(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Children's Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "United States census of agriculture: 1954"

1> 



rF 



t 



K 



'^^^ .' ^1 7 .- ^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 TO 12 4 

W3i 2 5 TO 49 OBB 12 5 TO 14,9 

ESJyJI 5 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 















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 


60 to 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. 



614.0 
484.7 
602.9 
560. R 
499. 
618.1 
650. 1 
.564. 4 
667. 2 
470. 



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."^. 
.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 



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. 


431.0 



0.2 


.53.7 


84.2 


95.7 


101.0 


75.7 


80.5 


92. 


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 


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. 


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 


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, 

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 







*■.'.):){ 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 
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 



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 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 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 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 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 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 


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 


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 


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 




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. 
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. 
6. 6 
93.4 



1.7 

.4 

1.3 



(Z) 



1110. 
.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. 
.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. 


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 
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 
3 

5 
(Z) 

57 
25 
40 
4 
6 
85 
18 
21 
16 


0. 5 


Motortrucks . _ _ 


0. 2 


Tractors 


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 
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 


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 
3 

27 
77 
100 
32 
9 
77 
__» 

32 


8 
9 
1.7 
0.8 

72 
80 
100 
68 
24 
92 
44 
84 
28 


0.7 
0.7 
1.3 
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