number of farms
reporting tobacco harvested in 1954. The production of tobacco
on these farms amounted to 72 percent of the total tobacco har-
vested as reported in 1954, and 76 percent of all tobacco harvested
on commercial farms.
In 1954, specialized tobacco farms used 7 percent of all labor
resources but only 3 percent of the capital employed in agriculture
and 2 percent of the cropland. They produced 4 percent of the
gross farm income.
On a iier-farm basis, tobacco farms rank below the average of
all commercial farms in the United States (see Table 9). They
have less cropland per farm, employ less capital and also receive
a smaller gross farm income. However, the amount of labor per
farm is about the same as the average for other commercial farms
in the United States.
There are distinct differences between tobacco farms producing
various types of tobacco and also between specialized tobacco
farms and other commercial farms in the same area. Producers
of Southern Maryland tobacco have the largest farms from the
standpoint of average acres in ci'opland, have a much larger
capital investment and a slightly larger gross farm income than
producers of other types of tobacco. In each of the tobacco
TOBACCO AND PEANUT PRODUCERS AND PRODUCTION
19
Table 6. — Tobacco: Total United States Production, Average Price Received by Farmers, Quantities Pledged for Commodity
Credit Corporation Loans, Total Stocks, and Commodity Credit Corporation Holdings, by Type, by Crop Years: 1946 to
1955
[Green weight basis]
Crop year
H46.
1947.
1948
1949.
1950
1961.
1952
1953
1954
1955
1946.
1947
1948.
1949.
1950.
1951
1952.
1953.
1954
1955.
1946
1947
1948
1949.
1950
1951.
1952
1953
1954
1955.
1947
1948
1949
1950
1951
1952
1963
1954.
1955
Total
production
(million
pounds)
Price support
level (cents
per pound)
1.352.0
1,317.5
1,089.6
1,114.5
1, 257. 3
1,452.7
1,365.3
1, 272. 7
1,314.4
1, 483. 0
614.0
484.7
602.9
560. R
499. 0
618.1
650. 1
.564. 4
667. 2
470. 0
l.'i8.5
123. 6
108.1
108. 3
86.9
91.2
92.0
75. .-i
96.3
96.3
200.6
193.8
190.7
194.3
196.2
182.5
165.6
166.3
182.2
160.7
Average price
received by
(armers (cents
per iiound)
32.1
40.0
43.9
42.5
4."^. 0
.W. 7
50. 6
47.9
47.9
48.3
33.6
40.3
42.4
40.3
45.7
49.8
49.5
46,6
46.4
46.2
= 24.3
29.2
M. 6
28. !
33.0
36.0
35.7
33.6
33.4
33.4
Pledged to CCC for loans
Amount
(million
pounds)
Percent of
crops
Total stocks I
(million
pounds)
Held by CCC
Amount
(million
pounds)
Percent of
stocks
Flue-cured tobacco (as of July 1)
48.3
41.2
49.6
47.2
54.7
52.4
50.3
62.8
62.7
62.7
66.6
232.3
106.1
103.5
77.6
142.2
243.4
151.4
130.2
296.3
4.9
16.4
9.7
9.3
6.2
9.8
17.8
11.9
9.9
20 0
1.147
4
1.286
8
l.,550
2
I,. 538
2
1,4K4
6
1,5.57
6
1. 730. 8 1
1.R.51
9
1.915
1
2.056
6
Burley tobacco (as of Oct. 1)
39.7
48.5
46.0
45.2
49.0
51.2
50.3
.52. 5
49. S
58.6
147.8
37.7
96.7
39.1
44.2
97.3
103.9
102.1
221.4
73.1
24.1
7.8
16.0
7.0
8.8
1.5.7
16.0
18.1
:)3. 2
1.5.6
853.3
940.8
902.3
974.3
1 . 000. 2
981.3
1,061.2
1,163.4
1,198.1
1,346.7
Dark tobacco (as of Oct. 1)
24.9
28.4
30.9
29.3
29.0
38.0
35.4
31.0
36.5
35.3
.56. 4
45.8
36.2
22.9
16. 4
14,8
21.0
1.5.7
14.2
16.0
3.5.6
37.0
33.5
21.1
18.8
16.2
22.8
20.8
14.6
16.6
16,5. 5
216, 1
239.8
231.3
244. 5
219.0
220.1
224.0
209.8
217.9
Another 3 (as of Oct. 1)
41.6
37.1
35.9
33. 1
33. 7
32.0
36. 5
39.3
:<4.4
33.0
12.8
11.1
20.3
15.9
13.3
10.8
1.4
13.6
12.6
20.2
6.4
5.7
10.6
8.2
6.8
5.9
.8
8.2
6.9
12.6
351.0
372.5
373. 5
362.4
389.8
412.0
410.1
388.8
374.9
396.8
10.0
62.0
107.0
127.0
86.0
85.0
181.0
238.0
279.0
330.0
16.0
151.0
96.0
132.0
111.0
69.0
122.9
197.5
228. 0
431.0
0.2
.53.7
84.2
95.7
101.0
75.7
80.5
92. 0
84.7
84.8
0.9
15.6
15.8
18.5
23.4
26.9
19.4
24.7
23.1
0.9
4.8
6.9
8.2
5.8
5.4
10.4
12.8
14.6
16.0
1.9
16.0
10.6
13.5
11.1
7.0
11.6
17.0
19.0
32.0
0.1
24.8
35.1
41.4
41.3
34.6
36.6
41.1
40.4
38.9
0.2
4.2
4.4
4.7
6.7
6.6
5.0
6.6
5.8
' Dealers, manufacturers, and CCC holdings.
2 Price support level for types 21-23 and 36-37
.Mghted on basis of total production.
3 Shade growu wrapper and Periquc not included.
Table 7- — Number of Farms and Resources for All Commercial Farms and Other Field-Crop Farms in the United States,
and in Selected Tobacco Areas: 1954
Item
Total farms ._number-
All land in farms ...thousand acres.
Total cropland ..thousand acres.
Production of tobacco... ...million pounds.
Tobacco sold million dollars.
Other crops sold million dollars.
All livestock and livestock products sold
million doUars.
Forestry products sold mOlion dollars.
All larm products sold... million dollars.
Total capital ...million dollars.
Man -equivalent of labor number.
United States
All com-
mercial
farms
3, 327, 889
1,032.493
431,585
1,822
923
11,033
12, 223
120
21,299
110,645
4,891,935
Other
ield-crop
farms
367, 733
33,685
17, 593
1,538
787
677
129
4
1,697
4,980
556, 898
Total, four areas
All com-
mercial
farms
478, 810
64, 881
25, 510
1,570
785
464
528
25
1,802
6,917
555, 720
Other
field -crop
farms
293, 566
21,467
10, 558
l,:j&8
699
125
77
3
903
3,073
392, 774
Tobacco areas
Flue-cured
All com-
mcrcLal
farms
238, 218
26, 216
10, 495
1,019
537
235
131
16
919
3,089
279, 969
Other
field-crop
farms
166, 232
11,114
5,097
943
497
89
26
2
614
1,778
250, 456
Burley
All com-
mercial
farms
189, 794
21,977
10, 942
404
184
186
278
6
654
2,710
209, 614
Other
field-crop
farms
104, 645
8,315
4,316
334
154
29
42
1
226
1,017
116,600
Southern Maryland
.\11 com-
mercial
farms
12, 967
2, 496
1, 175
39
16
17
56
1
90
515
21,453
Other
field-crop
farms
4,646
467
233
37
15
(Z)
18
109
5,828
Dark-fired and air-
cured
All com-
mercial
farms
37, 831
5,192
2,898
108
48
26
63
2
139
603
44,684
Other
field-crop
farms
18,143
1,.571
912
74
33
6
(Z)
46
169
19, 890
Z 0,5 or less.
20 FARMERS AND FARM PRODUCTION
Table 8.- — Proportion That Number of Farms, Resources Used, and Gross Sales on Commercial Farms in Specific Tobacco
Areas Were of the Total for All Commercial Farms in the United States: 1954
Item
United States
United States:
All commercial farms..
Other field-crop farms
Other commercial farms
Total, four areas:
All commercial farms...
Other field-crop farms
Other commercial farms
Flue-cured tobacco:
All commercial farms
Other field-crop farms
Other commercial farms
Burley tobacco:
All commercial farms
Other field-crop farms
Other commercial farms
Southern Maryland tobacco:
All commercial farms..
Other field-crop farms
. Other commercial farms
Dark-fired and air-cured tobacco:
All commercial farms
Other field-crop farms
Other commercial farms
Number of
farms
3,327,889
All laud in
farms (thou-
sand acres)
1,032,493
Acies of
cropland
(thousands)
431, 585
Total capital
invested
(million
dollars)
Man-equi-
valent of
labor
(number)
110.545 4,891,935
All farm
products sold
(million
dollars)
24,299
Tobacco sold
(million
dollars)
Production
of tobacco
(million
pounds)
Percent of United States totel
100.0
11.1
14.4
8.7
5.7
7.2
5.0
2.2
5.7
3.1
2.6
1.1
.5
.6
(Z)
100.0
3.3
96.7
5.2
2.1
3.1
2.4
1.1
1.3
2.1
.8
1.3
.2
2
.5
.2
.3
100.0
4.1
95.9
5.9
2.5
3.4
2.4
1.2
1.2
2.6
1.0
1.5
.3
.1
.2
.7
.2
.5
100.0
4.5
95.5
6.3
2.8
3.5
2.8
1.6
1.2
2.5
.9
1.6
100.0
11.4
88.6
11.3
8.0
3.3
5.7
6.1
4.3
2.4
1.0
100.0
6.6
93.4
7.6
3.7
3.8
3.8
2.5
1.3
2.7
.9
1.8
100.0
85.3
14.7
85.0
76.7
9.3
58.2
53.8
4.4
19.9
16.7
3.2
1.7
1.6
.1
5.2
3.6
1.6
100.0
84.4
15.6
86.1
76.2
9.9
65.9
61.8
4.1
22.2
18.3
3.9
2.1
2.0
.1
6.9
4.1
1.8
Z 0,06 percent or less.
Table 9. — Number of Commercial Farms and Specified Characteristics Per Farm for the United States and for Selected
Tobacco Regions: 1954
United
States
Flue-
cujed
Burley
Southern Maryland
Dark-flrcc
air-cured
Item
All
commercial
farms
238,218
Other
fleld-crop
farms
All
commercial
farms
Other
fleld-crop
farms
All
commercial
farms
Other
fleld-crop
farms
All
commercial
farms
Other
fleld-crop
farms
3,327,889
166, 232
189, 794
104, 645
12,967
4,546
37,831
18,143
acres..
acres..
dollars..
dollars..
number..
dollars..
dollars..
dollars..
dollars. -
Average per farm
Land in farms
Total cropland _
All farm products sold
Tobacco sold
Man-eriuivalent of labor
Investment in:
Land and buildings
Livestock...
Machinery...
310
130
7,302
277
1.47
25,437
3,154
4,291
106
44
3,869
2,254
1.18
10, 267
679
2,019
67
31
3, 697
2,992
1.51
8,505
438
1,757
116
68
3,446
968
1.13
10,687
1,268
2,324
"9
41
2,160
1,46S
1.11
7,317
698
1,705
193
91
6,883
1,218
1.65
33, 149
2,944
4,506
103
61
4,018
3,293
1.28
19,479
709
3,529
137
77
3,680
1.265
1.18
11,281
1,488
3,184
87
60
2,480
1,816
1.10
6,474
688
2,141
Total
32, 882
12,965
10, 700
14,279
9,720
40,699
23,717
15,953
9,303
areas, the specialized tobacco farms had less cropland, a smaller
capital investment and lower gross income than other commercial
farms in the area.
Distribution of Farms and Selected Resources, by Economic
Class of Farm
A smaller proportion of tobacco farms than all commercial
farms fall in the higher income groups in the United States. Of
the total tobacco farms in the areas summarized, only 1.8 percent
were in Economic Classes I and II as compared to 17.5 percent
of all commercial farms in these two groups for the United States
(see Table 10). Seventy-two percent of all Burley producers were
in Economic Classes V and VI as compared to 37 percent in these
two classes for all commercial farms.
Table 10 shows how selected resources of specialized tobacco
farms are distributed among various economic classes of farms.
TOBACCO AND PEANUT PRODUCERS AND PRODUCTION
21
Farms in Economic Classes I, II, and III are the larger farms.
On the basis of the number of farms, Classes I, 11, and III farms
operate a much larger proportion of the farmland, have more
capital, produce a larger share of the tobacco, and receive a larger
proportion of tlie gross farm income. However, the proportion
of the man-equivalents of labor used on these farms is not much
greater than the proportion that the number of these farms com-
prise of all commercial farms.
Class I, II, and III farms comprise 17 percent of the farms,
but produce 3-1 percent of the tobacco in the flue-cured area; in
the Burle.v area, the.y comprise 8 percent of the farm, but produce
27 percent of the tobacco; in the Southern Maryland area, they
represent 30 percent of the farms, but produce 54 percent of the
tobacco; and in the dark-fired and air-cured tobacco areas they
represent 6 percent of the farms, but produce 17 percent of the
tobacco (see Table 11).
Variation m Types of Farming in Specified Tobacco Areas
The production of tobacco is highly specialized, and, in the
various production areas, the proportion of farmers receiving a
Table 10, — Number of Commercial Farms in the United
States and Distribution of Other Field-Crop Farms in
Selected Tobacco Areas, by Economic Class of Farm: 1954
Area
Number
of farms
Percent distribution of farms by
economic class
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
United States, all commercial
farms
3, 327, 889
166, 232
104, 645
4,546
18, 143
4.0
.2
.1
.8
.1
13.5
1.7
1.2
7.1
.6
21.2
14.8
6.7
22.0
5.4
24.4
41.6
20.3
35.8
26.0
22.9
32.5
36.1
27.6
43.1
14 0
Other fleld-crop farms:
9.2
Burlev tobacco
35 6
Southern Maryland tobacco
Dark-fired and air-cured tobacco.
C.7
24.8
Total, four tobacco areas
293, 566
.2
1.6
11.4
32.9
34.3
19.6
major portion of their income from tobacco is often quite high
For the four major types of tobacco, the proportion of commercial
farms classified as other field-crop farms varied from a high of
70 percent in the flue-cured areas to a low of 35 percent in Southern
Maryland (see Table 12), The second most important type of
farm in the flue-cured area was cotton farms. Livestock farms,
other than dairy or poultry, were the second most important type
of farm in each of the other areas.
Tenure of Operator
The tobacco farms are characterized by a high percentage of
tenancy and a large number of nonwhite operators in some of
the areas. In 1954, nonwhite operators operated 36 percent of
the subregion flue-cured tobacco farms, 26 percent of the Southern
Maryland tobacco farms, but onh' 2 percent of the Burley tobacco
farms (see Table 13). Tenants operated 56 percent of the flue-
cured farms, 28 percent of the Burley farms, 38 percent of the
Southern Maryland farms, and 36 percent of the dark-fired and
air-cured farms.
Table U. — Selected Resources on Other Field-crop Farms
in Selected Tob.\cco Are.'^s and Distribution Among
Various Economic Classes of Farms: 1954
Item
Numberof farms
.\11 land in farms-
Total cropland
Production of tobacco. .
Gross sales
Total capital invested.-
Man-equivalent of labor
Number of farms
A\X land in farms
Total cropland
Production of tobacco. ..
Gross sales
Total capital invested...
Man-equivalent of labor
N'umber of farms
All land in farms _.
Totalcropland
Production of tobacco...
Gross sales
Total capital invested...
Man-equivalent of labor.
Number of farms
All land in farms
Total cropland
Production of tobacco...
Gross sales
Total capital invested...
Man-equivalent of labor-
Total I
Percent distribution by
economic class of farm
H III IV
IVI
Flue-cured tobacco
Number
166, 232
0.2
1.7
14.8
41.6
32. 6
Thousand acres.
11,114
2.2
5.7
22. 3
m 6
24.7
Tllousand acres.
6,097
1.9
11. 0
24.0
41,6
22,4
Million pounds.
943
1.4
5.5
27.1
4:1.9
19.6
Million dollars..
614
2.11
6,4
27 9
43 ?.
18,4
Million dollars..
1,778
1.6
.6,8
24.9
41 6
21 8
Number _
250, 466
1.4
3.2
19.1
42.3
27.1
9.2
5.5
4.3
2.6
2.3
4.3
6.9
Burley tobacco
.Vumber
104, 646
O.I
1.2
6.7
20.3
,36.1
Thousand acres.
8,315
.9
3.2
11.2
2.6.3
34.8
Tllousand acres.
4,316
1,3
4,2
14, 1
27 0
33.0
Million pounds.
334
1.2
6,6
19.4
31.6
28.3
Million dollars..
22C
1,8
7.1
19 6
:ii.o
28,3
Million dollars. -
1,017
2.0
6 8
17. n
26 7
30.0
Number
116,000
.5
2.2
8.7
22. 4
34.1
35.6
24.6
20.2
13.0
12.4
17.6
32.0
Southern Maryland tobacco
Number
4,646
0. S
7,1
22 n
36, 8
27, 6
Thousand acres.
467
2.6
1.6.2
33, 4
29.5
16.1
Thousand acres.
233
;(.(!
IV., 7
33, 9
28,8
14 6
Million poimds-
37
4.2
19,6
:i2,4
29.7
12.6
Miliion dollars. -
18
,6.6
22. 2
:i3, 3
27.8
11 1
Million dollars. -
109
.9
16,6
31,2
30.3
18.3
Number
6,828
1.9
14.3
27.9
34.0
17.7
6.7
:i. 2
3.0
1.6
(Z)
2.8
4.3
Dark-fired and air-cured tobacco
Number
18,143
0,1
fl.R
6,4
26,0
43.1
Thousand acres.
1,671
.4
3 1
11 6
31 1
,37 7
Thousand acres.
912
.6
3.4
11.7
33, n
37.2
Million pounds.
74
1.9
2.6
13,6
37. 3
35 1
Million dollars..
46
2,2
2 2
16 6
37 8
33.3
Million dollars..
169
,fi
4.1
1,3.0
:k, 6
.37,3
Number
19, 890
.2
1,6
7.2
29.7
39.8
24.8
16.2
14.1
9.6
8.9
12.4
21.7
Z 0.06 percent or less.
Table 12. —Number and Percent Distribution of Commercial
Farms, by Type of Farm in Selected Tobacco Areas:
1954
Item
Flue-
cm-ed
tobacco
area
Burley
tobacco
area
Southern
Maryland
tobacco
area
Dark-fired
and air-
cured
tobacco
area
Total,
four
areas
Number of commercial farms.
Percent of commercial farms
classified as—
238, 218
100.0
86.3
69.8
1.6
13.9
.4
L2
1.4
4.6
6.0
4.0
.1
1.9
.9
189,794
100.0
59.5
65.1
3.0
1.4
.6
.7
9.2
4.0
14.6
10.3
2.1
1.1
7.1
1.1
12,967
100,0
39.1
36.0
4.1
37,831
100.0
.63.9
48.0
4.8
1.1
.1
.9
9.7
3.0
13.3
18.3
■ 5,1
1.0
12.2
.8
478,810
100.0
rield-crop farms other than
vegetable and fruit-and-
Other field-crop
61 4
Cotton
7 6
Vegetable farms
2.1
1.6
15.1
7.8
25, 0
7rl,
1.1
1.8
4.2
2.2
5
Fruit-and.nut farms
.5
Poultrv farms. .
2 7
Livestock farms other than
dairy or poultry
9 8
General farms, total
Primarily crop
8.8
3 3
Primarily livestock _.
Crop and livestock
Miscellaneous
.6
4.9
I 0
*■.'.):){ i :^ii
423020—57-
22
FARMERS AND FARM PRODUCTION
Table 13. — Color and Tenure of Farm Operators on Other
Field-crop Farms in Specified Tobacco Areas, by Economic
Class of Farm: 1954
Total number of operators...
Percent of operators;
White
Nonwhite
Owners, part owners, or
managers
Croppers
Other tenants
Total number of operators--
Percent of operators:
White
Nonwhite
Owners, part owners, oc
managers
Croppers
Other tenants
Total number of operators. .
Percent of operators:
White
Nonwhite
Owners, part owners, or
managers
Croppers
Other tenants
Total number of operators. ..
Percent of operators:
White—-
Nonwhite
Owners, part owners, or
managers
Croppers
Other tenants
All
farms
Economic class of farm
III
VI
Flue-cured tobacco
166, 232
64
36
44
30
27
326
89
11
81
6
12
2,876
87
13
56
18
26
69, 131
53, 976
48
52
59
24
18
Burley tobacco
104,645
118
1,240
7,001
21, 223
37, 770
100
99
98
98
98
1
2
2
2
79
55
52
62
72
10
12
17
15
21
34
36
21
13
37, 293
82
8
10
Southern Maryland tobacco
37
321
1,001
1,626
1,255
86
98
83
74
67
14
■■i
17
26
33
59
72
60
57
68
14
3
14
17
20
27
25
26
26
12
306
51
49
64
20
16
Dark-fired and air-cured tobacco
26
113
978
4,703
7,823
100
91
92
85
82
9
8
15
18
42
82
67
64
62
19
9
19
28
24
39
9
14
18
14
74
26
75
15
10
In each siibregion, the percentage of operators that were
nonwhite increased as the size of operation decreased. There was
no consistent relationship between size of farm and the percentage
of operators classified as owners, part owners, managers, or
tenants.
Production Conditions by Economic Class of Farm PrO'
DuciNG Various Types of Tobacco
Types of farms are likely to differ from each other in several
factors such as size, use of resources, and production efficiency.
Farms that grow the same product or similar products vary from
one area to another or one region to another. The typical farm
in the United States, however, is the "family-size" farm — a size
of unit that can be worked by the operator and his family with
only moderate hired help.
Data are presented on a per-farm basis for some of the main
characteristics of farms that produce various types of tobacco.
These data show variations between tobacco farms producing
various types of tobacco and make it possible to compare tobacco
farms with farms of other types. Subregion or subregions were
selected as representative of the various types of tobacco. Data
are given for subregions 24 and 25 for flue-cured tobacco, sub-
regions 32 and 45 for Burley tobacco, subregion 19 for Southern
Maryland tobacco, and subregion 53 for dark-fired and air-cured
tobacco.
In each case the data are given by economic class of farm to
show variations between size of operation. In analyzing these
Table 14. — Number and Size of Other Field'Crop Farms in
Selected Areas in Specified Tobacco Subregions, by
Economic Class of Farm : 1954
Item
farms
Economic class of farm
I 11
HI
IV V
VI
Flue-cured tobacco (subregion 24)
49,070
51
27
53
48
392
195
50
1,196
140
73
52
10,969
69
40
58
23, 039
45
25
56
11, 243
38
17
45
2,675
Total acres per farm
Total crop acres per farm
Percent of total acres in crop-
31
11
35
Flue-cured tobacco (subregion 25)
Number of farms
43, 975
72
27
37
30
244
128
52
167
275
114
41
2,300
149
58
39
14, 264
88
34
38
20,464
68
22
37
6,760
45
15
33
Total acres per farm
Total crop acres per farm
Percent of total acres in crop-
land..
Burley tobacco (subregion 45)
29, 442
85
52
62
97
611
469
77
1,103
199
144
72
5, 725
121
82
68
11,471
82
49
60
8,201
58
31
53
2,845
Total acres per farm
Total crop acres per farm
Percent of total acres in crop-
land
38
19
50
Burley tobacco (subregion 32)
22, 160
61
29
47
5
628
216
41
45 2,57
1,926
102
52
.52
8,306
66
32
49
11,611
Total acres per farm
Total crop acres per farm
Percent of total acres In crop-
land
207
88
43
174
98
57
48
20
42
Southern Maryland tobacco (subregion 19)
4,546
103
51
50
37
338
194
57
321
223
122
55
1,001
156
79
51
1,626
85
41
49
1,255
60
27
45
306
Total acres per farm
Total crop acres per farm
Percent of total acres in crop-
land
48
22
45
Dark-fired and air-cured tobacco (subregion 53)
Number of farms
Total acres per farm
Total crop acres per farm
Percent of total acres In crop-
land
13, 829
83
,56
67
26
298
216
72
97
411
297
72
755
179
121
68
3,681
96
70
73
6,090
73
47
65
3,180
51
31
61
data, it should be kept in mind that classifications of farms by
amount of gross sales were based on data for 1 year — 1954. In
areas of specialized crop production, gross sales are determined
largely by the yield of the specialized crop produced. A low yield
may result in farms falling in one class in a given year although
they would normally fall in a different class in another year.
In some cases, the number of farms in a group, especially Class I,
may be too small to provide reliable averages.
Size of farm. — Specialized tobacco farms are not usually very
large from the standpoint of area. Such farms in Southern Mary-
land averaged 103 acres, and this was twice the average size of
flue-cured tobacco farms in subregion 24 (see Table 14). The
size of farm decreased with the decrease in gross sales. About
half of the farms in Burley area, subregion 32, were in Economic
Class VI and these Class VI farms averaged only 48 acres and 20
acres of cropland per farm. Normally the acres of cropland on
Class I farms were 10 to 20 times as large as the acres of cropland
on Class VI farms.
About one-third or more of the tobacco farms in each of the
selected subregions were less than 30 acres in size (see Table 15).
Less than 10 percent of the farms in each area had 260 acres or
more. Only a very small percentage of the farms in Class V or VI
in any of the subregions had more than 140 acres.
TOBACCO AND PEANUT PRODUCERS AND PRODUCTION
23
Table 15. — Percent Distribution, by Size of Farm of Other
Field-Crop Farms in Specified Tobacco Subregions, by
Economic Class of Farm: 1954
size of fann (acres per farm)
Percent distribution for each economic
of farm
class
All
farms
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
Flue-cured tobacco (subregion 24)
6
38
36
15
4
1
(Z)
(Z)
18
51
23
6
2
(Z)
2
45
36
13
3
1
(Z)
13
48
25
10
3
1
(Z)
38
10 to 29 acres
21
10
21
31
17
1
29
37
22
8
3
28
22
70 to 139 acres...
8
140 to 259 acres. ..
3
1
500 acres and over
Flue-cured tobacco (subregion 25)
13
25
24
24
11
3
CZ)
(Z)
9
15
33
29
12
2
3
24
23
31
15
4
(Z)
15
28
26
22
1
(Z)
32
33
33
17
6
12
21
30
15
16
22
30 to 69 acres.
26
70 to 139 acres
14
140 to 259 acres. .
4
2fi0 to 499 acres . .
1
(Z)
Burley tobacco (subregion 45)
Under 10 acres. .
19
15
19
29
14
4
1
6
21
36
38
1
16
5
16
35
22
5
9
14
12
28
28
8
1
16
15
17
35
15
2
(Z)
25
13
27
28
6
1
(Z)
34
10 to 29 acres
21
30 to 69 acres
28
70 to 139 acres...
13
140 to 259 acres. ..
3
260 to 499 acres
1
Burley tobacco (subregion 32)
14
22
33
22
7
2
(Z)
2
2
21
37
18
16
5
4
17
26
28
18
6
12
21
30
27
9
1
(Z)
10
10 to 29 acres...
25
30 to 69 acres .
"ioo"
22
33
22
11
11
36
70 to 139 acres
18
140 to 259 acres
4
260 to 499 acres
1
(Z)
Southern Maryland tobacco (subregion 19)
10
18
21
26
17
6
2
(Z)
5
14
37
30
10
3
6
21
26
30
14
3
1
18
28
24
18
10
Q
(Z)"
38
10 to 29 acres
27
14
27
"""32"
5
9
20
30
31
5
16
30 to 69 acres
25
70 to 139 acres
10
140 to 259 acres. .
11
260 to 499 acres
500 acres and over.
(Z)
Dark-flred and air-cured tobacco (subregion 53)
10
20
24
29
12
4
1
5
1
7
11
20
40
19
3
5
21
17
34
18
5
(Z)
10
21
25
32
9
2
(Z)
19
10 to 29 acres
20
30 to 69 acres
38
34
70 to 139 acres
23
140 to 259 acres
""58'
4
21
36
38
4
260 to 499 acres.
500 acres and over... _ .
(Z)
Z 0.6 percent or less.
Color, tenure, and age of operator. — The proportion of
operators, white and non white, varies considerably for farms
growing different types of tobacco. Nonwhite operators are
important only in the flue-cured subregions and in Southern
Maryland (see Table 16). In 1954, nonwhite operators operated
38 percent of the farms in flue-cured .subregion 24, and 26 percent
in the Southern Maryland area. There were no nonwhite operators
of Class I farms in either of the flue-cured areas. In both the
flue-cured and Southern Maryland areas nonwhite operators in-
creased as the size of farm decreased.
In all of the tobacco areas the proportion of operators that are
tenants is high, but it is highest on the flue-cured farms. In
subregion 24, only 40 percent of the white and 17 percent of the
nonwhite operators were either owTiers, part owners, or managers:
in subregion 25, the corresponding pereents were 56 and 32, respec-
tively. In both subregions generally the percentage of tenancy
decreased as size of farm decreased, especially for the nonwhite
operators. In both sul)regions, a larger proportion of the non-
white operators than white operators were croppers.
In the other tobacco areas, the proportion of white operators
classified as owners, part owneis, or managers was 57 and 76
percent in Burley subregions 45 and 32, respectively, 71 percent
in the Southern Maryland subregion, and 65 percent in the dark-
fired and air-cured area. There was no consistent relation between
size of farm and percentage of tenancy in any area. Croppers
were less frequent in these than in the flue-cured tobacco sub-
regions.
Table 17 shows the proportion of operators in various age groups.
There are distinct differences among the subregions in the age
distribution of operators. In the flue-cured subregions and Burley
subregion 45, the proportion of operators under 35 is much higher
than in the othei subregions. In the latter subregions (32, 19,
and 53) about two-fifths of the operators were more than 55 years
old. This would indicate the necessity of combining units as the
older operators retire from farming.
There was some relation between .size of farm and age of
operator. Generally in all areas except subregion 24, a larger
proportion of the operators of Class VI farms are in the older age
groups, and a high percentage of the operators are more than 65
years of age.
land use. — The land use on other field-crop farms in 1954 in the
specialized tobacco areas is shown in Table 18. With the excep-
tion of Burley subregion 45 and the dark-fired and air-cured
tobacco subregion, about half of the total land in farms was in
cropland. Generally, farms in Class I have the highest percentage
of total land in cropland and farms in Class VI, the lowest.
There was very little pastureland on farms in the flue-cured
subregions. With the exception of woodland pastured, this was
true even for Classes I and II farms. About three-fifths of the
total cropland in Burley subregion 45 and one-third in subregion
32 was in cropland pasture. In addition, about 17 percent of the
farmland in the 2 subregions was in nonwoodland pastureland;
only a very small percentage of this was reported as improved
pasture.
Generally the type of crops grown on specialized tobacco farms
were definitely different in the various tobacco areas. In both
of the flue-cured tobacco subregions, corn is the largest crop from
the standpoint of acreage (see Table 19). Cotton is important
on a number of farms in subregion 24 but very little is grown on
farms in subregion 25. Small grains are more important on farms
in subregion 25 than in subregion 24. The cropping system also
varies by economic class of farm. In subregion 24, peanuts, small
grains for grain, or soybeans are grown mainly on Classes I and II
farms. Small grains are more important on the larger than on the
smaller farms in subregion 25.
Corn is the largest crop from the standpoint of acreage on farms
in the Burley subregions. No cotton or peanuts are grown on
these farms. Some small grains are grown mainly on the larger
farms. Hay is much more important on farms in the Burley
subregion than in the flue-cured areas.
In the Southern Maryland subregion, the average acreage
in tobacco is slightly greater than that in corn for grain. The
cropping system does not vary much by economic class of farm,
except that the larger farms grow more small grains and soybeans.
In the dark-fired and air-cured subregion, about half of the cropland
harvested is in corn for grain. Slightly more than 10 percent of
the cropland harvested is in tobacco and about one-fifth of the
cropland is in hay.
The variation by subregion in acres of tobacco per farm is
shown in Table 20. In flue-cured subregion 24, the largest percent
of the farms had 5 to 9.9 acres in tobacco; in subregion 25, the
24
FARMERS AND FARM PRODUCTION
Table 16.— Color and Tenure of Operator of Other Field-
Crop Farms in Selected Tobacco Subregions, by Economic
Class of Farm: 1954
Number of operators
Percent of operators;
White -..- ,
Nonwhite.--
Percent of white operators;
Owners, part owners, or
managers
Croppers , _ ,
Other tenants
Percent of nonwhite opera-
tors:
Owners, part owners, or
managers
Croppers
Other tenants
Number of operators
Percent of operators;
White
Nonwhite
Percent of white operators:
Owners, part owners, or
managers
Croppers
O ther tenants _
Percent of nonwhite opera-
tors;
Owners, part owners, or
managers
Croppers
Other tenants
Number of operators
Percent of operators:
White-
Nonwhite
Percent of white operators:
Owners, part owners, or
managers
.Croppers
Other tenants
Percent of nonwhite opera-
tors:
Owners, part owners, or
managers
Croppers
Other tenants
Number of operators., _
Percent of operators:
White
Nonwhite
Percent of white operators;
Owners, part owners, or
managers
Croppers
Other tenants
Percent of nonwhite opera-
tors:
Owners, part owners, or
managers
Croppers
Other tenants
All
farms
Economic class of farm
Fkie-cured tobacco (subregion 24)
Flue-cured tobacco (subregion 25)
Burley tobacco (subregion 45)
Burley tobacco (subregion 32)
VI
49, 070
48
1,196
10, 969
23,039
11, 243
62
38
100
82
18
68
32
63
37
57
43
40
26
34
90
""io"
43
22
35
34
30
36
38
26
36
47
21
32
17
61
22
12
69
19
8
71
21
12
68
20
26
60
24
2,676
47
53
51
27
41
36
23
43, 975
30
167
2,300
14, 264
20,464
68
100
88
86
72
67
32
12
16
28
33
56
67
86
63
55
64
20
33
14
12
19
22
24
25
26
24
32
50
28
26
30
47
50
66
52
48
21
6
23
22
6,750
53
47
61
18
21
46
37
17
29, 442
97
1,103
6,725
11,471
8,201
96
4
100
99
1
98
2
96
4
96
4
57
16
27
74
"'26'
51
12
37
47
13
40
64
18
28
62
18
20
48
30
22
50
50
32
20
48
39
41
20
45
31
24
2,845
93
76
11
13
79
14
22, 150
5
45
257
1,926
8,306
99
1
100
100
98
2
100
99
76
15
100
100
78
10
12
70
20
10
71
19
10
9
60
100
22
67
11
23
17
81
II
8
Table 16. — Color and Tenure of Operator of Other Field'
Crop Farms in Selected Tobacco Subregions, by Economic
Class of Farm: 1954 — Continued
Item
Number of operators.
Percent of operators:
White
Nonwhite
Percent of white operators:
Owners, part owners, or
m anagers
Croppers
Other tenants
Percent of nonwhite opera-
tors:
Owners, part owners, or
managers
Croppers
Other tenants
Number of operators
Percent of operators;
White
Nonwhite
Percent of white operators:
Owners, part owners, or
managers
Croppers
Other tenants
Percent of nonwhite opera-
tors:
Owners, part owners, or
managers
Croppers
Other tenants.
All
farms
Economic class of farm
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
Southern Maryland tobacco (subregion 19)
4,546
37
321
1,001
1,626
1,255
74
26
86
14
98
2
83
17
74
26
67
33
71
9
20
69
■"'si'
73
3
24
70
9
21
68
8
24
75
13
12
38
12
38
50
25
44
31
54
33
13
36
26
100
"ioo'
51
49
65
19
IB
63
20
17
Dark-flred and air-cured tobacco (subregion 53)
13. 829
26
97
755
3,681
6,090
100
90
10
93
7
90
10
88
12
42
19
39
78
11
11
71
18
11
56
25
19
66
21
13
100
27
46
27
14
76
10
31
59
10
3,180
72
17
11
62
31
7
Table 17. — Distribution of Farm Operators by Age on
Other Field-Crop Farms in Selected Tobacco Subregions,
BY Economic Class of Farm: 1954
Age group
All
farms
Economic class of farm
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
Flue-cured tobacco (subregion 24)
Number of operators reporting
age.
47, 514
5
22
31
24
12
6
48
""'io'
23
21
31
16
1,136
2
17
36
26
13
6
10, 594
2
18
36
29
12
3
22,443
5
24
32
23
10
5
10,833
8
22
26
21
14
9
2,460
Percent reporting:
Under 25 years
25 to 34 years
35 to 44 years
12
20
n
45 to 54 years
55 to 64 years-
19
16
17
Total .
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Flue-cured tobacco (subregion 25)
Number of operators reporting
42,878
5
17
26
25
17
11
30
17
'"56"
"'33'
162
""7"
37
35
14
7
2,229
2
9
28
37
17
7
14,038
2
14
32
29
16
7
19, 884
5
20
26
22
18
10
6,535
Percent reporting:
Under 25 years
26 to 34 years.
35 to 44 years.
10
15
14
18
55 to 64 years --
19
23
Total
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
TOBACCO AND PEANUT PRODUCERS AND PRODUCTION
25
Table 17- — Distribution of Farm Operators by Age on
Other Field-Crop Farms in Selected Tobacco Subregions,
BY Economic Class of Farm: 1954 — Continued
Age group
All
farms
Economic class of farm
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
Burley tobacco (subreglon 45)
Number of operators reporting
age.
28, 441
6
17
26
22
17
14
96
"""14'
22
34
19
11
1,063
1
14
35
25
16
10
5,600
3
19
35
25
13
6
11,111
4
20
27
24
16
9
7.866
6
15
19
20
20
19
2,705
Percent reporting:
Under 25 vears
5
25 to 34 years
8
35 to 44 years, ., .
12
45 to 54 years-
16
20
65 years and over..
39
Total
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Burley tobacco (subregion 32)
Number of operators reporting
21, 505
3
11
21
25
22
19
5
45
252
1,821
9
33
33
13
9
8,131
2
14
26
27
19
12
11, 251
Percent reporting:
Under 25 years. .
3
25 to 34 years
14
36
22
10
12
9
100
33
22
22
22
16
45 to 54 years
22
65 to 64 years..
25
20
Total
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Southern Maryland tobacco (subregion 19)
Number of operators reporting
4,491
2
12
21
27
21
17
32
""31"
19
34
"""i6"
321
6
15
36
22
20
996
2
15
18
29
24
13
1,611
2
14
22
29
21
11
1,235
2
13
24
22
20
19
296
Percent reporting:
Under 25 years.
3
25 to 34 years
35 to 44 years...
5
15
14
55 to 64 years.
16
65 years and oyer..
48
Total
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Dark-fired and air-cured tobacco (subregion 53)
Number of operators reporting
age
Percent reporting:
Under 25 years
13, 154
4
11
22
25
22
16
26
"■"38"
19
19
23
97
5
2
26
15
31
21
735
3
12
29
36
12
g
3,530
4
17
27
26
17
9
5,760
4
11
23
25
22
15
3,000
4
5
35 to 44 years. _
14
45 to 54 years
20
55 to 64 years..
29
28
Total
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Table 18. — Average Acreage per Farm for Specified Uses
OF Land on Other Field-Crop Farms in Selected Tobacco
Subregions, by Economic Class of Farm: 1954
Use of laud
Average acres per farm by economic class of
farm
All
farms
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
Flue-cured tobacco (subregion 24)
Cropland harvested
Cropland pastured
24.6
.9
1.3
178.8
7.4
8.8
67.0
3.4
3.0
36.8
1.4
1.3
22.9
.8
1.2
14.7
.6
1.4
9.0
.5
Cropland not harvested and not
pastured . _ .
1.4
Total cropland
"Woodland pastured . _
26.8
2.2
18 6
.3
.8
1.9
195.0
19.5
154.6
6.8
.5
6.5
73.4
7.3
52.2
1.0
2.4
4.2
39.5
2.6
23.6
.4
.8
2.2
24.9
1.7
15.9
.3
.6
L7
16.7
2.2
15.8
.2
.8
1.8
10.9
1.9
Woodland not pastured
Improved pasture. . _
16.2
.2
.5
Other land
1.3
Total
60.6
391.9
140.5
09.0
45.1
37.5
31.0
Table 18.— Average Acreage per Farm for Specified Uses
of Land on Other Field-Crop Farms in Selected Tobacco
Subregions, by Economic Class of Farm: 1954 — Continued
Use of land
Cropland harvested
Cropland pastured
Cropland not harvested and not
pastured
Total cropland
Woodland pastured
Woodland not pastured
Improved pasture
Not improved pasture -.-
Other land
Total _
Cropland harvested
Cropland pastured
Cropland not harvested and not
pastured
Total cropland
W^oodland pastured
W'oodland not pastured
Improved pasture
Not improved pasture
Other land _
Total
Cropland harvested
Cropland pastured
Cropland not harvested and not
pastured
Total cropland
Woodland pastured
Woodland not pastured
Improved pasture
Not improved pasture
Other land
Total
Cropland harvested
Cropland pastured
Cropland not harvested and not
pastured
Total cropland
Woodland pastured
Woodland not pastured
Improved pasture
Not improved pasture
Other l.ind
Total
Cropland harvested
Cropland pa,stured
Cropland not harvested and not
pastured
Total cropland
Woodland pastured
Woodland not pastured
Improved pasture
Not improved pasture
Other land -
Total
Average acres per farm by economic class of
farm
All
farms
I II III IV V VI
Flue-cured tobacco (subregion 25)
18.1
3.0
26.9
6.3
31.9
1.2
2.9
3.6
103.8
1.7
22.8
128.3
28.7
80.0
1.7
6.0
71.7 244.6 274.9 149.1
77.1
18.9
113.9
28.4
99.6
11.2
12.6
9.2
40.7
7.1
10.4
58.2
10.9
63.3
4.4
6.9
6.4
23.4
3.5
33.7
6.7
38.6
1.5
3.7
4.1
14.4
2.3
5.0
4.2
26.6
2.2
3.1
;. 3 58. 5
8.5
2.1
4.3
14.9
3.4
21.7
.4
1.8
2.7
44.9
Burley tobacco (subregion 45)
19.9
30.3
2.3
62.5
9.2
4.5
1.1
13.2
4.3
84.8
182.7
284.0
2.7
469.4
26.2
11.6
12.3
68.6
23.1
611.2
56.9
83.3
3.6
143.8
12.2
2.8
1.8
28.5
198 9
32.3
46.9
81.9
9.6
4.0
2.5
17.4
5.6
121.0
18 6
28.0
2.6
49.2
10.2
4.8
I.O
12.9
4.2
82.3
11.0
18.2
31.0
8.6
4.3
.4
10.2
3.2
67.6
6.6
11.6
4.3
6.3
.1
6.5
2.7
37.8
Burley tobacco (subregion 32)
15.8
10.4
2.3
28.5
6.7
13.8
.7
9 0
2.2
60.!
201.0
10.0
6.0
216.0
45.0
36.0
195.0
36.0
48.0
28 8
11.3
34.1
42.3
5.2
34.9
1.9
528.0 206.5 173.9 101.6
62.7
41.3
4.6
16.3
29.5
2.6
20.4
6.6
31.8
17.4
3.2
52.4
9.6
17.0
1.3
18.4
18.6
11.9
7.4
13.7
9.1
2.4
66.7
10.2
7.6
2.4
20.1
5.4
119
.5
7.0
1.8
47.7
Southern Maryland tobacco (subregion 19)
29.9
10.6
10.8
51.2
6.7
37.1
.4
2.3
6.0
102.7
126.1
38 9
194.2
16.1
69.5
3.4
6.7
49 0
337.9
80.2
25.0
16.7
121.9
12.9
72.8
2.2
3.7
9.1
222.6
46.9
17.5
15.9
79.3
8.9
62.8
.8
3.9
10.2
155.9
24.6
8.4
8.3
41.3
4.4
31.8
.1
2.3
4.7
84.6
13.9
4.6
26.8
3.6
25.2
.1
.7
3.3
59.6
7.2
4.9
21.6
2.1
20.6
1.6
2.3
48.2
Dark-flred and air-cured tobacco (subregion 63)
172.8
38.3
4.5
173.0
91.1
32.6
215.6
3.9
22.9
4.8
45.4
5.2
296.7
16.0
44.6
4.3
11.9
37.4
197.8 410.9
66. 6
43.3
121.5
16.8
22.8
2.4
5.7
9.7
178.9
37.4
23.8
8.3
6.6
9.9
.7
4.6
6.6
95.8
23.0
17.1
7.2
47.3
6.7
9.6
.4
4.3
6.6
13.0
11.9
6.2
31.1
4.3
8.2
.4
3.7
3.4
61.1
26
FARMERS AND FARM PRODUCTION
Table 19. — Average Acreage of Crops Grown on Other
Field-Crop Farms in Selected Tobacco Subregions, by
Economic Class of Farm: 1954
Crop
Total cropland harvested
Selected crops:
Peanuts grown for all purposes.
Corn for grain
Cotton _-
Tobacco --.
Small grain for grain
Soybeans for beans
All hay
Total cropland harvested _.
Selected crops:
Peanuts grown for all purposes-
Com for grain
Cotton
Tobacco
Small grain for grain
Soybeans for beans
All hay...
Total cropland harvested
Selected crops:
Peanuts grown for all purposes.
Corn for grain
Cotton
Tobacco
Small grain for grain
Soybeans for beans
All hay
Total cropland harvested
Selected crops:
Peanuts grown for all purposes.
Corn for grain
Cotton
Tobacco
Small grain for grain
Soybeans for beans
All hay
Total cropland harvested
Selected crops:
Peanuts grown for all purposes.
Corn for grain _.
Cotton
Tobacco
Small grain for grain
Soybeans for beans
All hay..
Total cropland harvested
Selected crops:
Peanuts grown for all purposes-..
Corn for grain
Cotton
Dark-fired and air-cured tobacco..
Burlcy tobacco
Small grain for grain
Soybeans for beans
All hay
Average acres per farm by economic class of
farm
All
farms
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
Flue-cured tobacco (subregion 24)
24.6
178.9
67.0
36.8
22.9
14.7
.S
6.8
1.8
1.1
.4
.1
11. S
82.6
31.9
17.4
10.9
6.3
2.7
11.4
6.2
3.9
2.6
1.7
5.7
37.5
14.2
8.2
5.3
3.7
.y
24.0
3.7
1.4
.8
.5
.5
11.7
3.2
.8
.4
.1
1.3
8.3
2.6
1.7
1.2
1.1
.1
3.6
.7
2.3
.4
(Z)
1.0
Flue-cured tobacco (subregion 25)
(Z)
5.4
.1
4.8
2.8
(Z)
4.4
103.8
77.1
40.7
23.4
(Z)
6.9
.2
6.3
3.9
(Z)
5.8
14.4
(Z)
4.7
•1
4.0
1.9
(Z)
3.3
29.5
.2
34.6
24.2
'27.7"
15.2
.9
17.6
18.1
.2
24.2
9.8
.3
9.8
7.9
.1
11.6
(Z)
2,9
.1
2.3
.9
(Z)
1.9
Burley tobacco (subregion 45)
19.9 182.7 56.9 32.3 18.6 11.0 .5.6
5.7
3.7
1.3
(Z)
7.9
25.8
33.9
11.6
10.9
6.8
21.6
9.2
5.9
2.5
(Z)
12.8
5.7
3.6
(Z)
7.6
3.4
2.1
.3
(Z)
4.6
2.2
1.1
. 1
(Z)
2.0
Burley tobacco (subregion 32)
15.8
201.0
48.0
62.7
31.8
18.6
4.6
15.0
2.8
11.8
7.5
5.4
(Z)
1.6
2.4
1.2
2.0
(/.)
20.0
28.0
3.0
11.6
2.9
11.5
2.4
5.4
7.4
135.0
18.7
24.9
16.4
8.6
3.4
(Z)
(Z)
4.;
Southern Maryland tobacco (subregion 19)
29. 9 126. 1 80. 2 45. 9 24. 6 13. 9
9.7
10.0
3.7
1.2
4.3
24.8
48.1
19.3
2.4
24.6
26.4
25.2
11.0
2.8
10.4
14.3
14.2
6.5
2.0
8.0
9.0
2.8
.7
3 3
4.5
6.2
1.2
1.0
1.4
3.5
.1
Darlc-fired and air-cured tobacco (subregion 53)
28.3 172.8 173.0 66.6 37.4 23.0 13.0
16.1
CZ)
2.0
1.2
3.0
.1
5.3
46.9
10.1
18.6
41.6
39.4
54.9
7.9
3.7
51.2
3.4
33.9
30.3
4.4
2.5
11.7
.3
13.6
19.6
(Z)
2.8
1.6
4.6
(Z)
7.0
13.5
(Z)
1.7
1.1
1.5
(Z)
4.1
7.t
(Z)
.4
(Z)
2.5
Z 0.05 acre or less.
largest percent of the farm.s were in the 2.5 to 4.9 acre group.
Forty-three percent of the farmers hi Burley subregion 45 had
2.5 to 4.9 acres in tobacco but 93 percent of the farmers in sub-
region 32 grew less than 2.5 acres in tobacco. Only 19 percent of
the growers of Southern Maryland tobacco grew less than 5 acres
of tobacco in 1954 and one-third of the producers grew from 10
to 19.9 acres. About one-third dark fire-cured tobacco farms had
less than 2.5 acres in 1954 and 89 percent of the growers of dark
air-cured tobacco, grew less than 2.5 acres in 1954. On some farms
both dark-fired and dark air-cured tobacco were grown.
For all types of tobacco, the acres of tobacco per farm increased
as the gross farm income increased. No Class I flue-cured tobacco
farms had less than 20 acres in tobacco.
Livestock. — The livestock kept on specialized tobacco farms
varies somewhat in the different types of tobacco areas (see Table
21). In the flue-cured regions, it is kept mainly to supply prod-
ucts for home consumption. In subregion 24, milk cows were re-
ported on 24 percent of the farms as compared with 6(5 percent in
subregion 25.
Farms in the Burley subregions and the dark-fired and air-
cured have more livestock than farms in the other subregions.
Livestock is used to supplement the income from tobacco on
many of the farms.
In all subregions the amount of livestock increased with the
increase in gross income, especially for beef cattle and hogs.
Many of the larger farmers foimd the adding of livestock enter-
prises profitable as the resources were used to better advantage
and the income from tobacco was supplemented.
Labor used. — Except on the larger farms, the farm organization
of tobacco farms is planned around the farm family. Hired labor
was relatively unimportant except on the Classes I and II farms.
Family labor made up a larger proportion of the labor force on
flue-cured farms than for any of the other types of tobacco (see
Table 22). The average crop acres per man was smallest in the
flue-cured and highest in the dark-fired and air-cured subregions.
As to be expected, the average man-equivalents of labor
increased as the size of farm operations increased. However,
the amount of labor on large farms was only 3 to 4 times the
amount on small farms.
The majority of the operators of tobacco farms spend full time
on the farm business. In each subregion except Southern Mary-
land, two-thirds or more of the operators reported no days of work
off farm (see Table 23). For the operators who did work off
farm, the days worked were less than 100. Size of farm apparently
had little to do with whether operators work off farm or the time
spent at nonfarm work. In most cases, a slightly higher propor-
tion of the operators of large farms, than of smaller farms,
reported off-farm work, but the difference was not great.
Farm mechanization and home conveniences. — Tobacco pro-
duction requires a great deal of hand labor especially during the
harvest season. The number of crop acres per farm is usually
small. Operators have been slow to mechanize, partly because of
the small size of the unit and partly because of the fact that
machinery has not been developed to completely mechanize the
harvesting operations. If enough labor is available to harvest
tobacco, it usually means a surplus for preharvest work.
With the exception of the Southern Maryland area, tractors
were reported on slightly less than half of the farms, averaging
about 0.5 tractor per farm (see Table 24). The number of motor-
trucks was even smaller, averaging only about 0.3 truck per farm.
The percentage of operators reporting motortrucks varied from
80 percent in Southern Maryland to 40 percent in Burley subregion
32.
TOBACCO AND PEANUT PRODUCERS AND PRODUCTION
27
Table 20. — Distribution of Farms Reporting by Acres of
Tobacco Harvested, for Other Field-Crop Farms in
Selected Tobacco Subregions, by Economic Class of Farm:
1954
Acres of tobacco harvested
All
farms
Economic class of farm
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
Flue-cured tobacco (subreglon 24)
Farms reporting tobacco har-
vested number. .
Percent distribution by acres
harvested:
48,929
7
37
47
9
(Z)
48
1,198
10, 943
(Z)
6
67
27
(Z)
23,039
1
40
58
1
11,188
14
68
18
(Z)
2,616
70
"ioo"
2
12
73
12
23
6 0 to 9 9 acres
6
1
Total
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Flue-cured tobacco (subreglon 26)
Farms reporting tobacco har-
vested number. .
Percent distribution by acres
harvested:
43, 445
14
44
38
4
(Z)
30
167
2,280
14, 164
1
22
73
4
20, 249
7
70
23
(Z)
6,565
66
2.5 to 4.9 acres - - - -
2
52
46
(Z)
31
6.0 to 9.9 acres
10.0 to 19.9 acres
20 0 acres and over
ioo'
12
40
48
3
Total
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Burley tobacco (subreglon 45)
Farms reporting tobacco har-
vested number..
Percent distribution by acres
harvested;
29,367
34
43
20
3
(Z)
97
1,098
5,725
(Z)
28
68
4
11,421
12
76
13
8,181
72
28
(Z)
2,846
99
"io"
29
61
2
42
52
4
1
5.0 to 9.9 acres
20 0 acres and over
Total
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Bmlcy tobacco (subre«ion 32)
Farms reporti;ig tobacco har-
vested number. .
Percent distribution by acres
harvested:
Under 2.5 acres
22,096
93
7
(Z)
(Z)
5
45
267
4
84
12
1,926
56
44
(Z)
8,306
95
5
11,556
100
2.5 to 4.9 acres
"ioo"
11
78
11
(Z)
10 0 to 19 9 acres
Total
100
100
100
100
100
IOO
100
Southern Maryland tobacco (subrefcion 19)
Farms reporting tobacco har-
vested number..
Percent distribution by acres
harvested:
Under 2.5 acres
4,626
4
15
39
33
9
32
311
996
1,026
1
2
67
38
2
1,255
4
40
64
2
306
43
62
6.0 to 9.9 acres
10.0 to 19.9 acres
"'ioo'
3
23
74
12
76
13
6
Total
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
6.504
35
46
18
1
(Z)
Dark-fired tobacco (subreglon 63)
Farms reporting tobacco har-
vested... ..number..
Percent distribution by acres
harvested:
21
72
466
4
30
57
9
2,066
14
53
33
2,800
39
55
6
1,080
82
'"is"
48
4
28
21
51
17
5 0 to 9 9 acres
1
10.0 to 19.9 acres
20.0 acres and over
Total
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Table 20. — Distribution of Farms Reporting by Acres of
Tobacco Harvested, for Other FielD'Crop Farms in
Selected Tobacco Subregions, by Economic Class of Farm:
1954 — Continued
.\cres of tobacco harvested
Farms reporting tobacco har-
vested number..
Percent distribution by acres
harvested:
Under 2.6 acres
2.5 to 4.9 acres
5.0 to 9.9 acres
10.0 to 19.9 acres
20.0 acres and over
Total..
All
farms
Economic class of farm
III
VI
Dark air-cured tobacco (subreglon 53)
,060
1,995
930
95
6
Z 0.05 percent or less.
Table 21. — Average Number of Livestock Per Farm on
Other Field-Crop Farms in Selected Tobacco Subregions,
by EconoMic Class of Farm: 1954
Kind ol livestock
Horses and mules
Milk cows
Other cattle
AW hogs and pigs.
Chickens
Horses and mules
Milk cows
Other cattle
All hogs and pigs.
Chickens...
Horses and mules
Milk cows
Other cattle
All hogs and pigs.
Chickens
Horses and mules
Milk cows.
Other cattle
.\11 hogs and pigs.
Chickens
Horses and mules
Milk cows
Other cattle
All hogs and pigs.
Chickens
Horses and mules.
Milk cows
Other cattle
All hogs and pigs.
Chickens
All farms
Average
number per
farm by
economic class of farm
Percent
Average
of farms
number
I II
III IV
V
VI
reporting
per farm
Flue-cured tobacco (subreglon 24)
60
1.1
1.8
2.1
1.4
1.0
0.9
0.7
28
.4
5.3
.8
.6
.4
.4
.4
NA
.7
7.7
3.6
1.2
.6
.3
.4
69
6.1
17.7
15.2
9.4
5.8
3.4
2.6
76
26.6
29.1
49.6
33.3
25.0
19.0
16.6
Flue-cured tobacco (subreglon 25)
66
1.1
3.0
3.1
2.1
1.4
1.0
0.8
66
1.2
2.0
6.2
2.6
1.6
1.0
.7
NA
1.4
11.5
13.9
5.6
1.8
.9
.5
75
2.7
8.7
9.0
6.2
3.4
2.2
1.4
71
21.6
15.0
72.3
41.9
26.1
18.7
13.0
Burle
y tobacco (subreglon 45)
.56
1.2
4.1
1.6
1.3
1.2
1.1
69
3.3
6.4
.5.8
4.7
3.6
2.3
NA
5.4
93.1
24.3
9.8
4.0
2.2
43
3.9
32.2
13.1
6.9
3.4
1.9
76
33.6
44.0
42.7
41.8
36.6
27.1
Burley tobacco (subreglon 32)
60
80
NA
66
1.0
5.0
1.1
1.3
1.3
1.1
2.7
12.0
8.8
9.4
5.3
3.3
3.3
208.0
22.8
17.9
7.0
3.9
2.2
5.1
4.3
3.6
2.7
33.6
180.0
34.9
68.4
48.6
37.7
Southern Maryland tobacco (subregion 19)
43
0.8
0.7
1.1
1.1
0.8
0.5
46
1.4
4.2
2.6
2.1
1.6
.7
NA
4.0
15.5
14.0
8.3
2.2
1.0
69
4.6
11.6
11.7
7.5
4.1
1.9
69
39.6
68.9
50.2
61.6
38.1
26.0
Dark-fired and air-cured tobacco (subregion 53)
.64
1.1
1.7
1.9
1.4
1.0
1.1
62
2.6
9.3
10.3
5.8
3.3
2.2
NA
4.0
28.0
47.6
12.2
5.0
2.8
,66
4.8
12.3
28.8
12.5
6.7
3.8
81
36.6
52.4
84.9
49.2
40.1
33.6
0.9
1.3
1.1
1.3
24.3
0.9
1.7
1.6
1.5
27.2
0.5
.5
.4
1.4
17.5
1.0
1.3
1.5
2.1
29,1
NA Not available.
28
FARMERS AND FARM PRODUCTION
Table 22. — Source of Labor on Other Field-Crop Farms in
Selected Tobacco Subregions, by Economic Class of Farm :
1954
Item
Man-equivalent per farm, total
Operator
Unpaid family labor
Hired labor .-
Man-equivalent per farm, total
Operator
Unpaid family labor
Hired labor
Man-equivalent per farm, total...
Operator
Unpaid family labor..
Unpaid labor
Man-equivalent per farm, total.
Operator
Unpaid family labor
Hired labor
Man-equivalent per farm, totaL
Operator
Unpaid family labor
Hired labor
Man-equivalent per farm, total.
Operator..
Unpaid family labor
Hired labor.
All
farms
Economic class of farm
II III
IV
VI
Flue-cured tobacco (subregion 24)
1.73
.90
.49
.34
4.94
.90
.64
3.50
3.17
1.00
.71
1.46
2.17
.94
.67
.56
.23
.09
Flue-cured tobacco (subregion 25)
.46
1.70
2.42
2.03
1.66
1.34
.87
.63
.85
.90
.90
.84
.m
.40
.62
.85
.65
.43
.09
.67
.95
.28
.11
.07
1.17
.85
.29
.03
Burley tobacco (subregion
45)
1.20
4.67
2.10
1.45
1.20
0.97
.83
.83
.89
.90
.87
.75
.21
.15
.28
.26
.21
.17
.16
3.69
.93
.29
.12
.05
0.92
.77
.13
.02
Burley tobacco (subregion 32)
1.05
.81
.21
.03
7.60
.80
6.80
1.67
.18
.80
1.42
.80
.39
.23
1.25
.83
.36
.06
1.06
.79
.24
.03
.83
.15
.01
Southern Maryland tobacco (subregion 19)
1.28
3.00
2.60
1.62
1.22
0.82
.70
.86
.76
.78
.76
.56
.26
.17
.40
.36
.26
.17
.32
1.97
1.44
.48
.20
.09
0.82
.70
.09
.03
Daik-flred and air-cured tobacco
(subregion 53)
.06
1.73
2.62
1.39
1.19
0.98
.84
.85
.79
.89
.89
.81
.15
.15
.35
.23
.22
.13
.07
.73
1.48
.27
.08
.04
0.94
.83
.09
.02
Table 23. — Work Off Farm by Farm Operators of Other
Field-Crop Farms in Selected Tobacco Subregions, by
Economic Class of Farm: 1954
Item
Percent of operators reporting for each economic
class of farm
All
farms
I
11
III
IV
V
VI
Flue-cured tobacco (subregion 24)
Days of work off farm:
None
74
21
2
3
90
10
82
14
2
2
80
18
1
1
75
21
2
2
67
23
4
6
71
1 to 99 days
100 to 199 days
29
200 days or more
Total
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Flue-cured tobacco (subregion 25)
Days of work off farm:
None
77
15
3
6
67
17
73
16
1
82
13
2
3
79
15
2
4
73
15
4
8
82
18
100 to 199 days
16
10
Total
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Burley tobacco (subregion 45)
Days of work off farm:
66
25
4
5
(Z)
63
37
6
6
72
23
4
1
68
27
3
2
(Z)
68
25
3
4
60
22
8
10
70
1 to 99 days - - -
30
100 to 199 days
20O days or more
Total
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Table 23. — Work Off Farm by Farm Operators of Other
Field-Crop Farms in Selected Tobacco Subregions, by
Economic Class of Farm: 1954 — Continued
Item
Percent of operators reportmg for each economic
class of farm
All
farms
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
Burley tobacco (subregion 32)
Days of work off farm;
None
I to 99 days
68
24
3
4
1
"m
67
11
63
23
2
12
67
19
6
7
1
62
21
6
72
27
100 to 199 days
22
10
Not reporting
1
1
Total . .
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Southern Maryland tobacco (subregion 19)
Days of work off farm:
None
1 to 99 days
56
20
7
15
2
84
14
""2
75
9
2
14
63
21
3
9
4
66
23
7
10
4
43
14
12
30
1
67
29
100 to 199 days
Not reporting
4
Total
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Dark-fired and air-cured tobacco (subregion 53)
Days of work off farm:
None
71
21
4
4
(Z)
81
19
64
26
5
5
77
18
"'i'
72
21
4
3
67
21
5
6
1
77
23
100 to 199 days
Not reporting
Total..
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Z 0.5 percent or less.
Table 24. — Specified Facilities and Equipment for Farm and
Home on Other Field-Crop Farms in Selected Tobacco
Subregions, by Economic Class of Farm: 1954
Item
Average number per farm:
Automobiles
Motortrucks. _
Tractors -
Grain combines.
Percent of farms reporting
Automobiles
Motortrucks
Tractors
Grain combines
Telephone
Electricity
Tele V ision
Piped running water
Home freezer
Average number per farm:
Automobiles
M otortrucks
Tractors
Grain combines
Percent of farms reporting
Automobiles
Motortrucks
Tractors
Grain combines
Telephone
Electricity.-
Tf lev ision
Piped running water
Homo freezer
Average number per farm
Automobiles
M otortrucks.
Tractors
Grain combines
All
farms
Economic class of farm
VI
Flue-cured tobacco (subregion 24)
0.7
1.8
1.2
0 9
0.7
0.6
0.3
1.2
0.6
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.5
1.5
1.2
0.7
0.5
0.3
(Z)
0.1
0.1
(Z)
(Z)
(Z)
68
90
84
78
69
60
25
79
54
32
23
20
44
77
76
60
44
30
3
10
12
4
2
1
8
25
22
10
7
8
96
90
98
98
97
93
22
44
52
32
20
13
37
69
69
47
36
29
26
46
49
34
23
18
0.5
0.2
0.2
(Z)
48
18
23
1
84
12
23
13
riue-cured tobacco (subregion 25)
0.7
0.3
0.4
(Z)
2.5
0.5
1.0
0,3
83
33
60
33
17
100
33
50
33
1.4
1.0
1.6
0.3
1.1
0.6
0.9
0.2
0.8
0.4
0.6
0.1
0.6
0.3
0.4
(Z)
0.4
0.2
0.2
(Z)
41
19
22
1
6
84
15
20
7
Burley tobacco (subregion 45)
0.9
0.4
0.6
(Z)
3.2
1.4
0.1
0.9
0 7
2.6
1.0
0.6
0.4
0.3
2.9
1.6
0.9
0.6
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.1
(Z)
(Z)
0.6
0.1
0.1
(Z)
TOBACCO AND PEANUT PRODUCERS AND PRODUCTION
29
Table 24. — Specified Facilities and Equipment for Farm and
Home on Other Field'Crop Farms in Selected Tobacco
SuBREGiONS, BY ECONOMIC Class OF Farm: 1954 — Continued
Item
Percent of farms reporting:
Automobiles
Motortrucks
Tractors
Grain combines
Telephone-
Electricity
Tele V ision
Piped running water
Home freezer
Average number per farm:
Automobiles -..
Motortrucks
Tractors
Grain combines
Percent of farms reporting;
Automobiles
Motortrucks
Tractors
Grain combines
Telephone
Electricity
Television _ _
Piped running water
Home freezer
Average number per farm:
Automobiles
M otor trucks
Tractors.
Grain combines
Percent of farms reporting:
Automobiles
M otor trucks
Tractors
Grain combines
Telephone
Electricity
Television
Piped running water
Home freezer
Average number per farm:
Automobiles .__
M otortrueks
Tractors
Grain combines
Percent of farms reporting
Automobiles
Motortrucks
Tractors
Grain combines
Telephone
Electricity
Television
Piped rumiing water
Home freezer..
All
farms
Economic class of farm
III IV
Burley tobacco (subregion 45)— Continued
7f>
99
90
85
79
69
34
84
77
60
33
26
40
95
90
73
49
28
2
22
17
5
1
1
3S
85
75
62
37
31
»4
100
»S
98
97
91
37
76
62
49
37
31
28
72
61
42
25
21
18
69
37
27
18
14
.TO
13
12
(Z)
21
83
19
19
Burley tobacco (subregion 32)
n.4
9.0
1.1
1.0
0.7
0.5
0.3
3.0
0.8
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
.6.0
1.2
1.0
0.6
0.3
(i!)
2.0
0.2
0.1
0.1
m
40
100
78
77
60
47
31
100
44
46
46
36
24
100
67
69
47
32
2
100
11
6
7
1
12
100
33
28
18
14
89
100
100
98
96
93
12
33
26
14
15
31
100
67
67
41
37
11
100
67
43
20
13
0.3
0.2
0.1
(Z)
31
23
14
1
85
9
24
Southern Maryland tobacco (subregion 19)
1.1
0.5
1.1
0.1
2.4
0.9
2.3
0.4
86
59
86
43
86
100
86
97
2.1
1.1
2.5
0.3
1.4
0.6
1.6
0.2
1.0
0.4
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.3
0.8
0.1
0.4
0.1
0.4
38
11
31
25
59
33
17
10
Dark-flred and air cured tobacco (subregion 63)
0.6
2.2
2.0
1.0
0.8
0.6
0 3
1.2
1.2
0.6
0.4
0.3
0.5
1.9
2.5
1.0
0.7
0.5
O.I
0.6
0.9
0.2
0.1
(Z)
58
100
95
74
67
56
29
62
85
56
35
28
46
81
95
73
60
45
«
62
79
23
8
4
22
62
59
50
26
21
91
100
100
98
96
90
21
38
74
44
28
18
23
62
69
44
27
21
12
19
64
26
16
10
0.5
0.2
0.3
(Z)
47
17
25
I
16
85
10
15
Z Less than half of smallest unit shown (0.05 or 0.5 percent).
Farms in Classes I, II, and III were much more highly mecha-
nized than the farms in Classes IV, V, and VI. However, a
sizable percentage of the farms of higher income did not have
tractors or motortrucks.
In the case of home conveniences, electricity was the only item
reported on the majority of tobacco farms. It was reported as
available on 80 percent or more of all the farms in each economic
class in each subregion, with the exception of Southern Maryland.
For home conveniences as a whole, however, Southern Maryland
had the highest level of living of any subregion; a larger percent-
age had" telepHdiies, television sets, running water, and home
freezers. As measured by home conveniences, the level of living
was low on the majority of farms in other subregions. In most
areas less than 20 percent of the farms had telephones, television
sets, or home freezers, and less than one-third had running water.
In all subregions the proportion of farms with various home
conveniences increased as the amount of gross sales increased.
In the flue-cured tobacco subregions, even in the high-income
group, less than one-fourth of the farms reported telephones, less
than one-half television sets, and only about two-thirds reported
running water.
Capital investment. — The capital investment for tobacco farms
is low in comparison to many types of commercial agriculture.
The Southern Maryland region, with an average investment of
$23,717 per farm, was the highest for any of the tobacco areas
(see Table 25). The area with the second highest investment was
Burley subregion 45. Capital investments averaged only $8,806
per farm in the flue-cured subregion 25. This was the lowest
investment of any of the areas.
In each of the tobacco areas, except the dark-fired and air-cured,
land and buildings amounted to three-fourths or more of the total
Table 25. — Capital Investment on Other Field-Crop Farms
IN Selected Tobacco Subregions, by Economic Class of
Farm: 1954
Itom
All
farms
Economic class of farm
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
Flue-cured tobacco (subregion 24)
Investment per farm
(dollars) :
Land and buildings. ..
Livestoelc
Machinery
9,893
364
1.851
32. 071
1.511
6,074
27, 563
919
4.055
15, 556
519
2,396
9,255
336
1.819
5,606
243
1,328
3,894
202
997
Total .
12, 108
39, 056
32.537
18, 470
11,410
7,177
5 093
Flue-cured tobacco (subregion 25)
Investment per farm
(dollars):
Land and buildings. ..
Livestoelc
Machinery
6.681
396
1.730
8,600
1.746
6,798
28,474
2,015
5,656
14.910
988
3,296
8,344
486
2,139
5, 517
310
1,499
3.614
210
917
Total
8,806
16, 144
36,045
19, 194
10, 969
7,326
4,741
Burley tobacco (subregion 45)
Investment per farm
(dollars):
Land and buildings...
Livostocli
11, 804
964
2,598
112.802
10, 073
13,916
46.046
3,253
6.291
19. 489
1,594
3.717
10. 654
842
2,565
6,382
611
1,790
3, 913
294
989
Total
15, 426
136, 791
55,590
24.800
13, 961
8,083
5, 196
Burley tobacco (subregion 32)
Investment per farm
(dollars) :
Land and buildings.-.
11,924
578
1. 362
500,000
10. 407
30. 697
16, 722
2.409
6.130
23, 187
2,209
3,794
7,804
1.131
2. 569
20, 125
686
1,647
7,534
369
Machinery
877
Total _.
13, 864
547, 104
24, 261
29, 190
11,504
22, 458
8,770
Southern Maryland tobacco (subregion 19)
Investment per farm
(dollars) :
Land and buildings...
Livestock
Machinery
19, 479
709
3,529
23,717
53.314
2,187
8,326
47, 489
1,917
7,794
26, 961
1.262
4.821
15, 737
.533
3,021
12, 894
273
2,539
10,511
177
1,0U
Total
63,827
57, 200
33,044
19, 291
15, 706
11, 699
Dark-flred and ah-cured tobacco (subregion 63)
Investment per farm
(dollars): ■
Land and buddings. ..
Livestock
Machinery
6,372
715
2,193
23, 590
3,209
9. 510
45, 613
5.603
10. 623
16, 436
1,821
4.188
7,641
899
2, 798
,^330
569
1.929
3,429
348
1,206
Total
9,280
30, 309
61,839
22, 445
11,338
7,828
4,983
30
FARMERS AND FARM PRODUCTION
investment. In the dark-fired and air-cured area, 24 percent of
the investment was in machinery, and 8 percent in livestock.
These proportions were higher than for any of the other areas. In
flue-cured subregion 24 only 3 percent of the total investment was
in livestock.
In all of the tobacco areas, the average capital investment
increased as gross farm sales increased. The average investment
on Class II farms was 5 to 10 times the investment on Class VI
farms. The average investment for farms in the same income
group varied widely by types of tobacco.
Production expense. — Table 26 shows some of the major cost
items in operating specialized tobacco farms. In each case
fertilizer was the largest or almost the largest item of expense, for
tobacco is heavily fertilized. In the flue-cured tobacco subregions,
the amount expended for gasoline, fuel, and oil is high, as oil
burners are used for curing tobacco on many of the farms. The
expenditure for hired labor was much greater on farms in the
flue-cured subregion 24 and in Southern Maryland than in the
other subregions.
There was a considerable variation in average expenditure per
crop acre between subregions for the same types of tobacco and
for different types of tobacco. The subregion with the highest
expenditure per acre was flue-cured 24 with an average of about
$41. This compared with only $19 per acre for flue-cured in
subregion 25. Subregion 53 had the lowest expenditure per acre;
here the average was only $8.
Table 26. — Specified Farm Expenditures on Other Field-
Crop Farms in Selected Tobacco Subregions, by Economic
Class of Farm: 1954
Item of expense
All
farms
Economic class of farm
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
Flue-cured tobacco (subregion 24)
,\mount per farm (dollars):
Machine hire
57
412
101
224
407
2
283
4,227
641
1,347
2,352
64
145
1,773
360
733
1,127
10
84
673
147
347
604
3
54
347
90
203
380
2
32
196
62
122
246
1
22
113
Feed for Uvestock and poultry
Gasoline and other petroleum fuel
44
76
Commercial fertilizer
139
1
Total--- -
Amount per crop acre (dollars):
Machine hire
1,203
2.10
15.31
8.33
15.22
8,914
1.45
21.67
6.90
12.39
4,148
1.98
24.14
9 99
15 48
1,858
2.14
17.05
8.79
16.39
1,076
2.17
13.96
8.17
15.36
659
1.91
11.70
7.27
14.72
394
2.01
10.38
Gasoline and other petroleum fuel
and oil - - -
Fertilizer and lime
0.87
12.78
Total
40.96
42,41
51.59
43.37
39.66
35.60
32.04
Flue-cured tobacco (subregion 25)
Amount per farm (dollars):
Machine hire
44
116
78
112
241
3
115
858
42
375
1.083
66
216
1,226
694
636
998
36
106
354
194
294
631
10
65
143
92
161
308
4
36
86
62
85
197
2
18
38
Feed for livestock and poultry
Gasoline and other petroleum fuel
and oil
42
38
109
1
Total
594
1.62
4.33
4.18
9.09
2,539
0.90
6.69
2.92
8.96
3, 805
1.89
10.77
5.57
9 08
1,489
1.82
6.08
5.05
9.30
763
1.63
4 26
4.47
9 29
468
1.64
3.97
3.92
9.19
246
A mount per crop acre (dollars) :
1.22
Hired labor
2.68
Gasoline and other petroleum fuel
and oil
2.55
7.40
Total
19.22
19.47
27.31
22.26
19.66
18.72
13.75
Table 26. — Specified Farm Expenditures on Other Field-
Crop Farms in Selected Tobacco Subregions, by Economic
Class of Farm: 1954 — Continued
Item of expense
AU
farms
Economic class of farm
[
II
III
IV
V
VI
Burley tobacco (subregion 46)
Amount per farm (dollars):
64
260
176
109
196
9
335
5,803
1.744
1,004
1,769
128
179
1,458
593
430
626
49
111
453
296
198
319
15
62
185
149
95
176
7
33
82
96
43
113
3
16
32
Feed for livestock and poultry
Gasoline and other petroleum fuel
66
16
Commercial fertilizer
54
Lime -
1
Total
Amount per crop acre (dollars):
Machine hire . .
814
1.23
4.96
2.07
3.91
10,783
0.71
12.30
2.14
4.04
3,336
1.24
10.14
2.99
4.69
1.392
1.35
6.63
2.42
4 08
674
1.27
3.75
1.94
3.73
369
1.07
2.63
1.38
3.73
185
0.87
1.71
Gasoline and other petroleum fuel
.87
Fertilizer and lime..
2.88
Total
12.16
19.25
19.06
13.38
10.69
8.81
6.33
Burley tobacco (subregion 32)
Amount per farm (dollars):
M achine h ire -
31
46
87
44
112
2
160
10,000
1,445
900
2,250
62
1,179
481
344
612
141
352
309
287
421
13
54
96
145
99
222
6
38
49
102
63
135
3
19
21
Feed for Hvestock and poultry
Gasoline and other petroleum fuel
and oil ...
60
21
67
2
Total
Amount per crop acre (dollars):
322
1.08
1.63
1.54
3.99
14, 745
0.69
46.30
4.17
10.42
2,578
0.71
13.38
3.91
3.29
1,523
1.43
3.57
2.92
5.81
621
1.02
1.84
1.90
4.40
380
1.19
1.64
1.66
4.26
190
0.95
Hired labor
1.03
Gasoline and other petroleum fuel
1.05
Fertilizer and lime
3.44
Total ---
8.24
61.68
21.29
13.73
9.16
8.65
6.47
Southern Maryland tobacco (subregion 19)
.\mount per farm (dollars):
Machine hire - -
Hired labor
63
565
145
199
367
24
266
3,443
215
901
2,246
55
151
2,500
310
483
1,122
51
75
840
288
309
499
45
60
356
101
154
287
18
17
169
67
116
187
10
17
62
Feed for livestock and poultry
Gasoline and other petroleum fuel
66
36
Commercial fertilizer
77
Lime -
8
Total
1,353
1.04
11.02
3.88
7.62
7,126
1.37
17.73
4.64
11.85
4,617
1.24
20.60
3.96
9.62
2,066
0.95
10.69
3.90
6.85
966
1.21
8.63
3.73
7.39
555
0.64
5.95
4.3'
7.33
256
.\ mount per crop acre (dollars):
0.80
2.86
Gasoline and other petroleum fuel
1.66
FertlUzer and lime -
3.93
Total
23.56
36.69
36.32
22.29
20.96
18.23
9.25
Dark-fired and air-cured tobacco (subregion 63)
Amount per farm (dollars):
47
87
115
98
195
13
86
947
737
1,067
721
143
265
1,936
652
1,082
1,194
114
116
286
233
281
545
27
58
104
148
136
278
16
36
53
95
69
149
U
35
22
Feed for livestock and poultry
Gasoline and other petroleum fuel
and oil
66
27
69
9
Total ---
665
0.85
1.56
1.76
3.75
3,701
0.40
4.39
4.95
4.00
5,233
0.86
6.52
3.65
4.40
1,487
0.96
2.36
2.31
4.71
739
0.83
1.50
1.96
4.22
412
0.73
1.12
1.45
3.38
228
Amount per crop acre (dollars):
1.13
.71
Gasoline and other petroleum fuel
.89
Fertilizer and lime
2.48
Total
7.92
13.74
15.43
10.33
8.51
6.68
6.21
TOBACCO AND PEANUT PRODUCERS AND PRODUCTION
31
Expenditures per croiJ-acre declined in nil subregions with a
decrease in size of business as measured by gross sales. The
biggest decrease was usually in hired labor. Some of the larger
farms used hired labor rather than croppers. Some items of
expense, like machine hire, increased on a per crop-acre basis as
size of operations decreased, for these operators custom-hired
some work when they did not own suitable equipment.
Practically all spocialized tobacco farmers use fertilizer. The
average rate of application per acre on tobacco, in 1954, was
higher for Burley than for flue-cured producers (see Table 27).
Farmers in the dark-fired and air-cured subregion used an average
of 1,100 pounds per acre on tobacco. This was the lowest appli-
cation for anv of the areas for which data are available.
Table 27. — Use of Commercial Fertilizer on Other Field'
Crop Farms in Selected Tobacco Subregions, By Economic
Class of Farm: 1954
Item
Percent of all farms using fertilizer. . .
Acres per farm on which fertilizer
was used _
Pounds used per acre fertilized
Percent of farms growing tobacco,
fertilizing tobacco
Acres of tobacco fertilized per farm _ _
Pounds used per acre of tobacco
Percent of all farms using fertilizer. , _
Acres per farm on which fertilizer
was used
Pounds used per acre fertilized
Percent of farms growing tobacco,
fertilizing tobacco.
Acres of tobacco fertilized per farm,.
Pounds used per acre of tobacco
Percent ofall farms using fertilizer...
Acre^ per farm on which ft^rtilizer
was used _ .
Pounds used per acre fertilized
Percent of farms growing tobacco,
fert ilizing tobacco
Acres of tobacco fertilized per farm . . .
Pounds used per acre of tobacco
Percent of all farms using fertilizer
Acres per farm on which fertilizer
was used
Pounds used per acre fertilized
Percent of farms growing tobacco.
fertilizing tobacco _,
Acres of tobacco fertilized perform. .
Pounds used per acre of tobacco
Percent ofall farms using fertilizer. . . .
Acres per farm on which fertilizer
was used
Pounds used per acre fertilized
Percent of all farms using fertilizer. . .
Acres per farm on which fertilizer
was used..
Pounds used per acre fertilized
Percent of farms growing tobacco,
fertilizing tobacco _
Acres of tobacco fertil ized per farm _ _
Pounds used per acre of tobacco
All
farms
Economic class of farm
II III
IV
Flue-cured tobacco (subregion 24)
98
6
1,329
100
99
99
99
99
160
02
33
21
i:i
672
700
700
700
72(1
100
97
99
99
98
28
14
»
5
4
1,139
1,420
1,360
1,306
1,317
93
3
1,234
riue-cured tobacco (subregion 25)
98
100
100
97
98
97
16
76
65
34
19
12
664
810
642
666
669
670
97
100
97
96
98
97
6
34
17
10
6
4
1.193
1,212
1,177
1,242
1,189
1,185
668
1,198
Burley tobacco (subregion 45)
92
99
96
96
92
93
9
104
28
14
8
4
923
663
850
893
960
1,060
92
99
97
97
92
93
4
26
11
6
4
2
1.561
1,679
1.540
1,650
1,526
1,626
80
3
79
1
1,471
Burley tobacco (subregion 32)
11
480
84
1
1,493
100
100
92
92
90
242
34
35
19
12
372
668
506
499
472
100
100
92
93
90
19
10
3
2
1
758
1,324
1,625
1,628
1,606
1
1,428
Southern Maryland tobacco ' (subregion 19)
95
97
97
%
95
98
23
640
112
798
67
661
33
606
18
644
12
636
Dark-fired and air-cured tobacco (subregion 63)
91
100
94
100
92
91
24
81
125
52
32
20
360
410
422
395
382
349
88
100
95
97
91
89
3
10
11
6
4
3
1,042
1,063
1,266
1,162
1,086
968
10
337
82
1
I Data not available for use of fertilizer on tobacco.
The percentage of the farms ii.siiig fertilizer, the percentage of
farms with tobacco reporting tobacco fertilized, and the average
amount of fi^rtilizer applied per acre for all crops and for tobacco
were appro.\imately the same for each economic class of farm in all
areas.
Income and Efficiency Levels
Sources of farm income. — Gross farm income is important in
determining income levels on tobacco farms. A high net income
requires a relatively high gross income. Gross sales average
$4,530 on farms in flue-cured subregion 24. This was the highest
of any of the subregions. In each of the tobacco subregions,
tobacco contributed 65 percent or more of the gross income
(see Table 28) .
On flue-cured tobacco farms some income was received from
cotton and peanuts in subregion 24 but average receipts from
these enteri>rises were small in subregion 25. Receipts from
livestock or livestock jiroducts were not very imiJortant on farms
in either of the flue-cured areas although the amount of these
receipts increased with gross income. On the average the percent
that receipts from tobacco was of gross sales decreased slightly
as gross income increased but the relationship was not consistent.
Gross sale.-' per crop acre increa.sed as amount of gro.ss income
increased.
lleceijjts from livestock made uj) a larger proiJortion of gross
income on Burley than on flue-cured tobacco farms. But the
proportion of gross receipts from livestock was not large on
these farms. As in the case of flue-cured tobacco farms, the
proportion of gross receipts from tobacco in the Burlej' area
declined as the amount of gross income increased. Average
gross receipts per crop-acre were about 50 percent higher in Burley
subregion 45 than in subregion 32.
On Southern Maryland tobacco farms, receipts from tobacco
contributed on the average 82 percent of the gross receipts. On
the larger farms, income from livestock, especially beef cattle,
was important. On the Class I farms, gross sales per crop-acre
averaged $136 per farm compared to only $36 on the Class VI
farms.
Total gross sales on the dark-fired and air-cured tobacco farms
averaged only $2,499 per farm; of this amount tobacco contrib-
uted 71 percent. There was no con.sistent relationship between
the amount of gross income and the percent that income from
tobacco was of gross sales.
Gross income minus specified expenses. — Gross sales minus
specified expenses should not be confused with net income. The
specified expenditures do not include any fixed costs nor all ope-
rating costs. Net income would be much less than the amount
indicated by gross sales minus specified expenditures.
On flue-cured tobacco farms, the amount that gross sales ex-
ceeded specifled expenses averaged $3,327 for subregion 24 and
$2,306 for subregion 25 (Table 29). In the Burley area, similar
figures were $2,926 for subregion 45 and $1,011 for subregion 32.
Farmers growing dark tobacco had on the average a net of $1,940
above .specified expenses and producers of Southern Maryland
tobacco, a net of $2,665. (Jbviously, the net above .specified
expenses increa.sed as amount of gross farm income increased.
For the different types of tobacco, there was a considerable
variation in the average net income for farms in similar economic
classes. Income above expenses was generally lower, for ex-
ample, on Class IV tobacco farms in the Burley and Southern
Maryland areas than in other areas.
Efficiency levels of farm operation. — Census data do not provide
all of the information needed to make a complete analysis of the
differences in efficienc.v of farm operations in different tobacco
areas. However, the data do afford some comparisons that
indicate levels even though the specific figures may not always
reflect the precise relationship.
32
FARMERS AND FARM PRODUCTION
Table 28. — Source of Farm Income on Other Field-Crop
Farms in Selected Tobacco Subregions, by Economic Class
of Farm: 1954
Source of mcomo
Total
Economic class of farm
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
70
389
3,725
186
24
2
(Z)
Flue-cured tobacco (subregion 24)
Sales per farm (dollars) :
Peanuts -
1,160
1.830
23, 945
2,932
344
53
396
1, 007
11,116
964
100
6
(Z)
154
613
6,010
362
33
3
(Z)
47
378
3,415
149
22
2
9
198
1,916
44
16
2
U
Cotton
Tobacco
66
844
23
7
1
Horticultuial specialties
Total crops
4,396
30, 254
13,588
7,165
4,013
2,183
951
Dairy products
4
14
13
93
1
1,001
12
167
360
62
65
83
389
2
5
22
22
181
1
1
13
9
76
1
1
6
6
26
1
1
Poultry and poultry products.
Cattle'and calves -
Hogs
Other livestock and livestock
products --
4
3
12
(Z)
125
1,540
691
231
100
40
20
Forest products sold - -
9
104
78
14
6
2
2
Gross sales per farm
4,530
31, 898
14, 257
7,410
4,119
2,225
973
Percent of gross sales from
82
168
75
164
78
194
81
188
83
166
80
133
87
Gross sales per acre of cropland
dollars-
89
Flue-cured tobacco (subregion 25)
Sales per farm (dollars) :
1
18
2,682
78
3
6
(Z)
1
23
3,671
HI
4
7
(Z)
1
14
2,054
41
3
4
1
(Z)
Cotton
"25,'774'
1,193
127
10, .562
842
6
38
42
6,390
318
5
20
10
Tobacco
Other field crops
934
12
Vegetables
1
3
Horticultural specialties
Total crops . -
2,788
26, 967
11, 575
6,775
3,817
2,118
960
21
18
39
16
2
730
250
100
582
215
603
130
1
115
63
171
72
3
28
25
50
22
2
8
11
22
8
2
3
Poultry and poultry products.
5
9
Hogs
3
Other livestock and livestock
products
1
96
1.084
1,431
424
127
51
21
16
124
63
70
23
8
4
Gross sales per farm
2,900
28,175
13,069
7,269
3,967
2,177
985
Percent of gross sales from
tobacco
92
108
92
220
81
115
88
125
92
118
94
101
95
Gross sales per acre of cropland
dollars..
06
Burley tobacco (subregion 32)
Sales per farm (dollars):
Cotton.
2
975
73
13
4
2
1,133
95
17
5
2
Tobacco
15,288
10, 541
15
3,914
405
78
4
2,068
238
23
7
571
26
Vegetables
6
Fruits and nuts
3
Total crops
1,067
15,288
10, 656
4,401
2.336
1,252
60S
Dairy products ..
87
28
122
16
0
2,200
80
11, 000
755
1,296
22
712
64
11
739
103
642
79
35
277
65
298
33
11
106
35
156
23
7
22
Poultry and poultry products.
17
61
Hogs.
7
Other livestock and livestock
products..
3
Total livestock
259
14, 036
2,095
1,698
674
327
Forest products sold .. _
7
41
10
4
5
Gross sales per farm
1,333
29, 323
12, 751
6,040
3.020
1,,583
713
Percent of gross sales from
tobacco.
73
47
52
136
84
145
65
61
68
58
72
49
80
Gross sales per acre of cropland
dollars..
36
Table 28. — Source of Farm Income on Other Field'Crop
Farms in Selected Tobacco Subregions, by Economic Class
of Farm: 1954 — Continued
Source of Income
Total
Economic class of farm
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
Burley tobacco (subregion 46)
Sales per farm (dollars) :
2.895
107
2
3
1
19, 847
1,321
55
3
9, 220
351
22
4
17
4,843
215
1
3
2,736
93
2
2
1,474
36
1
4
(Z)
686
Other field crops
13
(Z)
Fruit and nuts
1
Horticultm-al specialties
Total crops
3,008
21. 226
9,614
5.062
2,833
1,615
699
236
25
280
88
100
687
39
5,279
1,209
1,944
750
40
1,252
406
599
434
39
474
174
192
238
26
227
66
69
93
17
114
27
21
31
Poultry and poultry products.
10
42
Hogs .
13
Other livestock and livestock
products
6
Total livestock
729
9,168
3,047
1,313
626
272
102
3
4
2
3
2
2
Gross sales per farm
3,740
30, 384
12, 665
6,377
3,462
1,789
803
Percent of gross sales from
77
71
65
66
73
88
76
78
79
70
82
68
85
Gross sales per acre of cropland
dollars. .
42
Southern Maryland tobacco (subregion 19)
Sales per farm (dollars) :
Tobacco
3,292
320
20
3
37
17, 058
4,828
670
4
9, 1.69
902
86
3
4,852
600
9
1
2,738
234
16
6
103
1.480
79
3
1
732
Other field crops
20
Vegetables
Fruits and nuts
Horticultural specialties
3, 672
22, 566
10, 160
6,362
3,095
1,569
752
20
64
187
56
7
147
47
3,315
250
1
119
133
962
229
1
25
140
288
89
24
11
49
65
42
3
2
20
20
9
1
Poultry and poultry products.
Cattle and calves
6
10
Hogs
2
Other livestock and livestock
1
Total livestock
333
3,760
1,444
566
170
52
19
13
10
39
9
1
1
Gross sales per farm
4,018
26, 326
11, 604
6,967
3,274
1,622
771
Percent of gross sales from
tobacco
82
78
65
136
79
95
81
76
84
79
92
61
95
Gross sales per acre of cropland
dollars..
36
Dark-1
ired and
air-cured tobacco (subregion 63)
Sales per farm (dollars) :
Cotton
1
1,776
289
2
12
2
2,486
441
2
12
(Z)
1,416
203
2
12
1
25. 114
2,408
7, 004
1,819
4, 324
882
2
13
690
73
Vegetables
2
Fruits and nuts
10
13
14
Horticultural specialties
2,080
27, 532
8,836
5,221
2,942
1,633
780
145
24
133
107
7
880
30
2,286
2,123
820
75
998
1,172
248
447
49
460
376
22
225
27
196
146
8
103
22
82
69
4
38
Poultry and poultry products.
17
35
20
Other livestock and livestock
2
Total livestock
416
5,319
3,313
1,354
602
280
112
3
4
2
3
1
Gross sales per farm
2,499
32, 851
12, 149
6,579
3,546
1,916
893
Percent of gross sales from
71
45
76
152
87
41
65
54
70
61
73
40
77
Gross sales per acre of cropland
dollars. _
29
Z $0.60 or less.
TOBACCO AND PEANUT PRODUCERS AND PRODUCTION
33
Table 29. — Gross Income of Operator and Family Above
Specified Expenses on Other Field-Crop Farms in Selected
Tobacco Subregions, by Economic Class of Farm: 1954
All
farms
Economic class of farm
Item
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
Flue-cured tobacco (subregion 24)
Average per farm (dollars) :
Gross sal&s
4,530
1,203
3,327
31,898
8,914
22, 984
14, 257
4,148
10,109
7.410
1,858
5,552
4,119
1,076
3,043
2,226
659
1,666
973
SpeciOed expenses
Gross sales minus
specified expenses. . .
304
579
Flue-cured tobacco (subregion 25)
Average per farm (dollars) :
Gross sales - - -
Specified expenses
Gross sales minus
specified expenses. . .
2,900
594
2, 306
28.176
2,539
25, 636
13, 069
3,805
9,264
7,269
1,489
5,760
3,967
753
3,214
2,177
468
1,709
985
246
739
Burley tobacco (subre4!ion 45)
Average per farm (dollars) :
3,740
814
2,920
30.384
10. 783
19, 601
12, 665
3,335
9,330
6,377
1,392
4,985
3,462
674
2,788
1,789
369
1,420
S03
Specified expenses
Gross sales minus
specified expenses. . .
186
618
Burley tobacco (subregion 32)
Average per farm (dollars) :
Gross sales
1,333
322
1,011
29, 323
14, 745
14, .578
12, 751
2,578
10, 173
6,040
1,523
4,617
3,020
621
2,399
1,683
380
1,203
713
Specified expenses
Gross sales minus
specified expenses. . .
190
523
Southern Maryland tobacco (subregion 19)
Average per farm (dollars) .
4,018
1,353
2,605
26, 326
7,126
19,200
11,604
4,617
6,987
5.907
2,056
3,911
3,274
966
2,308
1,622
555
1,067
Specified expenses
Gross sales minus
specified expenses. . .
256
516
Dark-fired and air-cured tobacco (subregion 53)
Average per farm (dollars) :
2,499
555
1,944
32,8.11
3,701
29, 150
12, 149
6,233
6,916
6.579
1,487
6, 092
3. 54li
739
2, 807
1,916
412
1,604
Specified expenses
Gross sales minus
specified expenses . . .
228
665
There were considerable variations in the various measures of
efficiency both between subregions for the same type of tobacco
and also among the different tobacco types (see Table 30).
For flue-cured tobacco, both gross sales and net sales per man-
equivalent were higher in subregion 24 than in subregion 25.
In the Burley region, gross and net sales per man-equivalent in
subregion 32 was only about 40 percent as much as in subregion
45. Both gross and net sales per man-equivalent was much
lower in subregion 32 than in either of the other subregions.
Sales per SI, 000 invested were highest in the flue-cured regions.
They averaged $445 in subregion 24. They were lowest in
subregion 32 of the Burley region, averaging only $196 per $1,000
investment. The total investment per man-eciuivalent was
lowest in the two flue-cured subregions and highest in the South-
ern Maryland subregion. However, for subregion 24 the invest-
ment per crop-acre was the highest for any subregion and was
higher for subregion 25 than any except the Southern Maryland
subregion. The investment per crop-acre averaged $132 in the
dark-fired and air-cured subregion 53. However, in each of
the other subregions the investment per crop acre was $234 or
more.
Crop acres per man-equivalent averaged only about 17 acres in
each of the two flue-cured subregions. In the darlc-fired and air-
cured subregion, there was an average of 52 crop acres per man-
equivalent.
Table 30. — Selected Measures of Efficiency on Other Field'
Crop Farms in Selected Subregions, by Economic Class of
Farm: 1954
Economic class of farm
Item
All
farms
I
a
III
IV
V
VI
Flue-cured tobacco (subregion 24)
Gross sales per man.6quivalent
dollars. .
2,618
6,457
4,497
3,415
2,466
1,601
811
Net sales per man-equivalent
dollars..
1,923
4,653
3,189
2,558
1,822
1,127
483
Gross sales per $1,000 invested
dollars..
446
1,049
613
493
423
355
230
Investment per $100 of gross sales
dollars..
225
95
163
203
236
281
436
Total investment per man-equiva-
lent dollars..
5,887
6,161
7,343
6,937
6,825
4,509
3,537
Investment per crop acre.-.dollars-.
379
156
317
381
391
374
388
Crop acres per man-equivalent
16
40
23
18
15
12
9
Tobacco per acre.. pounds..
1,233
1,206
1,477
1,377
1,211
967
683
Flue-cured tobacco (subregion 25)
Gross sales per man-equivalent
dollars..
1,986
16, 674
5,400
3,681
2,390
1,626
844
Net sales per man-equivalent
dollars. .
1,616
14,899
3,828
2,846
1,936
1,277
632
Gross sales per $1,000 investment
dollars. .
393
2,381
478
487
428
363
2.50
Investment per $100 of gi'oss sales
dollars..
2,642
420
2,093
2,054
2,334
2,832
4,002
Total investment per man-equiv-
alent- dollars..
1,987
16, 574
5,402
3,682
2,391
1,621
840
Investment per crop acre. . .dollars. .
275
92
240
256
275
285
266
Crop acres per man-equivalent
18
75
47
29
20
16
13
Tobacco per acre poimds..
1.044
1,411
1,142
1,237
1,109
971
760
Burley tobacco (subregion 45)
Gross sales per man-equivalent
dollars..
3,117
6,506
6,031
4,398
2,885
1,844
873
Net sales per man-equivalent
dollars..
2,438
4,197
4,443
3,438
2,323
1,465
671
Gross sales per $1,000 Invested
dollars..
303
366
314
328
311
252
188
Investment per $100 of gross sales
dollars. -
329
281
319
305
321
397
533
Total investment per man-equiv-
alent. - . dollars. .
10,213
18, 334
19,235
13, 418
9,253
7,290
4,660
Investment per crop acre. . .dollars..
234
182
281
237
226
229
226
Crop acres per man-equivalent.
44
101
69
57
41
32
21
Tobacco per acre pounds. .
1,650
1,640
1,696
1,637
1,531
1,388
1,217
Burley tobacco (subregion 32)
Gross sales per man-equivalent
dollars..
1,271
3,858
7,650
4,241
2,411
1,491
718
Net sales per man-equivalent
dollars. -
962
1,918
6,091
3,189
1,918
1,135
638
Gross sales per $1,000 invested
dollars..
196
54
526
241
263
204
154
Investment per $100 of gross sales
dollars. -
511
1,866
190
416
381
490
651
Total investment per man-equiv-
alent dollars. .
6,487
71,987
14, .556
17, 583
9,186
7,306
4,672
Investment per crop acre. ..dollars..
238
2,633
275
254
219
241
231
Crop acres per man-equivalent
27
28
53
69
42
30
20
Tobacco per acre potmds..
1,628
1,642
2,241
2,094
1,762
1,646
1,462
Southern Maryland tobacco (subregion 19)
Gross sales per man-equivalent
dollars- -
3,134
8,775
4,477
3,678
2,685
1,978
937
Net sales per man-equivalent
dollars..
2,082
6,400
2,698
2,416
1,892
1,301
629
Gross sales per $1,000 invested
dollars. .
223
646
262
405
229
127
68
Investment per $100 of gross sales
dollars..
449
155
396
398
437
785
1,134
Total investment per man-equiv-
alent. dollars. -
14, 0.58
13, 591
17.731
14,640
11,723
16, 622
10, 618
Investment per crop acre.. -dollars..
352
210
377
300
346
475
405
Crop acres per man-equivalent
40
6;,
47
49
34
33
26
Tobacco per acre pounds-.
819
886
908
856
793
712
522
Dark-flred and air-cured tobacco (subregion 63)
Gross sales per man-equivalent
dollars..
2,368
18,989
4,637
4,733
2,980
1,960
950
Net sales per man-equivalent
dollars. -
1,838
16,849
2,540
3,663
2,358
1,636
707
Gross sales per $1,000 invested
dollars. .
341
928
285
380
394
313
221
Investment per $100 of gross sales
dollars- -
293
108
350
263
264
319
453
Total investment per man-equiv-
alent dollars..
6,911
20, 455
16, 263
12, 472
7,583
6,235
4,315
Investment per crop acre -..dollars..
132
164
143
143
130
129
130
Crop acres per man-equivalent
52
125
113
87
59
48
33
Tobacco per acre pounds. .
1,290
1,876
1,442
1,481
1,347
1,203
1,074
34
FARMERS AND FARM PRODUCTION
The yield per acre of tobacco was highest in the two Burley
subregions and lowest in the Southern Maryland subregion. The
average yield per acre of 819 pounds in the Southern Maryland
subregion was only about half of the average yield of 1,628 pounds
reported for Burley subregion 32.
In each of the subregions, as the amount of gross income in-
creased, the gross and net sales per man-equivalent increased.
The gross and net sales per man-equivalent on Class II farms were
usually 4 to 6 times as much as the amount on Class VI farms.
In each tobacco region the total investment per man-equivalent
and the crop acre per man-equivalent increased as the gross farm
income increased. This means that on the larger farms more
capital was associated with a unit of labor. A unit of labor was
also able to handle a larger unit of production. It appears that
both capital and labor were used more efficiently on the larger
farms. The capital investment per $100 of gross sales on large
farms was less than half that on small farms.
Summary and Problems
Specialized tobacco farms are small from the standpoint of land
area. Most farms average 50 to 100 acres in size with a third to
a half of the total land area in cropland. From the standpoint of
value of business about 54 percent are in Economic Classes V and
VI. These farms have a total value of products sold of less than
$2,500.
In many of the tobacco areas a fourth to a half of the farm opera-
tors are tenants. On tobacco farms in the Southern Maryland
and flue-cured areas, a fourth or more of the operators are non-
white. But, very few nonwhite operators are found on tobacco
farms in other areas. In areas with nonwhite operators, tenancy
is higher among the nonwhite than among the white operators,
In the flue-cured subregions and some of the Burley subregions,
a fifth or more of the operators are under 35 years of age. In some
of the subregions two-fifths or more of the operators are 55 years
of age or over which would indicate the necessity of combining
units as the older operators die or stop farming.
Tobacco farms tend to be operated intensively with a high pei-
centage of the cropland in row crops. But the type of crop grown
on individual farms tends to be quite difl'erent in the dilferent
tobacco areas. From the standpoint of acreage, corn for grain is
the most important crop in all areas except on farms in Southern
Maryland. Small grains are grown on tobacco farms, but they
are grown mainly on the larger farms. The production of hay is
less important on flue-cured and Southern Maryland tobacco farms
than on other types of tobacco farms.
With the exception of 1939, both flue-cured and Burley producers
have operated under some type of control program since 1933.
In 1955, markethig quotas were in effect for all types of tobacco
except Southern Maryland. Increases in yield per acre and also
shifts in demand for certain types of tobacco have resulted in sup-
plies greater than the amount needed to supply current demand.
This has resulted in smaller acreage allotments for individual
farmers. In 1954, about half of the flue-cured tobacco producers
grew less than 5 acres of tobacco; more than two-thirds of the
Burley farms grew less than 2.5 acres of tobacco. Only about one-
fifth of the producers of Southern Maryland tobacco grew less than
5 acres of tobacco ; about one-third of the dark-fired and air-cured
producers grew less than 2.5 acres of tobacco.
Livestock is not very important on most tobacco farms. On
flue-cured farms livestock is kept mainly to supply products for
home consumption, but many of the farmers do not keep livestock
even for home use. Livestock is more important on Burley and
dark-fired and air-cured tobacco farms than on farms in other
tobacco areas. LivestocK is used to supplement income on some
of the farms, but as a rule, the proportion of total income received
from livestock is not very great.
With the exception of the larger farms, the labor force on
tobacco farms is planned around the farm family. The majority
of the operators spend full time in the farm business. Operators
that work off the farm, normally work for only a short period.
The amount of mechanization on tobacco farms is low. Opera-
tors have been slow to mechanize, partly because of the small
size of the unit and partly because, if a sufficient labor supply is
available to harvest tobacco, a surplus of labor is usually available
for production operations. The level of living on tobacco farms, as
measured by home conveniences is also low. Electricity is the
only home convenience item reported for the majority of tobacco
farms. In most tobacco areas, less than 20 percent of the farm
homes have telephones, television sets, or home freezers, and less
than one-third, running water.
Compared to many types of farming, the capital investment for
tobacco farms is relatively low. The majority of the investments
is in land and buildings.
On tobacco farms fertilizer is the largest or among the largest
item of expense, for tobacco is a crop that is heavilj' fertilized.
Within the same subregion, for those farms on which fertilizer
was applied, the average rate of application per acre was about the
same on farms in each economic class.
Average gross receipts of tobacco farms are low. Gross sales
averaged $4,530 on farms in flue-cured subregion 24, the highest,
compared to only $1,333 in Burley subregion 32, the lowest. In
each of the subregions, tobacco contributed 71 percent or more of
the gross receipts from specified items. The amount available
for miscellaneous farm expenses, returns to capital and payment
for operator and family labor averaged $3,327 for tobacco farms
in flue-cured subregion 24 and only $1,011 for farms in the Burley
subregion 32.
A cross-section view of tobacco farms indicates several definite
problems. First, the tobacco farmer faces the problem of acquir-
ing control of sufficient resources to produce efficiently. Constant
changes in technology and improvements in labor-saving equip-
ment enable each worker to produce more efficiently. The
efficient use of machinery requires more and more acres of cropland
per worker.
The average size of tobacco farms has not shown much increase
since 1940, nor has the capital investment for tobacco farms
increased as much asforsomeother types of agriculture. Neverthe-
less, there has been a substantial increase in the average capital in-
vestment on tobacco farms. This is due in large part to increased
prices. Data from Agricultural Research studies ^ for Commercial
family-operated flue-cured and Burley tobacco farms serve as an
example of the capital investment on tobacco farms and also
changes in capital requirements (see Table 31). The average
capital investment on flue-cured tobacco farms increased more
than three times between 1940 and 1955; the investment on
Burley tobacco farms more than doubled during the same period.
For both types of tobacco farms the largest relative increase
was in machinery and equipment.
In view of low levels of income of farm families in tobacco areas,
the increase in capital requirements represents a serious problem
to beginning farmers. Even though he starts as a sharecropper,
it is difficult to acquire enough capital to operate as a tenant or to
IJay the downpayment on the purchase of a farm. If the young
farmer starts with little capital on a relatively small farm, his net
income is not large enough to accumulate sufficient capital for the
essential operation of a more efficient unit. The majority of his
income is likely to be required to pay operating and living expenses
'■ Farm Costs and Returus— Commercial Family-Operat«d Farms, Agi-icultural Information Bulletin 158, ARS— USDA, 1956 and other reports.
TOBACCO AND PEANUT PRODUCERS AND PRODUCTION
35
Table 31. — Land in Farms, Cropland Harvested, and Capi-
tal Investment, Commercial Family-Operated, Flue-
Cured and Burley Tobacco Farms: 1940, 1945, 1950, and
1955'
Item
Land in (arms - acres
Cropland harvested do...
Farm capital, January 1 (dollars) :
Land and buildings
Machinery and equipment
Livestock
Crops for sale, feed, and seed
Total
Land in farms -- acres
Cropland harvested do..
Farm capital, January 1 (dollars):
Land and buildings
Machinery and equipment -.
Livestock
Crops for sale, feed, and seed
Total ._.
1940 1915 IH.iO 19S5
Flue-cmed tobacco-cotton farms i
100
40
5,800
460
630
190
6,770
100
41
8,800
820
960
460
11,040
100
40
14,000
l,>i30
890
600
17, 320
100
40
17, 700
2, 680
.WO
580
21,440
Burley tobacco-livestock farms ^
110
26
8,574
470
866
263
10, 173
113
20
11,311
723
1,222
783
14, 039
113
31
16,900
1,170
1,950
800
20, 820
116
31
19, 090
2, 040
1,610
850
23, 690
1 Data for 1940, 1946, and 1950 from Costs and Returns Tobacco-Cotton and Tobacco
Farms, 1940-54, AE Information Series No. 47, Department of Agricultural Economics,
North Carolina .\gricuiture Experiment Station, December 1965; data for 1966 from
Farm Costs and Returns Commercial Family-Operated Farms, Agricultural Inlor-
mation Bulletm No. 168, ARS, USDA, 1956.
' Data for 1940 and 1945 from Farming in the Bluegrass .\rea of Kentucky, Ken-
tucky .\griculture Experiment Station Bulletin 544, December 1949; data for 1950 from
Farm Costs and Returns, 1953, witli comparison Conmiercially Family-Operated
Tobacco Livestock Farms, Bluegrass area of Kentucky, PERB 2 Production Economic
Research Branch LTSD.4.: data for 1956 from Farm Costs and Returns— Commercial
Family-Operated Farms, Agricultural Information Bulletin 158, .\RS, USD.\, 1966.
Conservation and improvement of the soil is a very important
problem on most tobacco farms. The intensive cultivation of the
land and the continued high percent of the croi)land in row crops
has caused serious depletion of soil fertility and serious erosion of a
large proportion of the farmland in areas especially where the
slope of the land is rolling to steep. Measures for conservation
and improvement of all farmland need to be emphasized. Special
attention should be given to the development of a cropping system
that will improve soil fertility and also help hold soil erosion to a
minimum.
Making production adjustments, due to changes in economic
conditions, advances in technology, and other factors, is a difficult
problem for operators of tobacco farms.
For most types of tobacco, the acres that can be grown on an
individual farm in a given year depend on the amount of thr.
tobacco base for the farm and size of the national allotment.
With a continued increase in yield per acre for tobacco, it has been
necessary to reduce the acres that each individual farmer could
grow, especially in recent years.
The average tobacco farmer faces a number of problems when
he attempts to adjust farm enterprises. The size of the farm is
small and this makes it difficult to increa.se the production of live-
stock. Tobacco is also a crop that has a high labor requirement
per acre. The labor load is distributed over most of the months
of the year with peak requirements at the time of setting and
harvesting. The tobacco farmer must be careful to not add en-
terprises that compete too much with tobacco for labor, especially
at peak periods. The failure to perform such operations as har-
vesting at the right time would result in the loss of the crop or one
with a greatly reduced value.
Much of the tobacco is ])roduced in area.s where little outside
employment is available. This means, as acres of tobacco are
reduced, farmers do not have the opportunity of turning to outside
employment as a means of supplementing farm income. More-
over, the nature of the requirements and distribution of labor on
tobacco also limits the amount of outside work that a person
can do.
The problem of adjusting to modern technology is a continuing
one. Modern machines enable one man to operate a larger
acreage of land. However, increases in mechanization raise the
question as to the adequacy of size of the farm-operating unit.
Ultimately, more acreage is likely to be required for many farmers
to obtain efficient production. Adjustments in size of farm are
often difficult because of the problem of acquiring additional land.
Many of the operations in tobacco production do not lend them-
selves to mechanization, or only to partial mechanization. As a
result, many farm operators have not shifted to the tise of tractors
or other mechanical equipment to save labor.
36
FARMERS AND FARM PRODUCTION
PEANUT FARMS
Peanuts were first cultivated in this country in eastern Virginia.
After the Civil War, peanuts spread rapidly into other Southern
States, probably by soldiers who had fought in the \'irginia
campaigns. The commercial development of the industry actually
began with the erection of modern cleaning plants. A factory for
cleaning peanuts was established in New York in 1876 and in
Norfolk, Va., a short time later. As peanut production extended
to other States peanut factories were built throughout the South.
The most rapid growth in production came in the Cotton Belt,
notably in Alabama, Georgia, Florida, and Texas. Because of
the advance of the boll weevil from Texas eastward, which greatly
reduced returns from cotton, farmers sought other crops and
enterprises. As peanuts offered a source of income either from
the direct sales of nuts or from the sale of hogs fed on peanuts,
this crop rapidly became an important enterprise on many of the
farms in the Southern States.
At present, there are three distinct regions in which most of the
production of peanuts is concentrated. These are: (1) The
Virginia-North Carolina area; (2) Southeastern or the Georgia-
Alabama-Florida area; and (3) Southwestern or the Oklahoma-
Texas area. Some peanuts are grown in several of the other
Southern States. Figure 18 shows the percentage of cropland
harvested in 1954 that was in peanuts. Figure 19 shows the
farms that reported peanuts in 1954 as a percentage of all farms.
Although this crop is a major enterprise on many farms in the
three specialized regions, it is one of the minor cash crops for the
United States as a whole. In 1954 peanuts were grown on 3.2
percent of all farms (see Table 32). The acreage of peanuts for
all purposes represented 0.5 percent of the acreage of all harvested
crops, and income from peanuts was 0.4 percent of the total cash
farm income in the United States. This was a decrease from the
0.7 percent of the total cash farm income for each of the years
1944 and 1949. The percentage of farmers reporting peanuts
has decreased each Census year since 1934, but the percentage of
cropland harvested in peanuts was the same each Census year
from 1934 to 1944.
Table 32. — Number and Percentage of Farms Reporting
Peanuts, Percentage of Cropland Harvested in Peanuts,
and Percentage Cash Income from Peanuts is of Total
Cash Income from Crops and Total Cash Farm Income,
BY Census Periods, United States: 1929 to 1954
Farms reporting
peanuts for all
purposes
Percent
of crop-
land har-
vested in
peanuts
Percent cash in-
come from pea-
nuts is of —
Year
Number
Percent
of all
farms
Cash In-
ineome
from
crops '
Total
cash
farm
income ■
1954
151, 227
226, 191
309, 021
491, 365
576, 985
326, 253
3.2
4.2
6.3
8.1
8.5
6.2
0.5
.8
1.1
1.1
1.1
.7
0.9
1.8
1.7
1.1
.9
.6
0.4
1919
.7
1944 2
.7
1939
.6
1934
.4
1929 -
.3
1 Estimates of the U. S. Department of ARriculture.
■ Peanuts grown with other crops for all purposes were not obtained In 1944 for
Aikansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas.
ACRES OF PEANUTS HARVESTED FOR ALL PURPOSES AS A PERCENT
OF CROPLAND HARVESTED: 1954
(COUNTY UNIT BASIS)
U S DEPARTMENT OE COMMERCE
MAP NO A54-359
BUREAU OF THE CENSUS
Figure 18
TOBACCO AND PEANUT PRODUCERS AND PRODUCTION
37
Types and Varieties of Peanuts
Three separate types of peanuts are recognized in the com-
mercial channels of trade — the Virginia type, the Spanish, and the
Runner. The Virginia-type peanut is grown mainly in the
Virginia-North Carolina region. These peanuts are relatively
large, with two or three kernels in a pod. The kernels are
relatively long and flat and are covered with a pinkish skin. The
Virginia-type supplies most of the peanuts sold in the shell and
most of the large salted kernels.
The Spanish-type is the most widely distributed variety in the
country. Heaviest production is in Georgia, Texas, Alabama,
and Florida. The plant is upright in growth and is harvested
easily as the pods are closely centered near the surface of the
ground. The pods are small and the kernels are small and round.
This type is used by peanut-butter manufacturers, candy makers,
and nut saltors. The oil content is higher in Spanish peanuts
than in either Runner or Virginia.
The Runner peanut is grown commercially in Alabama,
Florida, and Georgia. It has a spreading rather than a bunch
form of growth. The pod is of medium size but more nearly
resembles the Spanish than the Virginia type of pod. In general
the yield of Runner is somewhat higher than the yield of Spanish
peanuts. Because of this and their widespread adaptability to
the soil and climate conditions of the Southeast they arc now
grown in that region to a much greater extent than in the past.
Although they were originally grown for "hogging off" ("hogging
off" is the practice of turning the hogs into peanut fields to eat
the nuts) or crushing, increasing quantities are being used in the
manufacture of peanut butter and to some extent in peanut
candy.
Major Producing Regions ^
Both suitable soil and favorable climate are essential to the com-
mercial production of peanuts. They require a moderately long
growing period of 4 to 5 months, with a steady rather high temper-
ature. They need a moderate, uniformly distributed, supply of
moisture, especially during the period when the peanuts are form-
ing, followed by dry conditions during harvesting and curing.
Peanuts will grow in nearly all parts of the South, but the differ-
ences in suitability of the various soils is very wide. On some soils
good yields can be obtained without difficulty, but on others the
yields are low even though good production practices are followed.
They are usually grown on light-textured soils. Soils that are
stony, very gravelly, shallow, wet, very fine, or heavily textured,
are generally not used for peanuts. Neither are extremely acid,
limy, or salty soils. Deep sands, although they are sometimes used
for the crop, are not well suited to it.
Climatic conditions suitable for peanuts are found from southern
Virginia southward along the Atlantic seaboard and in the Gulf
coast region westward to southern California. But, much of this
region contains soils and areas that are unsuitable for the crop.
Mo.st of the commercial production is concentrated in three distinct
regions.
Virginia-North Carolina region. — This is the oldest peanut-
producing region. It is composed of 16 counties located in south-
eastern Virginia and northeastern North Carolina. The land is
low and mostly level with about 60 percent in farms. The re-
mainder is largely second-growth woods and swamps. The pro-
ductive farming areas are on the well-drained, light-colored, sandy
loams. The dark, heavy soils are generally badly drained and not
cropped.
FARMS REPORTING PEANUTS AS A PERCENT OF ALL FARMS; 1954
(COUNTY UNIT BASIS)
"X
LEGEND
PERCENT
ESSl 10 TO 19
V///A 20 TO 29
^m 30 TO 39
, US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
40 TO 49
50 TO 59
60 AND OVER
V
'^^
UNITED STATES AVERAGE
Q 'jf 12 PERCENT
MAP NO A54-36I
euREAU OE THE CENSUS
Figure 19
3 For a more detailed dosciiptiou of the major producing areas see U. S. Department of Agricultme pubUcations (1) Farmers' Bulletin 2(1(53,
Beattie, May 1954, and (2) FM 65 "Peanuts in Southern Agriculture" by K. L. Baebman, G. B. Crowe, and K. V. Goodman, May 19-17.
'Growing Peanuts" by J. A.
^8
FARMERS AND FARM PRODUCTION
The agriculture of this country is characterized by keen competi-
tion between cash crops. Peanuts, cotton, and tobacco and, in
some sections, soybeans are grown. Frequently all three of the
basic cash crops, or a combination of two of them, are raised on the
same farm. Tobacco, under present prices, commands the most
favorable position among the enterprises; expansion in tobacco
acreage has been limited by production controls. The abundance
of peanuts has led to large-scale production of hogs. The harvested
peanut fields are cleaned up by hogs which are later finished on
corn. Actually, corn is the crop with the largest acreage.
Soils in the region as a whole are very suitable for intensive
growing of peanuts. They are grown on the well-drained sandy
loam soils which predominate in the area. The most important of
these soil types are Norfolk and Ruston sands and sandy loams.
The principal poorly drained soils are of the Dunbar and Ports-
mouth series. Soils on more than 90 percent of the cropland in the
Virginia part of the region are classified as suitable for peanuts.
Soils in the North Carolina part are not quite so homogeneous.
Some of the soils in the eastern part of the region are poorly
drained. Some of the counties on the we.stern side have soils
similar to those found in the Piedmont which are generally less
suitable for this crop.
Crop yields in general in the Virginia-North Carolina region are
higher than in many other parts of the South. Relatively favor-
able yields of jjeanuts are obtained on all suitable groups of soils.
On soils clas.sified as excellent for peanuts, 3delds averaging more
than 1,400 pounds to the acre are frequent. Because of the favor-
able returns, farming systems are generally built around peanuts
as the major cash crop. Almost every farmer grows some peanuts,
generally in a 3-year rotation with corn and cotton or soybeans.
On farms that have tobacco allotments the acreage in tobacco is
usually the amount that can be grown under the tobacco program.
There has been considerable competition between peanuts and
cotton but in recent years more favorable returns have usually
come from peanuts. Feed crops have been fitted into the farm
organization to utilize the remaining resources and to provide food
for the home and feed for livestock. Hog production is important
as hogs are used to clean up the peanut fields.
Georgia-Alabama-Florida region. — Large tracts of soils in the
Coastal Plain region in South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, and
Florida, are suitable for peanuts. Commercial production has
been concentrated in areas where cotton yields have been low
because of climate, boll weevil, and other conditions. Production
is centered mainly in subregion 41 and parts of subregion 38.
Minor differences in physical production conditions are found in
the Georgia-Alabama-Florida part of the region. Soils in south-
eastern Alabama are somewhat mixed, particularly in the westerly
direction and on the edges of the Black Belt, but the predominant
soils are the same as in the peanut parts of Georgia and Florida
except for the Georgia Red Belt section. On most of the peanut
farms, except in the Georgia Red Belt, the principal soils are of
Norfolk, Ruston, or Tifton series, which are similar in many of
their characteristics and are well suited for both Runner and
Spanish peanuts. The soils in the southwestern Coastal Plain
area of Georgia and Florida are sandy to a greater depth. Runner
peanuts make up a larger proportion of the output. The Green-
ville, Magnolia, and Faceville soils, which predominate in the
Georgia Red Belt section, are somewhat heavier in texture than
soils in other sections. These heavier soils, although well adapted
to Spanish peanuts, are not so well suited for hogging off as the
Norfolk, Ruston, or Tifton soUs.
The agriculture as a whole, of the part of this production area
located in the southeastern Coastal Plain of Alabama, the south-
western Coastal Plain of Georgia, and the Coastal Plain Red Belt
of Georgia, has long been based on a cash-crop economy. During
the last 40 years, however, the emphasis has been shifted from
almost a complete reliance on cotton to major reliance on peanuts
as a source of income. Just before World War II, cotton and
harvested peanuts were about equal in importance in the farming
system. During the war period the peanut acreage increased
greatly, and in 1944 a little more than 3 acres of peanuts were
picked and threshed for each acre of cotton. In 1954 the ratio of
peanuts to cotton was 1.1 to 1.
Farms here can be classified as peanut-cotton types. Corn is
the chief feed crop but considerable acreages of peanuts are hogged
off. Commercial livestock is limited chiefly to hogs especially on
the larger farms. The competitive position of cotton here is
apparently stronger than in the Virginia-North Carolina region.
That is, it requires a smaller shift in the relative prices of the two
crops to cause a shift between the acreage of the two crops.
Farming systems on farms growing peanuts in the Coastal Plain
of Georgia and northern Florida differ from those discussed above.
Because the soils are sandy to a greater depth, Riumer peanuts
predominate. Runner peanuts are not wanted as much by the
edible trade; before World War II they sold at considerably lower
prices. Cotton and tobacco were the chief cash crops there and
most of the peanuts were hogged off.
During the war many substantial shifts occurred in the farming
of this area. Increased demands for peanuts and favorable prices
made it more profitable to harvest Runner peanuts for sale. The
acreage of harvested peanuts was greatly expanded except on
farms that grew tobacco. Acres in cotton decreased as well as
acres in corn for, on many farms, the old practice of planting
peanuts with corn was supplanted by the planting of peanuts
alone.
Hog production is one of the major enterprises in this part of
the region and on other farms in the area where sizable acres are
hogged off. Probably the most usual method of production is to
carry the hogs through the spring and summer on a maintenance
ration of corn and range grazing. Sometimes special grazing
crops are planted to provide feed for the pigs. Some buying and
selling of feeder pigs takes place as the season progresses and the
farmers are able to estimate their prospective feed supplies more
accurately. When peanuts are ready for grazmg, the hogs are
turned into the fields. They remain there until they reach a finish
weight, or until the feed supply is exhausted. Consequently,
many hogs are marketed at a light weight or are sold as feeders to
farmers elsewhere. Some of the late-farrowed pigs may be carried
through the winter to be fattened on the peanut crop of the
following year. Breeding stocks, and pigs and shoats not sold,
are carried through the winter by allowing them to glean the
fields and are fed a maintenance ration of corn.
Oklahoma-Texas region. — Commercial peanut production in the
Southwestern region is found almost entirely in Oklahoma and
Texas. Considerable tracts of sandy soils suitable for peanuts
occur in many parts of the States in this section but climatic
and other conditions have restricted peanuts in several of them.
Before World War II, commercial production was limited pri-
marily to the Rio Grande Plain and West Cross Timbers area in
Texas and to Bryan County in the Coastal Plains of Oklahoma.
Wartime demand brought a rapid increase in the acreage in the
eastern and central parts of Oklahoma and Texas.
In terms of total acreage and production, the Cross Timbers is
the leading peanut-producing section in Oklahoma, but the pro-
portion of the cropland used for the crop is small. Since this
region includes a wide diversity of physical conditions, there is a
considerable variation in size and type of farm and in crops
grown. On some farms where soils are not well suited for crops,
the system of farming is based largely on livestock. Although
operating units vary from small part-time units to large cattle
ranches, about half of the farms are between 70 and 180 acres in
size. Approximately one-fifth of the cropland is used for small
grains. These crops are grown largely on the prairie section rather
than on the sandy soils.
TOBACCO AND PEANUT PRODUCERS AND PRODUCTION
39
Cotton and corn are the dominant crops on the sandy locations.
Peanuts are limited more to the sandier soils. For the region
as a whole, the average acres of peanuts per farm is small, but
they are an important enterprise on farms where grown.
Production areas in Texas vary considerably within (he State.
Some peanuts are grown in the northeast Texas Sandy Lands
area, located in the northeastern corner of the State. The upland
soils are sandy and only moderately productive. The agriculture
is characterized by small farms, irregular shaped fields, and simjile
tools. The basic cropping system centers around cotton and corn,
supplemented in many parts by many special crops, including
vegetables, small fruits, and nursery plants. Farmers have been
inclined to plant peanuts on land that is not well adapted to other
crops and this meant growing peanuts on the poorer soils.
Peanut production methods here resemble those in the South-
east in that acreages are small, power and equipment units are
small, and much hand labor is used in digging and stacking.
Almost every farmer who grows peanuts also grows a substantial
acreage of cotton. Peanuts do not compete favorably with cotton
except on the better soil types. The acreage of peanuts grown
depends mainly upon the relation between prices for peanuts and
for competing crops and the extent to which farmers use technolog-
ical improvements to reduce costs and increase returns.
The West Cross Timbers area of Texas is the most important
area of peanut production in the Oklahoma-Texas region. The
agriculture of the area has changed greatly in the last 40 years.
Before World War I, cotton occupied about two-thirds of the
cropland and was the major source of cash income. Peanuts
have almost completely replaced cotton on the sandy soils and
are now the ]5rincii)al cash crop in the area. Climate, topography,
and size of farms, have been favorable to the mechanization of
production. At present, most of the farms are highly mechanized
in regard to this crop.
The soils of the West Cross Timbers area are not very homo-
geneous. In some parts, considerable rough, shallow, stony soils
are found. They are used primarily for grazing. The sandy
soils used for peanuts are largely brown and fine sandy loam, low
in organic matter and in some essential nutrients. They are of
low to moderate inherent fertility and have sandy clay subsoils.
There are a number of livestock farms here located on the
rougher land and soils unsuited for peanuts. The larger peanut
farms have a very high proportion of their land in the crop which
probably has been encouraged by the mechanized method of pro-
duction. On smaller peanut farms a higher proportion of the
cropland is devoted to cotton, truck, or miscellaneous crops. On
the more suitable soils returns are particularly favorable to pea-
nuts. However, to plant land continuously to peanuts, or in
short rotations, quickly reduces the fertility. To maintain
profitable production on many of the peanut farms, increased
emphasis must be placed on developing suitable rotations and
corrective practices to check water and wind erosion and the loss
of soil fertility.
A third production area in Texas is in the Rio Grande Plains
area and includes most of the counties of Frio and Atascosa and
parts of the counties of Media, LaSalle, and Wilson. Here,
agriculture is characterized by a wide diversity of products.
Livestock farming and cattle ranching are of some importance.
Peanuts, grain sorghums, cotton, watermelons, and truck crops
are among the most important crops. Cotton yields are low and
the cotton acreage is rapidly declining. Cropland acreages per
farm are large and crop production, i:)articularly for grain sorghum
and peanuts, has been highly mechanized. The climate, topog-
raphy, and location of suitable soils, are all favorable to mechanized
production of peanuts.
Much of the Kio Grande Plains area is used for grazing except
for locations where irrigation is practicable. Farm organization
varies considerably from farm to farm. The major competition
for the use of land occurs between peanuts and feed crops such as
grain sorghum. Peanuts are the dominant crop. Feed crops
(such as grain sorghums and corn) are grown and fed primarily
to cattle. Watermelons and broomcorn are depended upon as
cash crops on some farms but returns from watermelons fluctuate
widely depending on prices and marketing conditions. The
speculative nature and the high laljor requirements tend to restrict
acreages of watermelons and truck crops to a small proportion of
the cropland.
Trends in Acres, Yield, and Production
The trends in acres, yiehi, and production of peanuts have been
different in the different regions. The expansion of the crop
during World War II was much greater in the Oklahoma-Texas
and the Georgia-Alabama-Florida regions than in the North
Carolina-Virginia region. This made necessary more adjustments
in the farming systems of these regions as reduction has taken
place in the acres grown. In presenting the material in this part of
the report, the data for minor States have been grouped with the
major regions. Acreage and production in Tennessee are included
in the North Clarolina- Virginia region; acreage and production
in Mississippi are included in the Georgia-Alabania-Florida region;
and data for Arkansas, Louisiana, and New Mexico are included in
the Oklahoma-Texas region.
Acreage. — Acres of peanuts picked and threshed in 1910 are
estimated at 464,000 acres (see Figure 20). Of these, 66 percent
was in the North Carolina-Virginia region, 23 percent in the
Georgia- Alabama-Florida region, and 11 percent in the Oklahoma-
Texas region. From 1910 to 1943 there was a gradual expansion
in the acres of peanuts picked and threshed, with a rapid expansion
during each of the war periods.
The trend in acreage in the three regions from 1910 to 1955 has
not been the same. The acreage in the North Carolina-Virginia
region was only slightly higher at the end of the period than it
was at the beginning and did not increase a great deal during
either war period. In the Georgia-Alabama-Florida region,
acreage increased rather rapidlj' after 1914 and reached a peak
of 1,904,000 acres in 1943. This region has led in acreage since
1917. Acreage in the Oklahoma-Texas region declined after
World War I to almost what it was before the war. Acreage began
to increase again al:)out 1927 but the most rapid increase came
after 1941. The peak acreage was reached in 1947 when peanuts
from 1,187,000 acres were picked and threshed.
In addition to peanuts that are grown to be picked and threshed,
a consideraljlo acreage in the United States is hogged off each year.
This practice is not very common in the North Carolina-Virginia
region; 95 percent or more of the acreage grown alone each year
is picked and threshed (see Figure 21). In the other two major
regions only about three-fourths or less of the total crop grown
alone is picked and threshed. The proportion so harvested in the
Oklahoma-Texas region has increased greatly since 1935. This
change was probably brought about partly by the increase in
mechanization of production in that area which made picking and
threshing relatively more profitable. The decrease in percentage
picked and threshed since 1950 was probably due to the very low
yield during this period. In the Georgia-Alabama-Florida region,
peanuts are interplanted with some other crop, mainly corn, on
about 200,000 acres each year. Peanuts on this land are also
usually hogged off.
40 FARMERS AND FARM PRODUCTION
PEANUTS PICKED AND THRESHED: ACREAGE, YIELD PER ACRE, AND PRODUCTION, BY AREAS, UNITED STATES, 1910-1955
ACRES
(THOUSANDS)
4,000
3,000
600
_,^?fO,^^^
V
V
POUNDS
(MILLIONS)
2.000
1,000
1910
FiGDBE 20
TOBACCO AND PEANUT PRODUCERS AND PRODUCTION
41
PEANUTS; PER CENT ACREAGE PICKED AND THRESHED IS OF
TOTAL ACREAGE GROWN ALONE FOR ALL PURPOSES,
BY AREAS AND FOR UNITED STATES, I92*-I955
PERCENT
100
1935 1940 1945
FiGTTRE 21
I960
54C-62
Yield. — Unlike most other crops, the yield per acre of peanuts
has not shown much increase from 1010 to 19.55. It decreased
during both of tlie war periods. Tliis decline was due primarily to
the relative greater acreage expansion in the lower yielding areas
of the West and the influence of new and inexperienced growers.
As the acreage has decreased since 1948, yield per acre has in-
creased. Normally, yield per acre in the North Carolina-Virginia
region is about 50 percent more than in the Georgia-Alabama-
Florida region and 2 to 3 times as great as in the Oklahoma-Texa
region.
Production. — Peanuts picked and threshed rose from 384 million
pounds in 1940 to a record high of 2,336 million pounds in 1948.
This was a sixfold increase. Up to 1949 the increase in production
was somewhat proportionate to the increase in acres, except during
war periods when yield per acre declined. Since 1949, total pro-
duction has not declined as much as acreage has decreased for
there has been an upward trend in yield per acre. Because of the
very favorable yield in 1955, the total production was 67 percent
of the peak production in 1948, although the 1955 acreage was
only 51 percent of the 1948 acreage.
During the last 5 years, 1951 to 1955, 49 percent of the peanuts
harvested were produced in the Georgia-Alabama-Florida region,
34 percent in the North Carolina-Virginia region, and 17 percent
in the Oklahoma-Texas region. Production in the Oklahoma-
Texas region during this period was lower than it would normally
have been because of a fairly low yield per acre in 3 of the 5 years.
Disposition of Supplies
The major concern in agricultural program and price policy is
the problem of adju.sting the quantity produced to the quantity
consumed. This has been a problem for the peanut crop during
the la.st few .years, although during the war considerable effort was
made to get producers to increase production.
The uses of peanuts in the United States ha\ e increased along
with production (see Figure 22). The peak in domestic dis-
appearance was reached in the year beginning September 1944
when 2,173 million pounds (farmers' stock basis) were used.
This compared with an average of only 424 million pounds during
the 1910-14 period. Although exports were fairly limited before
1945, large quantities have been exported in several years since
that time.
PEANUTS: SUPPLY ANq.DISPOSITION, UNITED STATES, 1910-1955
POUNDS
(BILLIONS)
Figure 22
42
FARMERS AND FARM PRODUCTION
Picked and threshed peanuts are used in the United States for
edible products, for crusliing, and for seed. A small quantity is
fed to livestock on farms. Domestic disappearance during the
5-year period, 1950-54, averaged 1,495 million pounds (farmers'
stock basis) per year. Of this quantity, domestic food uses
accounted for 1,003 million pounds, or 67 percent; and crushing,
331 million pounds, or 22 percent.
Trends in consumption,* — From 50 to 76 percent of the domestic
consumption of peanuts is represented by food products, chiefly
peanut butter, candy, salted nuts, and roasted in the shell. The
commercial food use of peanuts has increased steadily since 1920.
Food consumption reached an all time high of 1,428 million pounds
(farmers' stock basis) in 1944, which was about 3 times the 482
million pounds consumed in 1920 (see Table 33). Consumption
of cleaned (roasted-in-the-shell) peanuts has been relatively
constant since 1920. Use in peanut butter has more than doubled,
and use in candy making and in salting has increased considerably.
In recent years, makers of peanut butter have taken about half of
the shelled nuts used in edible products. Use in candy and as
salted nuts, each has taken about one-fourth of the total. These
shifts in the proportions of peanuts going into the different uses
have had an effect on the demand for peanuts grown in the various
areas.
The civilian per capita consumption of peanuts for food uses
reached an all-time high of 9.1 pounds (farmers' stock basis) in
1945 (see Table 33). This compared with 6 pounds in 1954 and
3.6 pounds in 1910. The large increase in per capita consumption
during the war is believed to reflect mainly the substitution of
peanut products for other foods in short supply such as butter,
cheese, sandwich meats, jams and jellies, candy, and imported nuts.
Table 33. — Domestic Food Use of Peanuts for the United
States: 1910 to 1954
[Farmers' stock basis]
Domestic food use
Year beginning
Sept. 1
Domestic food use
Year beginning
Sept. 1
Mili-
tary
Civil-
ian
ClvU-
ian per
capita
Mili-
tary
Civil-
Ian
Civil-
ian per
capita
1910..
Million
pounds
Million
pounds
345
426
482
627
588
770
970
928
1,170
1,092
1,140
Pounds
3.6
4.2
4.5
5.4
4.8
6.0
7.2
6.9
8.9
8.4
8.7
1S45
1946
Million
pounds
14
Million
pounds
1,'243
1, 036
«5!
914
892
947
991
1,008
1.034
'.184
Pounds
1915...
1020
1947
1948
1949
3
6
7
14
10
10
10
9
1925
6 2
1930- -
5 9
1935
1960
1961-.
1940 -
1941
74
146
223
288
1952
1942
1953
6 5
1943...
1944
19541
6.0
1 Preliminary figures.
Source: United States Deijartment of Agrieultiu-e, Agricultmal .Marketing .Service.
Since 1946, per capita consumption of peanuts has averaged
slightly below the level of the 1936-41 period. Thus (he long-
time trend in increase in per capita consumption, which averaged
approximately 1.9 ounces' per year (farmers' stock basis) for the
period 1920-41, has not been maintained since the war. The
failure of the upward movement to continue suggests that the
demand for edible peanuts has slackened off and the industry has
passed the period of continued expansion, except that which may
be due to the increase in total consumption resulting from increase
in population.
The per capita expenditures for peanut products used in homes
tend to increase as income increases. But based on analysis for
1920-40 and 1946-50, the demand for both cleaned and shelled
peanuts at the wholesale level is relatively inelastic' A 1-percent
change in the wholesale price, on the average, has been associated
with a change of 0.3 percent in the opposite direction in per capita
consumption of cleaned peanuts and 0.4 to 0.5 percent in per
capita consumption of shelled peanuts. A 1-percent change in
disposable income, on the average, resulted in a change of 0.6 per-
cent in the same direction in per capita consumption of cleaned
peanuts and 0.4 to 0.6 percent in that of shelled nuts.
Crushing for oil. — Very few peanuts were crushed for oil before
World War I. In 1916, however, there was an estimated crush of
about 177 million pounds (farmers' stock basis) and the quantity
rose to 441 million pounds in the 1918-19 crop year. Very few
peanuts were crushed between 1919 and 1934. Beginning with
1934, Government programs were instituted which encouraged
the VKse of peanuts for crushing and substantial quantities were so
used. The peak before World War II was reached in 1940 when
601 million pounds were crushed; the all-time high came in 1950 —
642 million pounds.
Before Government programs were begun, the quantity of
peanuts crushed depended upon the quality of the crop and the
relative profitability of shelling and crushing. Each year, a few
low-grade farmers' stock peanuts and a small percentage of the
kernels, from shelling operations, that were not suitable for food
uses, were crushed. Beginning in August 1947 and continuing to
the 1951 crop, the Commodity Credit Corporation was permitted
to buy surplus production largely in the form of No. 2 grade
shelled peanuts, rather than as farmers' stock peanuts. This
resulted in a substantial increase in the crushing of farmers' stock
peanuts.
Feed, seed, farm loss, and shrinkage. — Of the total supply of
peanuts picked and threshed, feed, seed, farm loss and shrinkage
account for only about 10 percent of the disposition each year.
This means that on farms where peanuts are grown, very few nuts
that are picked and threshed are fed directly to livestock. How-
ever, not included in the statistics on disposition is the amount of
peanuts eaten by the hogs that are run on peanut fields after the
nuts are harvested and, also, the amount of peanuts hogs eat in
fields that are hogged off.
Many Runner peanuts usually are left in the ground after digging.
It has been estimated that in many instances there are enough
peanuts to produce 60 pounds ' of pork to the acre from gleaning.'
There is no estimate on the acreage of peanuts gleaned each year,
but, if the amount were only as much as 400,000 acres, this would be
enough peanuts to produce 20 million pounds of pork.
The amount of pork produced per acre on peanuts that are
hogged off varies depending on the yield per acre, the condition of
the peanut crop, and whether or not the hogs have access to a
mineral mixture and are fed protein sup]Dlements. Experiments
in Florida by Pace and Glasscock showed that hogs which re-
ceived a complete mineral mixture produced 466 pounds of pork
per acre of peanuts grazed, while those grazing peanuts alone and
not receiving a mineral mixture produced only 258 pounds of pork
per acre.' For the 5-year period 1961-55, the amoimt of peanuts
grown in the southeastern section and not picked and threshed
averaged 378,000 acres per year. If this amount was hogged off
and the amount of pork produced per acre was only 200 pounds,
this would be enough feed to produce 76,600,000 pounds of pork.
< For a more complete discussion ofthls subject see "Peanuts and Their Use for Food" by Banna, Antoine, Armore, Sidney J., and Foote, Richard J., United States Department
of Agriculture Publications, Marketing Research Report No. 16, 1962.
' Freund, Rudolf, "What is Wrong With the Peanut Market," unpublished manuscript, Noith Carolina Agiicultmal Experiment Station.
» Downing, James C, Council, James C, and Orlgsby, S. Earl, "Balancing Labor and^Land Resources for Wartime Production," FM39, United States Department of Agri-
culture, Buieau of Agriculture Economics, January 1943.
' Tf the quantity left in the ground was 130 to 150 pounds, each pound of gain would require 2.9 pounds of peanuts.
» Unpublished data, Florida Agiicultural Experiment Station.
TOBACCO AND PEANUT PRODUCERS AND PRODUCTION
43
I''i(iiii tlii'si:' data it is I'vicient that pouiuits make an important
fonlribution to tl\e prociuction of porl< in the peanut areas, a fact
wliicli is not evident from the statistics on disposition.
Exports. — In tlie period 1910-42 oidy about 1 percent of the
domestic production of peanuts was exported. About 90 percent
of the quantity exported was for edible use in Canada. During the
1930's most of the export market in Canada was lost because of
competition with lower-priced peanuts from the Far East. Begin-
ning with 1943, exports to Canada increased substantially, as Far
Eastern peanuts were no longer available. Because of the world
shortage of fats and oils immediately after the end of World War
n, large quantities of peanuts from this country were exported to
Europe for crushing. Total exports of peanuts from the United
States rose from 63 million pounds (farmers' stock basis) in 1945
to 252 million pounds in 1946 and reached a peak of 762 million
pounds in 1048 (see Figiu-e 22). The principal countries to which
shipments were made were France, Italy, Germany, and Japan.
With the improvement in the world's supply of fats and oils and
the decline in production of peanuts in this country (with the ex-
ception of 1953), very few peanuts have been exported since 1950.
Exports in 1953 amounted to 227 million pounds (farmers' stock
basis). Increase in exports in 1953 were due mainly to activities
relating to the price-support program.
Programs and Policies, 1933-55
In each year since 1933, with the exception of 1936-37, the
United States Department of Agriculture has had a program in
effect to support the price received by producers for peanuts.
Details of the programs have varied from year to year, reflecting
changes in production trends, and in the relative demands for
peanuts for direct use in edible products and for crushing for oil
and meal. These programs are notcworth}' because of the influence
they have had on the supply and utilization of peanuts and because
somewhat similar programs may be continued in the future.
An outline of the stages through which the programs have passed
and a brief appraisal of the effects of governmental programs on
tlie disposition of commercial peanut supplies since World War II
are desirable. Selected statistical data relating to the programs are
given in Table 34.
The several peanut programs can be divided into three phases.
The first phase became effective on January 27, 1934, and was
made applicable to the 1933 crop. Processors of peanuts entered
into marketing agreements in which they agreed to i)ay minimum
prices to growers of $65 per ton for Soutlieastern and Virginia-
North Carolina Spanish-type peanuts, $60 for Virginia-type " and
for Southwestern Spanish, and $55 for Runner tyjie. These prices
represented about twice the season average price for the 1932 crops
and proved to be too high to be practical. Processors stopped
buying peanuts but they continued to process for farmers on a toll
basis. The marketing agreement was terminated in the fall of
1934 at the request of the majority of the millers.
The next phase of the peanut program began with the 1934
crop after peanuts were designated as a basic agricultural com-
modity. The measure adopted did not guarantee minimum prices
but an effort was made to increase the incomes of peamit growers
by diverting peanuts from the edible trade to be crushed for oil
and by adjusting production. In 1934 growers could obtain up to
$20 per ton for diverting up to 20 percent of their production to oil.
They could also receive an adjustment payment of $8 per ton on
peanuts harvested in 1934, if they agreed to limit their 1935
acreage of peanuts picked and threshed to the average of 1933 and
1934. Payments were also made to processors to buy and crush
farmers' stock peanuts. During the 1934 season approximately
154 million pounds of farmers' stock peanuts were diverted to
crushing for oil. The diversion program for peanuts grown in 1935
was essentially the same .as in 1934.
Table 34. — Peanuts: Acreage, Support Level, Price Re-
ceived BY Farmers, Quantity Pledged for Price Support
Loans, and Quantity Purchased Under Price Support
Programs: 1935 to 1955 '
Acreage
Support level 3
.\verage
price
per
pound
received
by
farmers
Quan-
tity
pledged
for price
support
loans
Quan-
tity
Crop year
Allot-
ment
ricked
and
threshed
Percent-
age of
allot-
ment
Percent-
age of
parity
on
Aug. 1
I'er
pound
pur-
chased
under
price
support
pro-
grams '
1935
Thou-
sand
acres
Thou-
sand
acres
1,497
1,660
1,538
1,092
1,908
2, 052
1, 900
3, 365
3,528
3,068
3,100
3,141
3,377
3,296
2,308
2,262
1,982
1,443
1,515
1,387
1,691
Per-
cent
Per-
cent
Cents
Cents
3.1
3.7
3.3
3.3
3.4
3.3
4.7
6.1
7.1
8.0
8.3
9.1
10.1
10.5
10.4
10.9
10.4
10.9
11.1
12.2
11.6
Million
pounds
Million
pounds
73
19:J6
1937
173
243
26
69
"""251"
309
400
383
483
345
652
2.53
107
4.57
14
29s
166
19;i8
< 1, 330
1 1,345
< 1, 607
1,610
1,010
« 1,(510
127
142
136
118
208
219
"140"
88
103
105
84
90
86
98
253
1939
69
1940
658
1941
68
5 90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
88
90
90
90
90
•4.3
• 6.6
7.1
7.3
7.5
8.6
10.0
10.8
10.5
10.8
11.5
12.0
11.9
12.2
12.2
379
1942
899
1943
1944
297
231
194.5
96
1940
55
1947
,508
1948
« 2, 3.59
2, (i29
2,200
1,.S89
1,700
1,079
1,010
I 1, 731
1,208
1949
774
ig.w
19,11..
19.52
19.53
869
540
99
297
19.54
1955
180
' Source: United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service.
3 Farmers' stock basis.
3 Vrom 1937 through 1940, the Commodity Credit Corporation made nonrecourse
loans to peanut cooperatives to finance, purchase, storage, and diversion of sale of
farmers' stock peanuts by these cooperatives in order to facihtate a surplus-removal
program of the Department of Agriculture.
• Under the Agricultural Conservation program.
• Support level originally announced at 85 percent of parity, or 6.2 cents per pound,
but revised Oct. 3, 1942, before a substantial movement of eligible peanuts took place.
• Marketing fpiotas and acreage allotments under Agricultural Act of 1938 suspended.
^ 1'he original 1955 allotment of 1,010,000 acres was increased by 7.5 percent in May
1955.
The Supreme Court's deci.sion in the Hoosac Mills case on
January 6, 1930, invalidated the production control and processing-
tax provision of the Agricultural Adjustment Act. Under the pro-
visions of a new law (the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allot-
ment Act, passed by Congress in February 1936) the two principal
means of supporting the price of peanuts were continued. Peanuts
continued to be diverted from edible use to be crushed. Instead of
paying farmers to reduce the acreage of peanuts grown, payments
were made for diverting land from soil-depleting uses to soil-
conserving and soil-building uses. A base acreage was established
for each farm on the basis of acreage picked and threshed in pre-
vious years. On the 1936 crop, growers received $25 per ton of
the normal yield per acre up to 20 percent of the base acreage used
for non-soil-depluting crops.
The program for the 1936 crop was continued much on the
same basis through the 1940 crop. In 1937, penalties were
adopted for harvesting more than base acreages. These penalties
were in forms of a stated deduction per ton on the normal yield per
acre harvested in excess of the base acreage. These payments
and penalties, which applied only to the farmers who participated
in the agricultural conservation program, probably kept partici-
pating growers from exjjanding their acreage of peanuts picked
and threshed. However, participating growers did have an
inoenf ive to increase yields, and nonparticipants brought about an
expansion of acreage particularly in the Southwest. In 1940 a
slightly increased acreage and a record yield resulted in a produc-
tion 37 percent higher than in any previous year. As a result,
diversion of peanuts to crushing for oil rose to a new peak; for the
1940-41 crop it was more than twice that in any previous year.
The third phase of the peanut-support program followed the
large crop in 1940. New legislation was enacted on April 3, 1941,
which amended the Agricultural Adju.stment .'^ct of 1938 to
' Later changed to $65 per ton for Virginia tyiie.
44
FARMERS AND FARM PRODUCTION
authorize marketing quotas for peanuts and reestablish peanuts
as a "basic commodity." Growers voted for marketing quotas to
be applied in 1941, 1942, and 1943. Nuts produced in excess of
quotas were subject to a penalty of 3 cents per pound. Participa-
tion in the program was broadened; whereas in 1940 allotments
were made in only 6 leading States, in 1941 they were mad? in 14
States. Acreage in 1941 was 7 percent less than in 1940 and
production declined 15 percent.
The entry of the United States into war in December 1941
made it imperative to increase the output of oils and fats from
domestic materials. The peanut program became one of expand-
ing rather than restricting production. The Government offered
price guarantees of 90 percent parity to the growers of soybeans,
cottonseed, and peanuts, at the same time the prices of oils and
fats were kept low by means of price controls. Marketing quotas
were suspended in 1943. To bridge the gap between relatively
high prices to growers, and artificially low prices to consumers, the
Commodity Credit Corporation became the sole buyer of farmers'
stock peanuts in 1943, 1944, and 1945, and supervised the allot-
ment of supplies to different areas in line with various wartime
regulations.
The exclusive authority of the Commodity Credit Corporation
to buy and sell peanuts was discontinued with the 1946 crop.
But the wartime price guarantee for peanuts was extended through
the year 1947 in order to protect farmers against an expected
decline in the demand for their products. The supports were
supplied through a system of purchases and loans. In 1946 a
program was begun to increase the diversion of No. 2 shelled
peanuts to oil, to encourage the use of inferior peanuts in the
production of oil and meal, and the use of No. 1 shelled peanuts
for edible use only. As it turned out, the demand especially for
vegetable oils was so extremely strong during 1946 and 1947 that
peanut prices would probably have stayed fairly high even without
price guarantees and supports.
Beginning with the 1948 crop, the Government and the growers
thought it advisable to adjust future supplies to lower levels.
Since peanuts were a basic commodity, growers could vote for
acreage allotments and marketing quotas. On October 9, 1947,
peanut growers voted in favor of marketing quotas to be effective
for the 1948, 1949, and 1950 crops. The Secretary of Agriculture,
however, suspended quotas for the 1948 crop in view of the critical
world shortage of food fats and oils. Acreage allotments and
marketing quotas have been in effect for peanuts since the 1949
crop.
Under the allotment program, the acreage of }5eanuts picked
and threshed declined each year from 1949 to 1954 but the decline
in supphes was not quite as large. For the 1949 and 1950 crops,
growers could "overplant" their allotted acreage by a certain
percentage and sell the production from this excess acreage
through an agency designated by the Secretary of Agriculture at
oil-stock prices. Peanut yields have tended to increase which has
caused productions to decrease less than acreage.
In reviewing the phases of the peanut program it is of interest
to realize that production trends continued upward prior to the
war. A decrease in production was not necessarily the aim of
the program but a real consideration is whether production
expanded more rapidly than consumption for edible purposes.
Between 1933 and 1941, acreage of peanuts harvested increased
from 1.2 million acres to 1.9 million, or about 60 percent. During
the same period, production increased more than 100 percent but
consumption for edible purposes increased only about 40 percent.
The program followed since 1947 has resulted in a reduction
in both acreage and production, but production has not declined
as much as acreage has been reduced because of an Increase in
yield per acre. Average acres harvested during the 2 years, 1954
and 1955, was 54 percent less than the acreage harvested in 1947
and 1948. But production decreased only 43 percent. Sujjport
programs have tended to reduce the proportion of the crop that
would normally go to the edible trade. The proportion of the
total supply used for edible purposes was 40 percent in 1947 and
70 percent in 1954. Under normal competitive conditions it is
estimated that about 80 percent of the supply is used for edible
purposes.'" The long-time upward trend in per capita consump-
tion of peanuts has not continued in the postwar years. Then,
too, a shift in consumption trends between uses has affected the
market for some types of peanuts more than others. Relatively
higher prices for peanuts have no doubt been a factor in the failure
f per capita consumption to continue to increase.
Possible changes in programs to better meet present and pro-
spective conditions in the industry continue to be of interest.
Evaluation of seed changes must take into account the present
organization of peanut farms, the agricultural economy of the
principal peanut-producing r egions, and the effects which curtail-
ment of production have on t he organization of these farms.
Number, Resources, and Characteristics of Specialized
Peanut Farms
For the crops included in the other field-crop group, there is more
overlapping in peanut production areas than is true for tobacco.
This made it more difficult to select subregions as representative
of specialized peanut areas. To show some of the important
characteristics of peanut farms and the use of resources, data are
presented for subregion 21 as representative of the Virginia-
North Carolina peanut area, subregion 41 for the Georgia-Alabama-
Florida area, and subregion 96 as representative of the Oklahoma-
Texas area.
Number and Use of Resources
There were 24,710 farms classified as other field-crop farms in
the three subregions summarized. This number accounted for
only 0.7 percent of the commercial farms listed in the 1954 Census
and was only 16.3 percent of the total number of farms reporting
peanuts for all purposes in 1954. The number of other field-crop
farms in these areas in 1954 was 54 percent less than the 53,684
listed in 1950.
The decrease in the number of these farms in the selected peanut
areas between 1950 and 1954 was due partly to an overall shift
in total number of farms of 19 percent, a small increase of acres
in cotton to acres in peanuts, and a lower-than-normal yield for
peanuts. In 1949, the ratio of acres in cotton to acres in peanuts
was 0.7 to 1, but was 0.8 to 1 in 1954. Yields of peanuts were
especially low in the Oklahoma-Texas and the Georgia- Alabama-
Florida areas, which therefore had reduced cash income from
peanuts. As a result of the last two factors, on farms where both
peanuts and cotton were grown, a number of farms were classified
as cotton farms in the 1954 Census whereas they may have been
classified as peanut farms in 1950.
The production of peanuts on the specialized farms in the three
subregions summarized was 395 million pounds in 1954 (see Table
35). This amount was only 61 percent of the total production
on all commercial farms in these areas. For the United States,
the production on these farms was 46 percent of the production
on all commercial farms and 45 percent of the total production
in that year.
Peanuts are one of the minor cash enterjirises from the stand-
point of the agriculture of the United States as a whole. A large
share of the production is on commercial farms that are not clas-
sified as specialized peanut farms. The proportion of the total
agricultural resources used by specialized peanut producers is
small. In 1954, of the total for all commercial farms specialized
" Freund, Rudolf, •■Wli,<it is Wrong With Ihc Peanut Market," unpublished nuiuuseript, Xoi Ih Caioliim Apicultunil E.xperlmont Station.
TOBACCO AND PEANUT PRODUCERS AND PRODUCTION
45
Table 35. — Number of Farms and Resources for all Commercial Farms and Other Field-Crop Farms in the
United States and in Selected Peanut Subregions: 1954
Item
Total farms -- number-.
All land in tfirms thousand aores..
Total cropland ._ do
Production of peanuts million poimds..
Peanuts sold million dollars..
Othcr crops sold.. do
All livestock and livestock products sold do
Forestry products sold do
All farm products sold do
Total capital do
Man-equivalent of labor number. .
United States
AH com-
mercial
farms
3. 327, 889
l,032,4y3
431, 58.";
S.52
nil]
11, Mr,
12, 223
120
24, 299
110,545
4, 891, 935
Other field-
crop farms
367. 733
.33, ti85
17, 5S3
499
l,40fi
129
4
1,597
4,986
656, 898
Total selected regions
All com-
mercial
farms
88,892
21, 574
7, .WO
lli2
143
387
1.786
127,012
Other field-
crop farms
24, 710
2,895
1,428
395
48
.12
(Z)
318
37, 232
Subrepion 21 (Virginia-
North Carolina)
All com-
mercial
farms
21.912
2. 336
9153
310
40
.52
18
1
111
349
34, 320
Other field,
crop farms
15, 178
1,262
596
246
32
39
(Z)
206
23, 946
Subregion 41 (Georgia-
Alabama-Florida)
All com-
mercial
farms
42, 852
8,508
3,718
302
32
85
593
59,094
Other field-
crop farms
8,138
1,337
687
129
13
13
(Z)
29
90
11,406
Subregion 96 (Oklahoma-
Texas)
All com-
mercial
farms
24,128
111, 730
2,819
39
5
25
(Z)
844
33, 598
Other field-
crop farms
1,394
296
145
(Z)
20
3
22
1,880
Z Less than 0.5.
Table 36. — Proportion That Number of Farms, Resources Used, and Gross Sales on Commercial Farms in Specified Peanut
Areas Were of the Total for All Commercial Farms in the United States: 1954
Item
Number of
farms
All land
in farms
(thousand
acres)
Acres of
cropland
(thousands)
Total capital
invested
(million
dollars)
Man-equiva-
lent of labor
(number)
All farm
products
sold (million
dollars)
Peanuts
sold (million
dollars)
Production
of peanuts
(million
pounds)
3,327,889
1, 032, 493
431, 685
110,546
4, 891, 936
24,299
100
852
United States;
.\11 commercial farms
Other field-crop farms. . -
Other commercial farms.
Total, three areas:
.\1I commercial farms
Other field-crop farms
Other commercial farms..
\'ii-ginia-North Carolina (subregion 21):
All commercial farms
Other field-crop farms
Other conmiercial farms
Oeorgia-Alabama-Florida (subregion 41);
All commercial farms
Other field-crop farms
Other commercial farms
Oklahoma-Texa^ (subregion 96);
All commercial farms
Other field-crop farms _.
Other commercial farms
Percent of United States total
100.0
11.1
88.9
.7
2.1
1.4
.2
1.2
100.0
3.3
96.7
2.0
.2
1.8
CZ)
(Z)
1.0
1.0
100. 0
4.1
95 9
1.8
.3
1.6
100.0
4.5
96.5
1.6
.3
1.3
(Z)
(Z)
17)
00.0
11.4
88.6
2.6
.7
1.9
'.5
.2
1.2
.2
LO
.7
■M
100. 0
6. 6
93.4
1.7
.4
1.3
(Z)
1110. 0
.58.3
41.7
76.9
48.0
28.9
40.2
31.9
8.3
31.7
13.6
18.2
5.0
2.6
2.4
1110. 0
.58. 6
41.4
76.4
46.3
30.1
36.4
28.9
7 6
35 4
15 1
20.3
4.0
2.3
2.3
Z 0.06 percent or less.
peanut farms in the areas summarized used 0.7 jjercent of all
labor resources, 0.3 percent of the total capital emijloyed, and 0.3
percent of the cropland (see Table 36). They had OA percent
of the gross farm income.
Table 37 gives a comparison on a per-farm basis of .specialized
peanut farms with all commercial farms in the United States
and other commercial farms in the peanut areas. iSpecialized
peanut farms are operated fairly intensively. They have less
cropland per farm, emj^loy less capital and have a smaller gross
Income than all commercial farms in the United States. How-
ever, the amount of labor per farm is about the same as on all
commercial farms.
There are distinct differences in specialized peanut farms in
the three production areas. Farms in the Virginia-Xorth Caro-
lina area have the smallest number of acres of cropland but they
have higher average receipts from the sale of peanuts and also
a higher gross income than farms in the other two areas. From
the standpoint of acres of cropland, average capital and gross
receipts, specialized peanut farms in the Virginia-North Carolina
and the Georgia-Alabama-Florida area do not vary too much
from other commercial farms. In the Oklahoma-Texas area,
other commercial farms operated about 30 percent more cropland,
T.'vble 37. — Number of Commercial Farms and Specified
Characteristics Per Farm for the United States and for
Selected Peanut Subregions: 1954
United
States,
all com-
mercial
farms
Subregiou 21
(Virginia-
North
Carolina)
Subregion 41
(Georgia-
Alabama-
Florida)
Subregion 90
(Oklahoma-
Texas)
Item
Other
field-
crop
farms
Other
com-
mer-
cial
farms
Other
field-
crop
farms
Other
com-
mer-
cial
farms
Other
field-
crop
farms
Other
com-
mer-
cial
farms
Number of farms.
3, 327, 889
16,178 6,734
8,138
34,714
1,394
22, 734
Specified characteristics per farm
Land in farms acres..
Total cropland acres..
.\11 farm products sold dollars..
Peanuts sold .dollars . .
Man-equivalent of labor, number..
Investment in—
Land and buildings dollars..
Livestock dollars..
Machinery dollars. .
310
130
7, 302
30
1.47
25,437
3, 1.54
4,291
83
39
5,101
2,090
1.58
8,168
716
2,113
160
56
4,950
1,234
1.54
10, 660
1,622
2,748
164
84
3, 647
1,654
1.40
6,121
841
2, 064
206
89
3,789
526
1.67
7,561
1,298
2,160
213
104
2,700
1,839
1,36
9,906
1,046
3, 496
469
1.30
4,941
106
1,40
23,901
3,326
4,030
Total dollars.-
32,882
10, 997
14,830
9,026
11,019
14,446
31, 263
46
FARMERS AND FARM PRODUCTION
Table 38. — Number of Commercial Farms in the United
States and Distribution of Other Field-Crop Farms in
Specified Peanut Subregions, by Economic Class of Farm:
1954
Number
ol farms
Percent distribution of farms by
economic class
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
United States, all commercial
3, 327, 889
15.178
8,138
1,394
4.0
.3
.7
.4
13. 5
e. 7
4.4
i.e
21.2
2S. 3
16.4
9.0
24.4
39.0
33.9
23.3
22.9
IS.S
30.7
40.6
14.0
Virginia-North Carolina (subre-
6.3
Georgia- Alabama-Florida (subrc-
13.9
Oklahoma-Texas (subregion 96) _ _ .
25.1
Total 3 areas -
24, 710
.5
5.6
23.3
36.8
23.9
9.9
had more than twice the capital investment and received ahnost
twice the gross income in 1954 as speciahzcd peanut farms.
Grcss income on peanut farms in this area in 1954 was probably
lower than normal Ijecause of the very low yield of peanuts.
Distribution of Number and Selected Resources by Economic
Class of Farm
From the standpoint of distribution of income, a smaller pro-
portion of the specialized peanut farms than for all commercial
farms fall in the higher income group in the United States. In
1954, only 0.5 percent of the peanut farms were in Economic
Class I compared with 4 percent for all commercial farms in the
United States (see Table 38). However, only 10 percent of the
peanut farms were in Economic Class VI compared with 14 percent
for all commercial farms. As indicated previously, the proportion
of farms in the Oklahoma-Texas area in Economic Class VI in
1954 was probably higher than normal because of the low peanut
yield there.
Table 39 shows how selected resources of specialized peanut
Table 39. — Selected Resources on Other Field-Crop Farms
in Specified Peanut Subregions and Distribution Among
Various Economic Classes of Farms: 1954
Item
Number of farms
All land in farms
Acres of cropland .-
Production of peanuts-.
Gross sales
Total capital
Man-equivalent of
labor.
Number of farms . _
-inland in farms
.\cres of cropland
Production of peanuts..
Gross sales
Total capital
Man-equivalent of
labor.
Number of farms
All land in farms
Acres of cropland
Production of peanuts..
Gross sales
Total capital
Man-equivalent of
labor.
All farms
Unit
Total I
Percent of total in various
economic classes of farms
II III IV
VI
Virginia-North Carolina (subregion 21)
Number..
Thousand acres . - .
Thousand
Million itounds...
Thousniid .1. .liars.
Millioii dollars-.,.
Number
15,178
0.3
6.7
28.3
39.6
18.8
1,262
2.7
17.7
33, 4
31.9
11.4
596
2.2
18.3
35. 0
31.4
1(1.9
246
2.0
22.0
36. 2
29.8
8.6
77, 424
2.1
18.4
39.8
;ii.o
7.6
206
2.3
1H.2
36. 3
30. K
9.9
23, 946
.8
10.4
32.2
37.3
14.9
6.3
2.9
2.2
1.4
I.l
2.8
4.4
Georgia--Vlabama- Florida (subregion 41)
Number
Thousand acres...
Thousand
Million pounds...
Thousand dollars.
Million dollars —
Number
8,138
1,337
687
129
28, 869
90
11,406
0.7
7.1
5.4
6.3
6.6
6.5
5.4
4.4
16.2
16.4
19.7
16.9
14.5
9.3
16.4
22.2
23.4
26.5
28.0
25.0
19.6
33.9
28.7
30.0
28.8
30.9
31.2
31.6
30.7
18.0
19.3
16.3
14.8
17.4
24.6
13.9
7.8
6.6
3.4
2.8
5.4
9.8
Oklahoma-Texas (subregion 96)
Number
Thousand acres. . .
Thousand
Million pounds...
Thousand dollars.
Million dollars
Number.
1,394
296
146
20
3,764
22
l,f
0.4
.7
.7
4.8
4.3
1.0
1.6
4.4
3.3
8.2
7.7
4.3
2.0
9.0
14.9
16.5
22.0
22.5
17.2
10.2
23.3
27.7
31.0
28.3
30.5
28.8
24.0
40.6
36.8
34.3
27.8
27.0
34.3
38.1
25.1
15.5
14.1
8.3
8.0
14.4
24.9
farms are distributed among the various economic classes of
farms. Farms in Classes I and II are the larger farms. In
proportion to the number of farms in these classes, they operate
a much larger proportion of the farmland, have more capital,
produce a larger share of the peanuts, and receive a larger propor-
tion of the gross farm income. These farms also have a larger
proportion of the labor supply but the increase in labor is much
less than the difference in production.
In the Virginia-North Carolina area, 7 percent of the farms
are in Classes I and II Ijut 24 percent of the peanuts are produced
on these farms; in the Georgia-.^labama-Florida area, 5.1 percent
of the farms that are in Classes I and II produce 25 percent of the
peanuts; and in the Oklahon^a-Texas area, 23.6 percent of the
peanuts are produced by the 2 percent of the farms that are in
Classes I and II.
Variation in Types of Farming in Specified Peanut Areas
For the three subregions included in this study, only in the
Virginia-North Carolina area was the majority of farms classed
as other field-crop farms (see Table 40). In the Georgia- Alabama-
Florida region, only 19 percent of the commercial farms were
classed as other field-crop farms; 44 percent were classified as
cotton farms. Peanuts are grown extensively only in parts of
the Oklahoma-Texas area. Only 6 percent of the farms in this
area were classified as other field-crop farms compared to 49
percent classified as livestock farms other than poultry or dairy.
Tenure of Operator
Color of operator and percent tenancy is quite different in the
various peanut regions. In the Virginia-North Carolina region
in 1955, only 44 percent of the operators were white and 63 percent
of all operators were classified as tenants. In the Georgia-
Alaboma-Florida region, 02 percent of the operators were wdiite
and 57 percent were tenants. In the one peanut subregion in the
Oklahoma-Texas region for which data were summarized, all
of the operators were white and 38 percent were classified as
tenants.
In the two regions with nonwhite operators, the proportion of
nonwhite increased as gross farm income decreased. In all
regions, there was no consistent relationship between amount
of gross income and farm tenancy.
Table 40. — Number of Commercial Farms and Proportion
of Farms in Various Type Classifications in Specified
Peanut Subregions: 1954
Type of farm
Subregion
21
(Virgmia-
North
Carolina)
Subregion
41
(Georgia-
Alabama-
Florida)
Subregion
96
(Oklahoma-
Texas)
Total, 3
subregions
Number of commercial farms
Percent of commercial farms classi-
fied as:
Field-crop farms, other than
vegetable and fruit-and-nut,
total..
Other field-crop.. —
21,912
78.7
69.3
2.7
6 7
.2
(Z)
.3
.6
7.7
12.0
8.2
.2
3.0
.6
42,862
64.5
19.1
1.3
44. 1
:3
.8
1.2
12.2
19.2
12.7
.1
6.4
1.3
24, 128
20.6
6.8
5.3
9.5
.5
.3
10.6
6.0
48.6
14.0
4.4
1.6
8.1
.4
88,892
56.0
27.8
2.7
Cotton ,
25.6
.4
Fruit-and-nut farms
.2
Daii'y farms...
Poultry farms
Livestock farms other than
dairy or poultry
General farms, total
3.3
2.1
21.0
16.1
9.4
Primarily livestock
.6
6.2
.9
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Z 0.05 percent or less.
TOBACCO AND PEANUT PRODUCERS AND PRODUCTION
47
Production Conditions on Peanut Farms by Economic Class
OF Farm in Selected Peanut Areas
Data are presented on a per-farm basis for some of the important
characteristics of farms producing peanuts. It should be l<ept in
mind that these data are subject to the same limitations as
enumerated for the tobacco subregions on page 22. In these
peanut subregions, there probably was more overlapping of crops
included in the other field-crop classifications than was true for
the tobacco subregions. As a result, the proportion of other field-
crop farms that are specialized peanut farms may be lower for the
peanut subregions than the proportion of such farms that were
specialized tobacco farms in the tobacco subregions.
Table 41. — Color and Tenure of Farm Operators on Other
Field-Crop Farms in Specified Peanut Subregions, by
Economic Class of Farm: 1954
Ifrm
Total number of operators-
Percent of operators:
White...
Nonwhlte
Owners, part owners, or managers.
Croppers
Other tenants
Total number of operators..
Percent of operators:
White
Nonwhite
Owners, part owners, or managers.
Croppers
Other tenants
Total number of operators..
Percent of operators:
White
Nonwhite
Owners, part owners, or managers-
Croppers
Other tenants
All
farms
Economic class of farm
II III
IV
VI
Virginia-North Carolina (subregion 21)
15,178 62 1,011 4,296 6,003 2,855 961
56
26
18
Georgia-Alabama-Florida (subregion 41)
8,138
67
359
1,339
2,758
2,497
62
100
93
82
64
60
38
7
18
36
60
43
100
76
48
36
39
31
8
27
36
32
26
16
25
28
28
1,128
47
53
44
29
27
Oklahoma-Texas (subregion 96)
1,394
100
6
100
22
100
126
100
325
100
665
100
3.50
100
69
1
40
Size of farm. — The average size of other field-crop farms was 83
acres in the Virginia-North Carolina peanut area (see Table 42).
This was about half the size of similar farms in the Georgia-
Alabama-Florida area and only 40 percent of the average size in
the Oklahoma-Texas area. In each area approximately half of
the total acres was in cropland. Both total acres and crop acres
increased as the amount of gross farm income increased. The
difference between number of crop acres on Classes I and VI farms
was greater in the Virginia-North Carolina area than either of
the other two areas.
Table 42. — Number and Size of Other Field-Crop Farms in
Specified Peanut Subregions, by Economic Class of Farm:
1954
Item
Number of farms
Total acres per farm..
Total crop acres per farm
Percent of total acres In cropland
Number of farms
Total acres per farm
Total crop acres per farm
Percent of total acres in cropland
Number of farms
Total acres per farm.
Total crop acres per farm.
Percent of total acres in cropland
All
farms
Economic class of farm
in
IV
VI
Virginia-North Carolina (subregion 21)
15, 178
62
1,011
4,296
6,003
2,856
83
646
222
98
67
51
39
2.=.5
107
49
31
23
47
39
48
.50
46
45
961
38
14
37
Georgia- Alabama-Florida (subregion 41)
l.'iS
,57
3.59
1,339
2. 7,W
2,497
164
1,601
603
221
139
97
84
6,58
294
121
75
63
61
40
49
55
54
66
1,128
92
40
43
Oklahoma-Texas (subregion 96)
1,394
6
22
126
325
665
213
386
582
351
2,f,2
193
104
180
218
191
139
88
49
47
37
64
55
46
350
132
59
45
Table 43. — Percent Distribution, by Size of Farm, of Other
Field-Crop Farms in Specified Peanut Subregions, by
Economic Class of Farm: 1954
Total acres per farm
Percent distribution for each economic class of
farm
All
farms
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
Virginia-North Carolma (subregion 21)
Under 10 acres
3
26
36
21
10
4
1
2
29
37
21
8
2
1
6
37
34
17
6
1
20
10
10
""io'
'"70"
1
12
26
31
24
6
11
43
27
13
6
1
40
30 to 69 acres
29
140 to 269 acres
;j
•1
600 acres and over
(Z)
Total . .
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Georgia-Alabama-Florida (subregion 41)
2
10
31
26
17
9
6
(Z)
"is'
31
28
17
6
(Z)
6
35
31
16
9
4
2
16
40
24
12
5
1
„
......
91
1
1
6
26
29
38
26
30 to 69 acres
30
70 to 139 acres .
19
140 to 259 acres
12
260 to 499 acres
3
3
Total
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Oklahoma-Texas (subregion 96)
1
1
2«4
^2^
3
3
1
9
27
46
15
3
:)
30 to 69 acres
2
9
40
41
2
1(1
4
24
63
9
4)
S3
""u
"'"es"
32
31
260 to 499 acres
9
Total
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Z 0.6 percent or less.
48
FARMERS AND FARM PRODUCTION
Only 15 percent of the farms in the Virginia-North Carolina
area had 140 or more acres and 28 percent had less than 30 acres
(see Table 43). In the Georgia- Alabama- Florida area, 31 percent
of the farms had 140 or more acres and in the Oklahoma-Texas
area, 68 percent were of this size. In the Oklahoma-Texas area,
40 percent of the Class VI farms had 140 acres or more.
Color, tenure, and age of operator. — The color of the operators
is decidedly different for the several peanut areas. In the Vir-
ginia-North Carolina area, only 44 percent of the operators are
white compared with 62 percent in the Georgia-Alabama-Florida
area and 100 percent in the Oklahoma-Texas area (see Table 44).
In the two areas with nonwhite operators, the proportion that
was nonwhite increased as the size of farm decreased. In the
Virginia-North Carolina area, 19 percent of the operators of Class I
farms were nonwhite.
Percent tenancy is high in all of the peanut areas but it is higher
for nonwhite operators than for white operators. In the Vir-
ginia-North Carolina area in 1954 only 48 percent of the white
Table 44. — Color and Tenure of Operators of Other
Field-Crop Farms in Specified Peanut Subregions, by
Economic Class of Farm: 1954
Item
All
farms
Economic class of farm
1
II
III
IV
V
VI
Virginia -North Carolina (subregion 21)
1.5, 178
44
56
52
81
19
1,011
85
16
4,296
60
60
6,003
40
60
2,855
32
68
961
Percent of operators:
White ---
25
Nonwhite
75
Total
100
48
23
29
100
81
14
5
100
65
14
31
100
39
29
32
100
44
28
28
100
66
9
25
100
Percent of white operators:
Owners, part owners, or managers.
71
15
Other tenants ._ -.
14
Total . -
100
29
49
22
100
60
"50
100
38
32
30
100
19
60
21
100
25
64
21
100
38
38
24
100
Percent of nonwhite operators:
Owners, part owners, or managers.
Croppers -
51
30
19
Total
100
100
100
100
100
100
Georgia-Alabama-Florida (subregion 4!)
8,138
62
38
57
100
359
93
7
1,339
82
18
2,768
64
36
2,497
50
50
Percent of operators:
White ..
47
Total
100
57
19
24
100
100
100
80
5
15
100
58
18
24
100
50
21
29
100
.18
20
22
Percent of white operators:
Owners, part owners, or managers.
59
Other tenants
23
Total-
100
18
51
31
100
100
19
58
23
100
3
70
27
100
12
63
26
100
20
46
35
Percent of nonwhite operators:
Owners, part owners, or managers.
30
39
other tenants
31
Total
100
100
100
100
100
100
Oklahoma-Texas (subregion 96)
1,394
100
6
100
22
100
126
100
325
100
565
100
Percent of operators:
White ....
100
Nonwhite ..
Total
100
62
1
37
100
17
100
77
100
72
100
74
100
54
3
43
Percent of white operators;
Owners
59
Croppers
1
Other tenants
83
23
28
26
40
Total
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
and 29 percent of the nonwhite operators were owners, part
owners, or managers. This compared with 57 and 18 percent for
these two groups, respectively, in the Georgia- Alabama- Florida
area. In the Oklahoma-Texas area 62 percent of the operators
were owners, part owners, or managers. There was little relation
between tenure status and economic class of farm in any of the
areas.
Table 45 shows the proportion of operators in various age groups.
The distribution of age of operator was about the same for the
three areas, except that in the Oklahoma-Texas area there were
proportionately fewer operators in the under 25-year group and
more in the 55-to-64-year group. In each area more of the oper-
ators of Class VI farms were in the higher age groups.
Land use. — Approximately 50 percent of the total farm acreage
in each of the peanut areas is in cropland (see Table 46). Farms
in the Virginia-North Carolina area are likely to have only a small
acreage in pasture. In the Georgia-Alabama-Florida area about
one-tenth of the cropland is in cropland pastured; slightly more
than one-fifth of the total laud is in woodland pastured but there
is very little other pastureland. In the Oklahoma-Texas area
about 16 percent of the cropland is in cropland pastured and 23
percent of the total land in each of woodland pastured and other
pasture. The general land-use pattern in each of the areas was
approximately the same on the various classes of farms.
From the standpoint of crops grown, peanut farms in each of
the subregions are diversified (see Table 47). In both the Vir-
ginia-North Carolina and the Georgia- Alabama-Florida areas, corn
occupies the largest acreage of cropland. Cotton is important in
each of the areas. Toljacco is grown on some farms in both the
Virginia-North Carolina and the Georgia- Alabama-Florida areas.
About one-fourth of the cropland harvested in these two areas
Table 45. — Distribution of Farm Operators by Age, on
Other Field-Crop Farms in Specified Peanut Subregions,
by Economic Class of Farm: 1954
Age of operator
Number of operators reporting age
Percent reporting:
Under 25 years
25 to 34 years
35 to 44 years
45 to 64 years
55 to 64 years
65 years and over
Total
Number of operators reporting age
Percent reporting:
Under 26 years
25 to 34 years
35 to 44 years
45 to 54 years...
.W to 64 years
65 years and over -..
Total
Number of operators reportUig age
Percent reporting:
Under 25 years
26 to 34 years
36 to 44 years
45 to 54 years
65 to 64 years
65 years and over..
Total
AU
farms
Economic class of farm
II III IV
VI
Virginia-North Carolina (subregion 21)
14,822 47 985 4,196 5,883 2,780
100
100
100
100
7
12
20
17
20
24
100
Georgia-Alabama-Florida (subregion 41)
845 56 338 1,313 2,653 2,407 1,078
4
19
21
29
38
26
18
15
23
7
100
100
6
10
19
22
22
21
100
Oklahoma-Texas (subregion 96)
1,364
100
22 121 315 655 345
100
100
1
9
22
26
32
10
TOBACCO AND PEANUT PRODUCERS AND PRODUCTION
49
Table 46. — Average Acreage per Farm for Specified Uses
OF Land on Other Field-Crop Farms in Specified Peanut
Subregions, by Economic Class of Farm: 1954
Use o( land
Croplau'l harvested -
Cropland pastured --
Cropland not harvested and not
pastured -
Total cropland -
Woodland pastured
Woodland not pastured
Improved pasture
Not Improved pasture.-
Other land --
Total - ---
Cropland harvested
Cropland pastured
Cropland not harvested and not
pastured
Total cropland -.
Woodland pastured
Woodland not pastured
Improved pasture
Not improved pasture
Other laud
Total
Cropland harvested
Cropland pastured .-.
Cropland not harvested and not
pastured
Total cropland
Woodland pastured
Woodland not pastured ..,
Improved pasture
Not improved pasture -
Other land
Total
Average acres per farm by economic class of
farm
AU
farms
ni
IV
VI
Virginia-North Carolina {subreglon 21)
35.!
l.i
4.0
36.4
1.0
1.9
83.1
217.2
27.4
10.7
2.'i5. 3
30.8
324.1
11.2
9.7
14.9
646.0
96.9
8.4
107.4
12.2
93.7
2.1
2.4
4.1
221.11
44.9
2.1
48.6
5.0
40.7
0.8
1.2
1.7
1.0
28.8
1.2
1.1
31.1
2.8
30.4
.4
.5
1.7
66.9
20.4
1.0
1.4
22.8
2.3
22.8
.3
.9
1.4
12.0
.5
1.7
IM.4
.2
2
3^0
50. 5 38. 2
Georgla-Alabama-Florlda (subreglon 41)
66.1
8.0
84.4
29.3
39.5
3.3
4.9
2.8
497.8
85.6
74.3
657.6
268. 2
566. 9
108.8
38.3
21.1
214. G
42.5
294.0
122.2
143.2
20.6
16.1
7.0
164.2 1,660.9 603.1 221.1 139.2
95.5
12.6
12.5
120.6
37.9
43.7
4.7
10.1
4.1
61.7
5.9
74.6
2.5.4
31.3
1.0
3.8
2.5
42.0
3.7
26.2
2.2
52.8
15.6
24.0
.7
2.0
1.6
39.7
17.6
29.7
.6
2.4
2.2
92.0
Oklahoma-Texas (subreglon i
78.6
15.8
104.3
48.4
4.9
3.1
45.6
6.3
212.6
161.8
18.3
180.1
62.5
2.0
385.8
7.5
294.6
7.5
151.3
27.7
190.5
4.6
3.1
44.2
11.9
582.4 351.2
104.9
20.6
138.7
44.9
10.9
3.4
47.1
7.1
65.7
13.1
9.6
51.6
2.0
3.9
41.3
5.8
252.1 193.0 131.6
41.1
9.7
7.8
58.6
29.4
2.3
1.4
35.5
4.4
was in peanuts but slightly more than 40 percent of tlie cropland
harvested in the Oklahoma-Texas area was used for peanuts. The
proportion of cropland devoted to this crop in the Oklahoma-
Texas area is probably at a maximum if soil fertility is to be
maintained.
Cropping systems vary somewhat for farms in the different
economic classes. In the Virginia-North Carolina area more soy-
beans are grown on the larger farms. In the Georgia-.Mabama-
Florida area, the quantity of small grain increased as size of farm
increased. In the Oklahoma-Texas area, cotton was more impor-
tant on the larger farms.
Variation in acres of peanuts j^er farm is shown in Table 48.
In the Virginia-North Carolina area, 17 percent of the farms had
less than 5 acres in peanuts and only 7 percent had more than 25
acres. In the Georgia-Alabama-Florida area, 5 percent of the
farms had less than 5 acres but 30 percent had more than 25 acres.
In the Oklahoma-Texas area only 1 percent of the farms had less
than 5 acres and 70 percent had more than 25 acres. In each
area, the proportion of farms in the groups of larger acreage in-
creased as the gross income from the farms increased.
Livestock. — The number of livestock on farms vary considerably
by peanut areas. In all areas milk cows are kept mainly to supply
milk for home use. Only 29 percent of the farms in the Virginia-
North Carolina and 53 percent in the Georgia-Alabama-Florida
Table 47- — Average Acreage of Selected Crops Grown
ON Other Field-Crop Farms in Specified Peanut Sub-
regions, BY Economic Class of Farm: 1954
Crop
Total croplanii harvested
Selected crops:
Peanuts:
nro\oi for all purposes —
Harvested for picking and
threshing
Corn for grain -
Cotton
Tobacco
Small grain for grain
Soybeans for beans
All bays
Total cropland harvested
Selected crops:
Peanuts:
Grown for all purposes
Harvested for picking
threshing..
Corn for grain
Cotton -
Tobacco - -
Small grain for grain _
Soybeans for beans.
All hays
and
Total cropland harvested.. . . . .
Selected crops:
Peanuts:
Grown for all purposes
Harvested for picking
threshing.-
Com for grain...
Cotton
Tobacco
Small grain for grain
Soybeans for beans
All hays
and
All
farms
Average acres per farm by economic
class of farm
II III
IV
VI
Vh-glnla-North Carolina (subreglon 21)
35.9 217.2 96.9 44.9 28.8 20.4 12.0
10.6
10.6
13.8
3.1
2.4
.5
2.6
.4
69.7
59.6
88.8
21.0
6.6
7.1
16.6
8.7
28.9
29.1
37.8
4.8
3.6
3.1
9.4
1.2
12.9
12.9
17.2
4.0
3.6
.4
3.5
.3
8.8
11.0
2.9
2.2
.2
1.7
.3
6.1
7.6
2.3
1.1
.3
1.1
.3
3.3
5.3
1.2
.5
.1
Georgla-Alabama-Florlda (subreglon 41)
66.1 497.8 214.6 96.5 61.7 42.0 26.2
21.9
20.0
25.2
5.7
1.2
2.2
(Z)
.5
148.4
145.2
167.2
20.6
8.3
53.1
.4
15.8
78.0
75.2
70.3
17.7
2.0
15.1
.2
2.7
30. 9
28.1
34.0
8.9
1.9
4.6
(Z)
20.4
18.4
24.2
6.9
1.4
1.0
(Z)
.3
13.5
12.2
17.8
3.6
.7
.4
(Z)
.1
9.0
8.0
12.0
1.7
.3
CZ)
Oklahoma-Texas (subreglon 96)
78.6 161.8 170.7 151.3 104.9 65.7 41.1
43.8
41.6
2.6
6.6
4.6
'2" 7'
56.0
54.3
10.0
50.8
1.3
"25."3"
69.6
.5
23.2
9.5
ie's
89.2
2.6
9.8
13.1
56.3
2.3
9.1
6.6
's.'o'
36.2
33.5
2.3
5.4
3.5
'1^9'
21.6
21.6
3.2
3.3
1.3
"s.'o
Z 0.06 percent or less.
areas reported milk cows (see Table 49). In the Virginia-North
Carolina area there are many hogs on all farms but beef cattle are
found only on the larger farms. The hogs are run on the peanut
fields after the nuts are harvested.
In some parts of the Georgia- Alabama-Florida area it is a com-
mon practice to "hog off" peanuts. Hogs are also grazed on pea-
nut fields. The number of hogs per farm is slightly less than in
the Virginia-North Carolina area and accordingly there are only
about half as many hogs per acre of peanuts. Beef cattle are
more important in the Georgia-Alabama-Florida than in the Vir-
ginia-North Carolina area but not as important as in the Okla-
homa-Texas area. Hogs are not of much consequence on farms
in tlie Oklahoma-Texas area.
The number of livestock in all areas increased as gross farm
income increased but the pattern was similar except the larger
farms had more beef cattle.
Labor used. — The labor force for peanut farms is made up
mostly of the farm family. In the specialized peanut areas, hired
labor was relatively unimportant in 1954 except on the Classes I
and II farms (see Table 50). The amount of unpaid family labor
was less and the amount of hired labor more in the Georgia-Ala-
bama-Florida area than in either of the other two areas. The
number of crop acres per man-equivalent was 25 in the Virginia-
North Carolina area, but it was 77 in the Texas-Oklahoma area.
Total number of man-equivalents of labor per farm increased
as size of farm increased. The increase was due mainly to an in-
crease in hired labor.
50
FARMERS AND FARM PRODUCTION
Table 48. — Distribution of Farms Reporting, by Acres of
Peanuts Harvested, for Other Field-Crop Farms in
Specified Peanut Subregions, by Economic Class of Farm:
1954
Item
All
farms
Economic class of farm
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
Virgmia-North Caroltoa (subregion 21)
Farms reporting peanuts harvested
number..
Percent distribution by acres of pea-
nuts Rrowii alone and harvested
for picliing or threshing:
Under 5 acres
5 to 9 acres
14,517
17
40
36
6
1
(Z)
52
"io
10
11
63
6
996
1
11
32
43
12
1
4,245
5
34
63
8
(Z)
5,768
16
46
38
1
2,615
31
60
19
(Z)
841
68
30
25 to 49 acres
50 to 99 acres.
100 acres and over. .
Total -.
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Georgia-AIabama-Florida (subregion 41)
Farms reporting peanuts harvested
number. .
Percent distribution by acres of pea-
nuts prown alone and harvested
for picking or threshuig:
Under 5 acres. _
5 to 9 acres
7,619
5
19
46
21
7
2
52
......
""25'
73
352
1
6
3
16
44
30
1,280
2
9
31
38
19
1
2,628
4
14
49
29
4
(Z)
2,271
6
21
62
10
1
1,036
12
48
25 to 49 acres
4
100 acres and over. - . ... ... . ..
Total
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Oklahoma-Texas (subregion 96)
Farms reporting peanuts harvested
number..
Percent distribution by acres of pea-
nuts grown alone and harvested
for picking or threshing:
Under 5 acres
l,,'i49
1
7
22
32
31
7
6
22
126
315
,640
1
2
26
45
26
340
1
5 to 9 acres
27
10 to 24 acres..
4
18
32
48
3
26
63
8
40
25 to 49 acres..
50 to 99 acres
17
83
23
45
32
25
7
Total
100
100
100
100
100
100
]0(t
Z 0.5 percent or less.
The time spent in off -farm work varies for farm operators in the
three areas. In the Virginia-North Carolina area, 76 percent of
the operators reported that they did not work off the farm and
the majority of those tliat did, reported less than 100 days. In
the Oklahoma- Texas area, 44 percent of the operators reported
off-farm work. The percentage of operators reporting off-farm
work did not vary much by economic class of farm in the Virginia-
North Carolina area. In both the Georgia-Alabama-Florida and
the Oklahoma-Texas areas, the percentage of operators reporting
off-farm work tended to decrease as the gross farm income
increased.
Farm mechanization and home conveniences. — The level of
mechanization is not very high on peanut farms (see Table 52).
Only about half of the farms in the Virginia-North Carolina and
the Georgia- Alabama- Florida areas reported tractors as compared
with 87 percent in the Oklahoma-Texas area. In all areas the
proportion of farms reporting trucks was less than tractors. The
level of mechanization increased greatly with size of farms —
most of the Class I and II farms reported one or mon^ trucks,
tractors, and grain comV)ines.
In regard to home conveniences, electricity was avaUable to
most all farm families in each area and in each economic class.
The level of other home conveniences was low: 13 percent or less
Table 49. — Average Number of Livestock Per Farm on
Other Field'Crop Farms in Specified Peanut Subregions,
by Economic Class of Farm: 1954
Item
Horses and mules.
Milk cows
Other cattle
All hogs and pigs.
Chickens ._.
Horses and mules.
Milk cows
Other cattle
.-Vll hogs and pigs.
Chickens
Horses and mules.
Milk cows
Other cattle
All hogs and pigs.
Chickens
All farms
Percent
of farms
report-
ing
Average
number
per
farm
Economic class of farm
IV
VI
Virginia
-North Carol
na (subregion 21)
64
1.2
4.1
1.6
1.4
1.1
1.0
29
.5
1.5
.9
.5
.4
.6
(NA)
1.4
28.5
7.4
1.6
.7
.6
77
16.4
102. 7
61.8
20.4
12.3
8.9
77
26.9
56.1
42.9
30.7
25.5
20.8
0.9
.2
.3
5.1
17.9
Georgia-
Alabama-Florida (subregion 41)
55
1.0
5.6
1.7
1.0
1.0
1.0
53
1.2
2.5
1.3
1.6
1.6
1.0
(NA)
7.3
129.1
36.1
10.6
6.3
3.1
72
14.8
52.0
40.4
25.2
14.6
9.3
78
25.4
231.8
40.3
42.6
22.9
16.7
0.9
.7
2.1
6.6
15.1
Oklahoma-Texas (subregion 96
30
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.6
74
2.2
1.2
2.1
2.7
2.5
1.9
(NA)
11.0
36.3
66.7
23.9
13.4
8.5
60
4.0
1.7
6.4
11.7
4.2
3.5
84
48.5
266.7
313.9
53.1
49.6
47.4
0.8
2.0
5.1
1.8
27.2
NA Not available.
of all farms reported telephones, 28 percent or less reported tele-
vision .sets, and 24 percent or less reported home freezers. In the
Oklahoma- Texas area 57 percent reported luped running water as
compared with only 32 percent in the Virginia-North Carolina
area.
The level of home conveniences increased with the economic
class of the farm. Farms in the low-income groups did not have
enough income to meet the necessities of life and to provide home
conveniences as well.
Fertilizer was reported as being used on 97 percent of the farms
in each of the Virginia-North Carolina and the Georgia-Alabama-
Florida areas but on only 76 percent of the farms in the Oklahoma-
Texas area (see Table 53). The average amount of fertilizer
Table 50. — Source of Labor on Other Field-Crop Farms in
Specified Peanut Subregions, by Economic Class of Farm:
1954
Item
Man-equivalent per farm:
Operator
Unpaid family labor
Hired labor
Total
Man-equivalent per farm:
Operator
Unpaid family labor
Hired labor
Total
ManHMjuivalent per farm:
Operator
Unpaid family labor —
Hired labor
Total- -
All
farms
Economic class of farm
II III IV
VI
Virginia-North Carolina (subregion 21 )
0.89
.44
.25
1.58
0.77
.52
2.31
0.91
.33
1.24
0.93
.56
.31
0.91
.43
.16
0.83
.34
.08
3.60
2.48
1.80
1.49
1.25
0.84
.23
.03
1.10
Georgia-Alabama-Florida (subregion 41)
0.88
.17
.35
0.90
.19
9.60
0.93
.07
1.97
0.90
.21
.55
LC6
0.91
.19
.20
1.30
o.a';
.17
.10
1.12
0.86
.09
.04
Oklahoma-Texas (subregion 96)
0.86
.43
.06
1.36
1.00
.60
1.00
0.96
.45
.33
0.89
.46
.18
0.86
.44
.08
0.81
.43
.03
2.60
1.73
1..62
1.38
1.27
TOBACCO AND PEANUT PRODUCERS AND PRODUCTION
51
Table 51. — Work Off Farms by Farm Operators of Other
Field-Crop Farms in Specified Peanut Subregions, by
Economic Class of Farm: 1954
Item
All
farms
Percent of operators reporting for each
economic class of farm
I
11
III
IV
V
VI
Virginia-North Carolina (subregion 21)
Days of work off farm :
76
18
2
3
1
69
10
" io"
11
85
9
1
5
79
19
1
1
78
18
2
2
66
20
6
7
1
75
1 lo 99 days
100 to 199 days
25
Total . .
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Oeorgia-Alabama-Florlda (subregion 41)
Days of work off farm;
70
23
3
4
83
6
"12"
79
14
2
6
73
20
3
4
72
22
2
4
64
27
6
4
75
1 to 99 days
100 to 199 days
25
200 days or nioro ..
Total -
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Oklahoma-Texas (subregion 96)
Days of work oB farm:
None - . -
66
34
6
4
100
73
22
6
66
40
57
31
8
4
64
30
9
7
57
43
100 to 199 days
200 days or more
Total
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
used per acre on crops on which applied was 640 pounds in the
Virginia-North Carolina area, 380 pounds in the Georgia- Alabama-
Florida area, but only 120 pounds in the Oklahoma- Texas area.
Practically no liming material was used on farms in the Oklahoma-
Texas area. In the Virginia-North Carolina area, lime was re-
ported as being used on 20 percent of the farms and on 10 percent
of the farms in the Georgia-Alabama-Florida area.
Table 52. — Specified Facilities and Equipment for Farms
and Homes on Other Field-Crop Farms in Specified Peanut
Subregions, by Economic Class of Farm: 1954
Item
All
farms
Economic class of farm
I
11
III
IV
V
VI
Virginia-North Carolina (subregion 21)
Number per farm:
0.8
0.3
0.7
0.1
68
32
52
6
10
91
as
32
24
1.8
1.2
3.6
0.6
88
60
79
50
58
100
73
65
63
1.2
0.8
1.9
0 3
88
71
89
26
38
99
65
75
60
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.1
76
38
63
8
11
96
33
38
28
0.7
0.3
0.6
(Z)
66
28
48
3
7
91
24
28
21
0.6
0 3
0 5
(Z)
57
25
40
4
6
85
18
21
16
0. 5
Motortrucks . _ _
0. 2
Tractors
0 3
(Z)
Percent of farms reporting:
48
Motortrucks
Tractors
15
24
(Z)
Telephone _._ _.-__
5
76
Television .. .^,.,___
12
12
Home freezer - _ _
9
Georgia-Alabama-Florida (subregion 41)
Number per farm:
.\ntoraobiIcs
Motortrucks '..
Tractors _ .__..-
0.6
0.5
0.7
0.1
52
48
49
6
10
86
8
45
20
3.2
3,7
4.8
0.8
96
96
100
74
63
100
19
100
61
1.2
1.3
2.3
0 4
81
90
91
34
34
100
34
88
55
0.7
0.8
1.1
O.I
63
70
75
10
12
97
9
69
32
0.6
0.5
0.7
0.1
52
50
55
5
11
91
9
46
21
0 5
0.4
0.4
(Z)
50
37
37
1
6
77
5
33
14
0.3
0.3
0.2
Grain combines
Percent of farms reporting:
Automobiles
Motortrucks
(Z)
33
27
18
1
Telephone
4
Electricity
Television ^ _
74
3
Piped running water _..
Jlorni' freezer
26
8
Table 52. — Specified Facilities and Equipment for Farms
and Homes on Other Field-Crop Farms in Specified Peanut
Subregions, by Economic Class of Farm: 1954 — Continued
Item
All
farms
Economic class of farm
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
Oklahoma-Texas (subregion 96)
Number per farm:
Automobiles.-
0.7
0.5
1. 1
0.3
66
49
87
27
13
94
16
57
17
1.0
1.0
2.2
0.8
100
100
100
83
""ioo'
17
— jj-
0.3
0.8
1.6
0 3
27
77
100
32
9
77
__»
32
0 8
0 9
1.7
0.8
72
80
100
68
24
92
44
84
28
0.7
0.7
1.3
0 5
66
68
100
46
10
95
14
71
25
0.7
0.4
1.0
0.2
70
39
88
18
12
96
14
64
13
0.6
0.3
Tractors
0.7
0.1
Percent of farms reporting:
59
Motortrucks - -- - -
34
67
Grain combines _ -
7
14
Electricity
Television
90
10
23
Home freezer
10
Z 0.05 percent or less.
Table 53. — Use of Commercial Fertilizer and Liming Ma'
TERIALS ON OtHER FiELD-CrOP FaRMS IN SPECIFIED PeANUT
Subregions, by Economic Class of Farm: 1954
Fertilizer and fertilizing materials:
Percent of farms using
Tons per farm reporting
Acres on which applied per farm
Pounds used per acre--.
Lime and liming materials:
Percent nf farms using
Tons per farm re|iorting
Acres on wliieh apijlietl per farm
Pounds used per acre
Fertilizer and fertilizing materials:
Percent of farms using
Tons per farm reporting
Acres on which applied per farm
Pounds used per acre-
Lime and liming materials:
Percent of farms using...
Tons per farm reporting
Acres on which applied per farm
Pounds used per acre
Fertilizer and fertilizing materials:
Percent of farms using
Tons per farm reporting
Acres on which applied per farm.
Pounds used per acre -
Lime and liming materials:
Percent of farms using
Tons per farm reporting
Acrcson which applied per farm..
Pounds used per acre
All
farms
Economic class of farm
II III IV
V VI
Virginia-North Carolina (subregion 21)
97
98
97
98
10
64
31
13
32
214
87
39
640
600
720
640
10
21
21
17
6
41
17
7
11
69
20
13
1,158
1,184
1,706
1,062
25
620
985
95
6
18
600
l.i
4
7
1,199
96
3
11
560
14
2
5
886
Oeorgia-Alabama-FIorida (subregion 41)
97
100
97
97
97
97
13
123
42
20
12
7
67
543
208
100
61
42
388
455
400
410
389
337
10
37
23
22
9
6
18
83
33
19
12
10
28
135
47
27
20
17
1,308
1,238
1,391
1,406
1,190
1,175
96
5
26
363
2
16
21
1, 4.58
Okalahoma-Texas (subregion 96)
76
4
68
124
1
100
6
108
108
77
9
137
124
88
7
132
114
91
6
82
123
2
25
24
2,083
76
3
55
124
1
2
20
200
14
22
1,227
57
33
146
Capital investment. — Tlie average capital investment of special-
ized peanut farms is low compared to many types of commercial
agriculture in the United States. Farms in the Oklahoma-Texas
area with an investment of $16,262 had the highest investment;
farms in the Georgia- Alabama-Florida area with an investment of
$10,290 was the lowest (see Table 55). In eacli area, 70 percent
or more of the total investment was in land and buildings. In
the Virginia-North Carohna area about 16 percent of the invest-
ment was in machinery compared to about 20 percent in tlie other
two areas.
52
FARMERS AND FARM PRODUCTION
Table 54. — Capital Investment on Other Field-Crop Farms
IN Specified Peanut Subregions, by Economic Class of
Farm: 1954
Item
All
farms
Economic class of farm
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
Virginia-North Carolina (subregion 21)
Investment per farm
(dollars):
Land and buildings
9,962
716
2,113
68,702
5.498
9,288
27,797
2,159
6,081
13, 000
859
2,512
7,803
639
1,767
5,003
426
1,466
3,805
Machinery
904
Total
12. 791
83, 488
35, 037
16,371
10, 169
6,894
4, 983
Georgia- Alabama-Florida (subregion 41)
Investment per farm
(dollars):
Land and buildings
Livestock
Machinery
7,385
841
2.064
85, 371
8,195
14, 336
25,403
2,937
6,156
11,133
1,260
2,976
7,249
747
1,995
4,372
483
1,364
3,318
325
780
Total
10, 290
107, 902
34, 496
16, 369
9,991
6,219
4,423
Oklahoma-Texas (subregion 96)
Investment per farm
(dollars) :
Land and buildings
Livestock--
Machinery...
11,721
1,045
3,496
16, 380
2,770
7,929
34, 939
4,384
4,884
22, 162
2,139
6,069
13, 963
1,241
4,477
9.889
831
3.119
6, 312
674
2,105
Total..
16, 262
27,079
44, 207
30, 360
19,681
13, 839
8,991
In uaeh area the amount of the investment increased as amount
of gross sales increased. The average investment on Class II
farms was 5 to 9 times the average investment on Class VI farms.
However, the proportion of the total investment in various cate-
gories of farm capital did not change a great deal as the amount of
capital investment increased. The average investment for farms
in the same economic class varied substantially between the
different peanut areas.
Production expense. — Items of specified farm expenditures for
farms in the peanut areas are given in Table 55. Expenditures
per farm averaged ."FliSOO in the Georgia-Alabama-Florida area
compared with $1,374 in the Virginia-North Carolina area, and
only .$964 in the Oklahoma-Texas area. On a per crop-acre basis,
expenditures of $30.70 in the Virginia-North Carolina area were
almost double the amount in the Georgia- Alabama- Florida area
and more than four times that in the Oklahoma-Texas area.
The main factors accounting for the differences were the amounts
spent for hired labor and for fertilizer and lime.
In each area, the amount of specified expense per crop acre
increased as gross income increased. In the Virginia-North
Carolina area, expenses that showed the largest increase were
hired labor and fertilizer and lime. In the Georgia-Alabama-
Florida area, hired labor, gasoline and oil, and fertilizer and lime
increased as gross income increased. In the Texas-Oklahoma area,
hired labor and gasoline and oil were the expenses that increased
most with the increase in size of farm operation.
Income and Efficiency Levels
Source of farm income, — In both the Virginia-North Carohna
and the Georgia-Alabama-Florida peanut areas, tobacco was
grown on a number of farms. Generally, peanuts were the major
Table 55. — Specified Farm Expenditures on Other Field-
Crop Farms in Specified Peanut Subregions, by Economic
Class of Farm: 1954
Item of expense
All
farms
Economic class of farm
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
Virginia-North Carolina (subregion 21)
Amount per farm (dollars) :
Machine hire.. .
117
366
171
229
482
9
353
3,333
1,361
1,162
3,173
67
200
1,780
631
741
1,407
26
155
451
244
302
615
10
102
215
96
173
373
7
80
110
78
100
253
6
48
60
Feed for livestock and
Gasoline and other petro-
leum fuel and oil
Commercial fertilizer and
fertilizing materials
Lime and liming mate-
rials...
48
131
Total.... .
1,374
2.97
9.33
6.84
12.51
9,449
1.38
13.06
4.65
12.69
4,785
1.86
16.67
6.90
13.33
1.777
3.19
9.27
6,21
12.86
966
3.27
6.90
5.57
12.22
627
3.50
4.84
4.38
11.36
326
Amotmt per crop acre
(dollars):
Machine hire.. .
3 47
Gasoline and other petro-
leum fuel and oil
Fertilizer and lime
3.60
9.67
Total
30.65
31.68
38.66
31.53
27.96
24.08
20 25
Georgia- Alabama-Florida (subregion 41)
Amount per farm (dollars):
160
390
135
272
531
12
503
10, 733
1, 916
3,265
6,303
192
305
2,210
526
1,253
1,708
63
274
613
301
461
845
27
161
222
77
226
4S0
7
114
112
65
116
276
4
57
Hired labor .
51
Feed for livestock and
poultry. . .
46
Gasoline' and other petro-
leum fuel and oil
Commercial fertilizer and
fertilizing materials
Lime and liming mate-
rials
65
179
2
Total
1,500
1.89
4.62
3.22
6.43
22, 912
0.76
16.32
4.97
9.88
0,055
1.04
7.62
4.26
6.99
2,511
2.27
5.08
3.74
7.23
1,172
2.16
2.98
3.01
6.53
677
2.16
2.12
2.20
6.31
390
.\mount per crop acre
(dollars):
1.45
1.28
Gasoline and other petro-
leum fuel and oil
Fertilizer and lime
1.38
4.57
Total.. . .
16.16
31.93
18.81
18.32
14.68
11.79
8 6S
Oklahoma-Texas (subregion 96)
Amount per farm (dollars):
179
115
230
271
169
(Z)
964
1.71
1.11
2.59
1.62
""""i,'9i7
1,167
783
323
341
648
1,004
631
439
246
326
540
668
329
232
167
290
359
256
1
173
68
162
228
135
(Z)
106
Hired labor .
37
Feed for livestock and
poultry.. . .
109
Gasoline and other petro-
leum fuel and oil
Commercial fertilizer and
fertilizing materials
Lime and liming mate-
rials
119
65
Total
4,190
'"""ia64
4.35
1.79
2,963
1.57
2.52
2.90
2.02
2,008
1.29
1.71
2.98
1.73
1,296
1.67
1.13
2.58
1.86
756
1.96
.65
2.58
1.63
436
Amount per crop acre
(dollars):
1.80
Hired labor
.63
Gasoline and other petro-
leum fuel and oil
Fertilizer and lime
2.04
1.11
Total
7.03
16.78
9.01
7.71
7.24
6.72
5.58
Z $0.60 or less.
enterprise. But, on a considerable number of these farms tobacco
was more important. These farms were included in the other
field-crop group. In this analysis there was no way to separate
tobacco from peanut farms. Although peanuts were the major
TOBACCO AND PEANUT PRODUCERS AND PRODUCTION
5i
Table 56. — Source of Farm Income of Other Field-Crop
Farms in Specified Peanut Subregions, by Economic Class
OF Farm: 1954
Item
AU
farms
Economic class of farm
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
Virginia-North Carolina (subreglon 21)
Sales per farm (dollars):
2,098
466
1,753
328
21
1
1
12,374
2, 350
9,200
2, 451
102
18
6,932
824
2,966
1,236
110
3
15
2,683
619
2,810
474
25
1
1,680
419
1, 527
213
9
I
(Z)
957
288
589
88
10
1
478
Cotton - --.
125
213
Oilier field crops _ .. .
40
Vi'petables
2
Fruits and nuts
Hi rticultural specialties
4,668
26, 495
12,092
6,612
3,749
1,933
858
4
15
38
362
2
9
39
815
4,005
1
38
240
1,669
6
11
17
38
475
3
1
14
15
207
(Z)
1
8
10
103
1
(Z)
Poultry and poultry producti-
9
4
Ho"s
47
Other livestock and livestock
products
421
4,868
1,953
544
237
123
60
12
190
63
8
8
8
2
Gross sales
6,101
31, 653
14, 098
7,164
3,994
2,064
920
Percent of gross sales from pea-
41
130
39
124
49
131
38
147
40
128
46
90
52
Gross sales per acre of cropland
dollars-
67
Georgia-Alabama-Florida (subregion 41)
Sales per farm (dollars):
1,655
656
563
176
64
9
14,730
3,078
5,346
2,420
730
195
7, 356
2,418
1,116
776
117
31
2,662
1,125
1,021
335
106
12
1,410
659
625
135
61
7
831
338
279
67
25
4
404
Cotton
112
Tobacco
79
Other field crops
26
9
6
Total crops - .
3,113
26,499
11,814
5, 261
2,887
1,544
636
Dairy products
10
23
125
249
1
111
435
4,181
1,046
(Z)
68
671
950
4
6J
166
625
1
24
15
77
215
1
2
5
35
115
(Z)
12
Poultry and poultry products.
Cattle and calves .
Hogs
Other livestock and livestock
52
(Z)
Total livestock
408
5,773
1,683
753
332
157
67
Forest products sold
26
1,268
83
29
15
8
8
Gross sales ...
3,547
33,640
13, 680 6. 043
3.234
1,709
711
Percent of gross sales from pea-
nuts
47
42
44
61
64
46
44
50
44
43
49
32
57
Gross sales per acre of cropland
dollars..
18
Oklahoma-Texas (subregion 96)
Sales per farm (dollars) :
Peanuts
Cotton..
1,838
259
19,819
2,417
9,330
1,267
4,542
553
2,230
409
1,268
153
644
86
Other field crops
Vegetables
88
44
20
2,931
30
59
63
379
75
37
66
109
43
.52
24
10
18
4
6
2,249
Total crops
25, 167
10,749
5.586
2,857
1,507
758
Dairy products
11
69
261
97
13
41
102
551
397
37
16
91
403
136
29
5
68
178
62
1
4
Poultry and poultry products.
250
1,338
50
593
1, 524
183
100
17
Hoes
20
Other livestock and livestock
Total livestock
451
1,638
2,400
1,128
674
294
106
Forest products
2,700
26,805
13, 149
6,714
3,531
1,801
S64
Percent of gross sales from pea-
nuts
Gross sales per acre of cropland
dollars. .
68
26
74
149
71
60
68
35
63
25
70
20
74
15
Z 60 cents or less.
source of income on the majority of farms in these two areas, they
contributed from about 40 to 50 percent of the average gross in-
come on most groups of farms.
In the Virginia-North CaroHna area, average gross sales from
specified products were $5, 101 ; of this amount peanuts contributed
41 percent and tobacco 34 percent (see Table 5G). Only about 8
percent of the gross sales were from livestock or livestock products.
However, the relative importance of livestock increased with the
increase in size of farm. Gross sales per crop acre also increased
with the size of farm; but farms in Class III had the largest gross
sales per acre. On these Class 111 farms, the average income from
tobacco was slightly more than the income from peanuts.
In the Georgia- Alabama-Florida area, average gross sales were
$3,547 per farm or only 70 percent as much as gross sales per farm
in the Virginia-North Carolina area. A little over half of the
gross income on these farms came from peanuts. Tobacco was of
less importance and cotton of more importance in this area than
in the Virginia-North Carolina area. Income from livestock
and livestock products accounted for about 12 percent of the gross
income. The relative importance of hvestock increased with size
of farm. Beef cattle were important mainly on Classes I and II
farms. Gross sales per crop acre increased with size of farm
being only .$18 per acre on Class VI farms and $40 on Class II farms.
Average gross sales per acre in this area were only one-third as
much as in the Virginia-North Carolina area but about 60 percent
more than gross sales per acre in the Oklahoma-Te.xas area.
Farms in the Oklahoma-Texas area were more specialized
than in either of the other two peanut areas. On the average,
peanuts contributed 68 percent of the gross income, cotton 10
percent and livestock 17 percent. Beef cattle were more important
than hogs on peanut farms in this area. The percent of gross
sales from peanuts did not change very much with size of farm.
Gross income above specified expenses. — The amount that
gross income exceeded specified expenses averaged $3,727 per farm
in the Virginia-North Carolina area, $2,047 in the Georgia- Ala-
bama-Florida area, and $1,736 in the Oklahoma- Texas area (see
Table 57). The net above specified expenses increased as the
amount of gross sales increased. It will be noticed that approxi-
mately one-third of the peanut farms classified as V and VI had
incomes above specified expenses averaging under $1,500. For
each economic class of farm, the net above specified expenses was
less in the Georgia-Alabama-Florida area than in either of the
other two areas.
Table 57. — Gross Income of Operator and Family Above
Specified Expenses on Other Field-Crop Farms in Specified
Peanut Subregions, by Economic Class of Farm: 1954
Amount per farm (dollars)
Gross sales.
Specified expenses
Gross sales minus spec-
ified expenses
.Vmount per farm (dollars):
Gross sale^
Specified expenses
Gross sales minus spec-
ified expenses
Amount per farm (dollars) :
Gross sales
Si»ecified expenses
Gross sales minus spec-
ified expenses
AU
farms
Economic class of farm
IV
VI
Virginia-North Carolina (subregion 21)
6, 101
1,374
3,727
31,553
9,449
14, 098
4,785
7,164
1,777
3,994
966
2,064
627
22, 104
9,313
6,387
3,028
1,437
920
326
694
Oeorgia-.\labama-Florida (subregion 41)
3, 647
1,500
2,047
33,640
22,912
13,680
6,056
6,043
2,511
3,234
1,172
1,709
677
10, 628
7,525
3,632
2,062
1,032
711
390
321
Oklahoma-Texas (subregion 96)
2,700
964
1,736
26,805
4,190
22, 616
13,149
2,963
6.714
2,008
3, .531
1,295
2,236
1,801
756
1,046
864
436
54
FARMERS AND FARM PRODUCTION
These data do not measure net income. The specified expendi-
tures do not include any fixed costs, nor all operating costs.
Efficiency levels of farm operation. — Various data on size of
farm, capital investment, amount of labor, gross sales and specified
e.xpenses, although inadequate for a complete analysis, provide
information on the diflferences in efficiency of farm operation for
peanut farms in various areas and also for different size of farms.
Both gross sales and gross sales minus specified expenses per man-
equivalent -were higher in the Virginia-North Carolina area than
in either of the other two peanut areas (see Table 58). There
was not a great deal of difference in investment per man-equivalent
in the Virginia-North Carolina and Georgia-Alabama-Florida
areas; the investment in the Oklahoma-Texas area was about 50
percent more than in either of these two areas.
The investment per crop acre was more than twice as much in
the Virginia-North Carolina area as in either of the other two
areas. On the other hand crop acres per man-equivalent was only
one-third as great in the Virginia-North Carolina area as in the
Oklahoma-Texas area. Average yield of peanuts per acre in the
Virginia-North Carolina area was almost twice the yield in the
Georgia-Alabama-Florida area and more than four times the
yield in the Oklahoma-Texas area. As indicated before, yield of
l^eanuts in the Oklahoma-Texas area was especially low in 1954.
Low yields reduced average income per farm and also the relative
efficiency of farms for this area.
In each of the peanut areas, as the gross farm income increased
the investment per man-equivalent increased. This same rela-
tionship existed for crop acres per man-equivalent. This means
that on the larger farms more capital was associated with a unit
of labor. A unit of labor was also able to handle a larger unit of
Table 58. — Selected Measures of Efficiency on Other Field-
Crop Farms in Specified Peanut Subregions, by Economic
Class of Farm: 1954
Economic class of farm
Item
,\11
farms
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
Virginia-North Carolina (subregion
!1)
816
Gross sales per raan-equivalent- dollars..
3,228
8,765
5. 085
3,980
2, 681
1,661
Net sales per man-eijuivalent.. dollars. .
2,359
6, 140
3, 755
2,993
2,032
1, 149 542
Gross sales per $1 .000 invested dollars. -
404
653
493
mi
452
360 216
Investment per $100 of gross sales
dollars..
216
181
203
198
221
285
464
Total investment per man-equivalent
dollars. .
6, m
15,868
11,553
7, 908
6,951
4,730 3,868
Investment per crop acre dollars. .
280
224
206
292
284
258
311
Crop acres per man-equivalent
25
71
43
27
21
IS
12
Pounds of peanuts per acre
1,521
1,601
1,853
1,599
1,383
1,203
1,097
Georgia-Alabama- Florida (subregion 41)
Qrosssales per iiian-tviuivaleirt.. dollars .
2,534
3, 149
4,588
3,040
2,488
1,512
718
Net sales I MTnian-o< 111 i\al('nt.. dollars. -
1,463
998
2,542
2.128
1,.586
913
324
Gross sales ju') $l.(Hio iiivesled.. dollars..
393
480
518
466
367
303
182
Investment per $100 of gross sales
dollars. -
254
206
193
214
272
330
650
Total investment pel- man-equivalent
dollars..
6,440
6,476
8, 862
7, 805
6, 781
6,005
3,929
Investment per crop acre dollars. .
107
105
89
107
118
108
99
Crop acres per man-equivalent
60
62
99
73
57
47
40
P ounds of peanuts per acre
793
979
944
912
736
650
483
Oklahoma-Texas (subregion 96)
Gross sales per man-equ ivalent .. dollars . .
2,000
10, 722
7,599
4, 416
2, 558
1,418
646
Net sales per man-equivalent.. dollars. .
1,286
9, 046
6, 887
3, 095
1, 620
823
320
Gross sales per $1 000 invested, .dollars. .
Investment per $100 of gross sales
187
1,102
298
242
197
144
116
dollars..
535
91
336
412
609
695
862
Total investment per man-equivalent
dollars- -
10,711
9,740
25, 693
18, 193
12,972
9,871
5,578
Investment per crop acre dollars. .
138
135
203
146
129
142
127
Crop acres per man-equivalent
77
72
126
125
100
70
44
Pounds of peanuts per acre
354
3,013
1,100
413
316
301
226
production. Both labor and capital were used more efficiently
on the larger farms. The capital investment per $100 of sales was
less than half on the large farms as on the small farms. Both
gross sales and net sales per man-equivalent were much greater
on the large farms than on the small farms.
Summary and Problems
Specialized peanut farms vary considerably in volume of busi-
ness and size in the various production areas. There are fewer
small peanut farms than tobacco farms. About 25 percent in
the Virginia-North Carolina region, 45 percent in the Georgia-
Alabama-Florida region, and 66 percent in Oklahoma and Texas
were Classes V and VI farms. These farms had sales of less than
$2,500 in 1954. About 35 percent of the farms in Virginia-North
Carolina were in Classes I, II, and III having sales of over $5,000
in 1954. In Georgia-Alabama-Florida area only 22 percent had
sales of $5,000 or more.
In the Virginia-North Carolina area the average size of farm
in 1954 was 83 acres compared to 164 acres in the Georgia-Ala-
bama-Florida area and 213 acres in the Oklalioma-Texas area.
In each area about half of the total land area was in cropland.
In the Virginia-North Carolina area in 1954, 17 percent of the
farmers had less than 5 acres of peanuts and only 7 percent had
more than 25 acres. In the Georgia-.\labama-Flonda area, 5
percent of the farmers had less than 5 acres, and 30 percent liad
more than 25 acres. In the Oklahoma-Texas area, only 1 percent
of the farmers had less than 5 acres in peanuts, and 70 percent
had more than 25 acres.
Peanut farms are diversified. Although peanuts were the main
source of income on the majority of the farms in the two areas,
they contributed less than 50 percent of the average gross income
on most groups of farms. Peanut farms tend to be operated in-
tensively with a high percentage of the cropland in row crops.
Corn is the most important crop acreage-wise in the Virginia-
North Carolina and the Goorgia-Alabama-Florida areas.
In both the Virginia-North Carolina and Georgia-Alabama-
Florida peanut areas, tobacco was grown on a number of farms.
On some farms, tobacco contributed more than 50 percent of the
gross income so these farms were included in the other field-crop
group. In this analysis there was no way to separate tobacco
from peanut farms in these areas.
Cotton is important in all of the areas. About one-fourth of
the harvested cropland in the Virginia-North Carolina and
Georgia-Alabama-Florida areas is devoted to peanuts compared
to slightly more than 55 percent in the Oklahoma-Texas area.
Hogs are an important enterprise on peanut farms in the
Virginia-North Carolina and Georgia-Alabama-Florida areas, but
not on farms in the Oklahoma-Texas area. Beef cattle are im-
portant on most of the farms in Oklahoma-Texas area. They
tend to be important only on the larger farms in the other two
areas.
With the exception of the larger farms, the labor force on
peanut farms is made up mostly of family labor. The proportion
of operators working off farms varies by areas. Of the peanut
farmers working off the farm the majority worked less than 100
days per year.
Color of operator and percent tenancy also vary by areas. In
the Virginia-North Carolina area in 1955, only 44 percent of the
operators were white and 63 percent of all operators were classified
as tenants. In the Georgia-Alabama-Florida area, 62 percent of
the operators were white and 57 percent were tenants. There
were no nonwhite operators in the one peanut subregion sum-
marized in the Oklahoma-Texas area; 38 percent of the operators
were classified as tenants.
TOBACCO AND PEANUT PRODUCERS AND PRODUCTION
55
The level of living as measured by home conveniences is also
low, electricity is the only home convenience item reported as
available on most of the peanut farms. In the 3 peanut areas,
13 percent or less of the specialized farms reported telephones,
28 percent or less television sets and 24 percent or less home
freezers. Fifty-seven percent of the farmers in the Oklahoma-
Texas area reported piped running water, but only 32 percent in
the Virginia-North Carolina area.
Average gross receipts of peanut farms are not high. Gross
sales from specified products average $5,101 in the Virginia-North
Carolina area of which peanuts contributed 41 percent, tobacco
34 percent and livestock and livestock products 8 percent. Gross
sales in the Georgia-Florida-Alabama area averaged $3,547;
of the total, peanuts contributed 47 percent, cotton 18 percent,
tobacco 16 percent and livestock and livestock products 12 percent.
Farms in the Oklahoma-Texas area were more specialized than in
either of the other two areas. Of the average gross income of
$2,700, peanuts contributed 68 percent, cotton 10 percent and
livestock and livestock products 17 percent.
The level of mechanization is not very high on peanut farms.
For example, only about half of the farms in the Virginia-North
Carolina and Georgia-Alabama-Florida areas reported tractors
and 87 percent in the Oklahoma-Texas area.
The peanut farmer, like other farmers, is faced with the con-
tinuing problem of adjusting to changes in technology. Increases
in mechanization make it possible for one man to operate a larger
acreage, but on some farms it raises difficult problems. Even
though capital is available it is not always possible to acquire
additional land in the amount and place desired. Often it is
difficult for the farmer to accumulate or acquire additional capital.
Thus, many farmers may continue to operate their land with
inefficient equipment because they cannot acquire the most modern
machinery or having the machinery they may operate inefficiently
for the lack of sufficient land. Inadequate knowledge and lack of
capital may also be factors in the slowness of adoption of im-
proved farm practices.
The capital investment on peanut farms is low compared to
many other types of farming in the United States. Ilowevei-, the
average size of farm is increasing and proportionally there has
been a large increase in the amount of capital invested. Table
59 shows Census data for acres per farm and value of land and
buildings for selected counties in the peanut areas for 1940, 1945,
1950, and 1954. During this period the average size of farm
increased from a third to more than double; the value of land and
buildings, while the figure was low in 1940, increased from two and
one-half to as much as five times in the various counties. Although
data are not available for machinery and equipment, the relative
increa.se in investment was probably greater than for land and
buildings.
Adjusting peanut production to bring supplies in line with cur-
rent needs is a problem for peanut producers. The demand for
the crop during the war years resulted in a large expansion of
acreage but the increase was different in the various areas. During
recent years there also have been shifts in consumption trends
between uses that have affected the market for some types of
peanuts more than others. The varieties grown are not the same
in all the areas and they supply different uses. These factors make
it difficult to develop a control program that will yield a supply
of peanuts in line with current needs and at the same time not
be difficult to administer between areas.
The peanut farmer also faces a problem of conservation and
improvement of the soil. In all of the peanut areas, a high per-
centage of the cropland is planted in row crops. During the
war years much of the suitable cropland was planted too inten-
sively to peanuts. Erosion has been and is a problem on those
soils that are susceptible. Measures for conservation and im-
provement, of all farmland need to be emphasized.
T.ABLE 59.- -Average Size and Value of Land and Buildings
Per Farm, Selected Counties in Pe.^nut Areas: 1940 to
1954
County
Southampton County, Va ,
N'orthanijiton County, N'. C-
Karly County, Gii.,_
Henry County, Ala..
Jackson County, Fla
Bryan County, Okla.
Coniancht' County, 1>x
Southami>ton County, Va
Northampton County, N. C,
Early County, Ga
Henry County, Ala..
Jackson County, Fla
Bryan County, Okla ..-
Comanche County, Tex
1940 1945
Average size of farm (acres)
111
101
12G
74
72
77
.SH
72
138
112
104
132
11)11
as
123
1«4
14li
IHl
177
185
236
141
94
185
171
144
226
2511
Average value of land and buildings per
farm (dollars)
3.204
4,364
7, 600
3,181
3,280
6, 224
2.047
2,562
6,295
2,468
3,035
5,873
1.845
2,633
4,063
2,537
3, 098
6, 966
3,172
5,322
12, 380
14. 141
7,505
7, 825
fi, 089
6,635
12, 080
10, 861
U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTirtG OFFICE^ 19S7
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11