Farm population estimates

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Farm population estimates
Series Title:
AMS
Physical Description:
v. : ; 26 cm.
Language:
English
Creator:
United States -- Dept. of Agriculture. -- Economic Research Service. -- Economic Development Division
United States -- Agricultural Marketing Service
United States -- Dept. of Agriculture. -- Economic Research Service
United States -- Dept. of Agriculture. -- Farm Population Branch
United States -- Dept. of Agriculture. -- Economic Research Service. -- Human Resources Branch
Publisher:
U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Economic Development Division.
Place of Publication:
Washington
Creation Date:
1935
Frequency:
annual
regular

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Farmers -- Statistics -- United States   ( lcsh )
Population, Rural -- Statistics -- United States   ( lcsh )
Genre:
serial   ( sobekcm )
federal government publication   ( marcgt )

Notes

Issuing Body:
Issued --1950-59 by U.S. Agricultural Marketing Service; 1910-62 by U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Economic Research Service; 1963-64 by the Economic Research Service, Farm Population Branch; 1965-72 by the Economic Research Service, Human Resources Branch.
General Note:
Issues for --1950-59 are U.S. Agricultural Marketing Service AMS 80; 1910-62--1973 are U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. ERS 130 etc.; 1974- are Agricultural economic report no. 319, etc.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 004703719
oclc - 02977293
Classification:
lcc - HB2385 .A42
System ID:
AA00009497:00008

Full Text

/ "




Released May 2, 1935.


UNITED. STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULrUE ....
Bureau of Agricultural Economits
".'Tshington


FARM PCOPULATIOIT STIINATES, JANUARY 1, 1935.

The farm population was 32,779,000 on January 1, 1935, compared
with 32,509,000 one year earlier according to the annual estimate made by
the Bureau of Agricultural Economics. The 1935 figure represents a con-
tinu_9nce of the upward trend in number of persons living on farms, a trend
which became prominent soon after the beginning of the depression. Also,
as was reported first for the January 1, 1933 total, the recent figures
have set annually a new all-time high record for the farm population of
the United States. The-net gain of 270,000 during 1934 was only 3,000
larger than the gain one year earlier. .Furthermore, these net gains in
both 1933 and 1934 were less than the surplus of births over deaths among
the farm population during these years. Net migrations from farms to
cities, towns, and villages of 227,000 during 1933 and 211,000 during
1934 reduced the gains which would otherwise have occurred had there
been no such migration away from farms.

Although the net chan,-3js for the United States as a whole during
1934 varied but little from those which occurred one year earlier, much
more pronounced differences as between several of the major geographic
divisions were indicated in the schedules for 1934. Thus during 1933,
each of these areas showed small net gains ranging from.1.4 percent in
the Ea.t South Sentral States to .2 percent in the Mountain and Pacific
States.. During 1934, in contrast the South Atlantic States showed a
net g.-in of 1.,8 percent, and the Ppcific States gained 1.7 percent where-
as the Mountain States lost 1.2 percent and the West North Central States
le t 1.1 percent. Obviously the drought was responsible for some of these
contr--sts and in the South Atlantic States a substantial reduction in the
net migration from farms to cities, towns, and villages plus a high
rate of natural increase accounts-for the larger gain in number of per-
sons living on farms compared with 1933. Further explanation of this
change is given in a later paragraph.







- 2-


Table 1. Farm population in the United States

Year Number Year Number

Jan. 1, 1910 .... :7/32,076,960 ::Jan. 1, 1927 ...... : 30,281,000
Jan. 1, 1920 .... :2/31,614,269 ::Jan. 1, 1928 ...... : Z0,275,000
Jan. 1, 1921 .... : 31,703,000 ::Jnn. 1, 1929 ...... : 30,257,000
Jan. 1, 1922 .... : 31,768,000 ::Jan. 1, 1930 ...... :3/30,169,C0c
Jan. 1, 1923 .... : 31,290,000 ::Jan. 1, 1931 ..... :4/30,585,000
Jan. 1, 1924 .... : 31,056,000 ::Jan. 1, 1932 ..... :4/31,241,000
Jan. 1, 1925 .... : 31,064,000 ::Jan. 1, 19332 ..... :432,242,000
Jan. 1, 1926 .... : 30,784,000 ::Jan. 1, 1934 ..... :-/32,509,000
S::Jan. 1. 1935 .....4??779A ,0QO

Ij Estimated, U. S. Bureau of the Census.
2 Enumerated, U. S. Bureau of the Census.
Estimated by Bureau -*f Agricultural Economics, based on Apr. 1, 1930
census enumeration.
4/ Subject to revision when 1935 census data bec.ime available.


Table 2. Recent losses and rains in farm population in the United States.

: Tet loss of : Net rain of
During period or calendar year : farm population: farm population
______ .___.. : 1/ : 1 .
1910-1919 ......................... 2/ 463,000 ...............
1920 .............................. : ........ : 89,000
1921 .................. ............ .... 65,000
1922 ............ .................. 478,000 ...............
1923 .............................. : 234 000 ...............
1924 .............................. : ........ 8,000
1925 ............................. 280,000 : ...............
19?6 ............................. 503,000 ...............
1927 ... ............... ....... ...... 6,000 : ...............
1928 ............................. 18,000 : ...............
1929 ............................. 88,000 .
1930 ............................. ..... .. .. : / 416,000
1931 ............................. : ......... :3/ 656,000
1932 ............................. : ......... :3/ 1,001,000
1933 ............................. : ......... 267,000
1934 ............................. : ; ........ 3/ 270,000
1I UIet losr or gain is determined by adding the estimated number of
persons leaving farms for cities to the number of deaths, and sub-
tracting from this sum the number of persons going to farms from
cities added to the number of births.
/ Estimated, U. S. Bureau of the Census.
3 Subject to revision when 1935 census data become available.







- 3--


The Farmward Migration Continued to Decline in 1934.

The movement from cities, towns, and villages to farms during 1934
was 783,000 compared with 951,000 the preceding year and a peak of 1,740,000
during 1930. This decrease was relatively greatest in the East ITorth Cen-
tral, South Atlantic, and East South Central States. Some improvement in
nonagricultural employment opportunities, more 'du.'1ie relief, and what
is probably most important, the growing difficulty of finding available
housing on farms apparently account for this slowing up.

The movement from cities, towns, and villages to farms in the West
North Central and Mountain States did not decrease as much as did the move-
ment elsewhere. Most of this is probably explained by the fact that many
persons leaving farms in the most severely drought affected areas went first
to the towns for a longer or shorter stay. In the late fall, a number of
them moved back on farms again, some to the localities from which they had
come whene rains had given some hope for a new crop year; others to dif-
ferent localities, perhaps in different States. ScheOules received from
certain parts of Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Tebraska, Kansas, and Idaho
reported such moves.

The reduction in migration from cities, to-ns, and villages in the
northern and northeastern industrial States was probably the combined
result of a farm housing shortage, somewhat better employment opportunities
in nonagricultural industries, and the larger cash relief payments generally
available to urban residents as contrasted to rural dwellers. These items
were mentioned in farmer comments on the reverse side of the schedules which
they filled out. In the South, a considerable number of schedules mention-
ed a demand for farms to rent or share crop far in excess of the available
supply. Other schedules from the South reported that some of the landowners
were not replacing houses or cabins which had been destroyed by fire or
storm in recent years, or repairing other dwellings which had depreciated
.so greatly.as to become uninhabitable. .Increased mechanization on farms
in the Mississippi Delta and the Southwest was reported on theback of a
few schedules in explanation of decreases in the number of persons living
on the farms covered by these schedules. All in all, circumstances did
not encourage a heavy back-to-the-f arm movement during 1934.

The Movement to Cities Decreased During 1934

For the United States as a whole, 994,000 persons moved from farms
to cities, towns, and villages during 1934 compared with 1,178,000 the
preceding year. This decreased migration away from farms was especially
pronounced in the South Atlantic and East South Central States. Not all
of this marked decrease in migration away from farms in the Southeast, how-
ever, was due to better farm conditions. In this connection, it should be
recalled that the annual estimate last year called attention to the fact
that the 1933 migration away from farms in this area was much larger than
in 1932 fduen-in part to some industrial improvement but more particularly
to the work relief projects inaugurated in the late fall of 1933. A con-
siderable number of replies from the South mentioned this unusual migra-
tion away from farms on the part of farm laborers, croppers, and tenants,







-4-


these people believing that they would have a better opportunity to secure
such jobs if living as unemployed persons in the tons than as farm dwellers.
ITo carrespondinag work opportunity was provided in the f.]l of 1934.

Another facter discouraging a townward migration in the Southern States
during 1934 was mentioned by a number of farr.mers and pl anters who sent in
population schedules. These peorlo reported that some families who had for-
merly been tenants or crop-ers but who for one reason or another had not been
able to secure acreage for 1934 were permitted to remain in plantation cabins
in return for a modest amount of labor at odd jobs about the plantation.
In some cases small garden plots and the privilege of cutting wood for fuel
were also granted in return for a little labor. The local relief offices
were providing what food and clothing was necessary to keep such families from
dire distress. Lack'of housing in the towns and villages as well as some op-
portunity to earn part of their necessaries caused this plan to be used to
a considerable extent were facilities 'ere available and owners killing to
cooperate.

A recent report from the Federal Ener- .ncy Relief Administration sug-
gests that the former belief on the part of needy persons that proximity of
residence to the relief office would secure .ore aid is subsiding and fami-
lies in the open country are finding t'-t their needs receive equal consid-
eration. I/ This may also be a factor in accounting for reduced migration

I/ Mobility of Rural and Torn Fonulation. Federal Energency Relief Adminis-
tration, Division of Research, Statistics, and Finance. MimieoFrF.phcd Re-
port, Wachington, D.C. April 16, 1935.
away from farms during 1034.

In sharp contrast to the fore(oing is the situation in the West Forth
Central and Mountain States. For these two Coograrhic divisions, the migra-
tion from farms to cities, to-rns, and villa'-es was substantially larger during
1934 corncared with 1933. The rava.-ec of the drought doubtless account for
this difference. The existence of a reverse movement out from forns to farms
in the fall of 1924 on the part of some of these folks Wa.s mentioned in the
preceding section.

On the whole, the estimate for 1934 indicates a continuance of the
trend toward reduced nigrations from farms which became pronounced in 1930.
In only two years between 1920 and 1929 did this nigration fall below
2,000,000 pe *year, and these instances are probably due at least in -art to
the small san-les upon which the estimated were ba.sed. This population stream
contained a great many younr folks whose labor was not needed on the farms
of their parents. They were seeking what appeared to then to be more attrac-
tive forms of employment. With the coning of the depression, the size of
this migration away from frrns diminished greatly, the largest falling off
occurring ano.ng the young folks rho, for the most part, have continued to re-
main on farms. The 1934 estimate does not indicate any pick up in the move-
ment of surplus young folks ara;, from farms. The presence, on farms, of a
considerable number of young people whose help is not needed either on these
farms or in the farm homes where they are living requires t!hat that portion









of the farm income available for living purposes be expended in line with a
carefully prepared household.budget if the standard of living of such fami-
lies is to be kept as high as -ossible. It also suggests an opportunity for
the exercising of real ingenuity in expa..dir:g, farm and home activities so as
to include maximum production of goods and services for direct consumption
by these families.

Table 3. Movements to and from farms
(Births and deaths not t-ken into account)


: Persons


During year


1920 ..........
1921 ..... ....
1922 ..........
1923 ..........
1924 ..........
1925 ..........
1926 ..........
1927 ..........
1928 ...........
1929 ..........
1930 ..........
1931 ..........
1932 ......-....
1933 ..........
1934 ..........


:arriving at :]
: farms from :
:cities, towns:
: 5 ,,villi :

759,000 :
1,115,200 :
1,355,000 :
1,581;000 :
: 1,336,000 :
1,427,000 :
1,705,000 :
1,698,000 :
: 1,604,000 :
1,740,000 :
: 1,683,000 :
: 1,544,000 :
: 951,000 :
783,000


Persons
leaving f arms
for cities,
towns, and
"/illn ? :

1,323,000
2,252,000
2,162,000
2,068,000
2,038,000
2,334,000
2,162,000
2,12`,000 :
2,081,000
1,723,000
1,469,000
1. CD1,000
1,178,000
994,000 :


Teot movement from -


C
a


cities, towns,:
nd villages :c
to farms

. .. .... .. .
........... :
...........






'/
17,000
214,000
533,000

........... :


Farms to
cities, towns,
and villages


336,000
564,000
1,137,000
807,000
487,000
702,000
907,000
457,000
422,000
477,000
............


277,000
211,000


Estimates from 1930 to 1934 subject to revision when 1935 census data are
available.


Natural Increase

The surplus of births over deaths among the farm population was esti-
mated at 481,000 for the year 1934 compared with 494,000 for the preceding
year. The birth rate, based u on the reports sent in from farmers was slight-
ly lower in 1934 than in 1933. This change does not seem altogether logical
in the light of other changes among the farm population but in the absence of
better vital statistics for the farm population it is difficult to make ad-
justments in the farmer's reports. The rise in the birthrate for 19j3 com-
pared with 1932 based upon the sample used in preparing these estimates seems
tc have been abnormally large in several of the major geographic divisions
whereas the decreases in 1934 compared with 1933 were excessive in some
areas.


_'5 _







6 -
-6-
Farm to Farm I.JovreLennt

Obviously, the movement of population from farm to farm i? equal for
the United Str.tos as a whole. In past years, the schedules seit in by
farmers were so nearly in balance with respect to this itcn bcth for the
United Strates and for the rajor geographic divisions that no estimates cf
this movement were made. However, during 1934, due. mostly to the drought,
the schedules received from farmers indicated substantial net migrations
of this character as between several of these geographic divisions. Al-
th.ugh the estimates for this t--pe of mover.mcnt :o not aprear se-arately
in any of the accomr.anyirng tables, they are included in the totals in
Table 4.


The sample upon which this years report is based included population
data for 129,603 farms, having 149,996 occupied dwellings and covering
25,497,840 acres of farm land. Schc-dules cjr.ing in from the South reported
many plantations as single farms. If th.i census definition of a farm had been
followed by all who sent in schedules, the number of farms would have been
larger.

The estimates based upon these returns since 1930 are probably conser-
vative in reporting gains in number of persons living on farms because a num-
ber of farmers who filled in the schedules may have overlooked new s.all farns
of 10 acres or less which were established in many areas chiefly for subsis-
tence purposes since the reporting farmers do not view such undert]:.Tings as
farms even though the census would doubtless count a number of them as farms.

The accompanying tables give the estimates in greater detail for the
United States as a whole annually since 1920, .nd for the major ceL grarphic di-
visions annually since 1932. The data for the major e-eograr_.ic divisions
between 1920 and 1932 can be obtained by prritinrg to the Division of Farm Poo-
ulation and Rural Life, Bureau of kAricultural Economics.









- 7--


Number of persons living on farms on January 1 annually from
1932 to 1936, number of births and deaths occurring in the
farm population, and number of persons movi.L: to and from
farms annually from 1932 to 1934, for the United States and
major geog{ranhic divisions l/


: Farm
Division :population
and : on
year :January 1


UNITED STATES:
1932
1933
1934
1935

New England:
1932
1933
1934
1935

Middle Atlantic:
1932
1933
1934
1935


East North





West North


Central
1932
1933
1934
1935

Central
1932
1933
1934
1935


South Atlantic:
1932
1933
1934
______ 1935


3,1,241
32,242
32,509
32,779


571
588
593
595


1,741
1,808
1,823
1,839


4,614
4,822
4,855
4,889


5,161
5,264
5,301
5,274


6,025
6,212
6,274
6,390


Fo.--trnotes at end of table


Increases in farm : Decreases in farm
population during : population during
: the year, due to -: the year, due to -
: :Arrivals : :Departures
Births :from city: Deaths :to city,
: :town, or : : town,or
: :village : : village
:Thousanii.s:Thousands 'u:r- :Thousands


750
827
797 .



: 8 :
: 11 :
: 11 :



: 28
: 36
: 33



88
: 96
97



93
121
117



: 181 :
: 174
176


(CONTINUED)


1,544
951
783



38
25
21



110 :2/
72 :2/
58



305
178
126



232
126
133



205
149
119


282
333
316



8
7 :
8 :



12
22
20



42
48
49



36
42
42



66
68
69


1,011
1,178
994



21
24
24



59
71
58



143
193
151



186
168
201



133
193
132


Table 4.-


- : Yhou.,2Z





UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

3 1262 08589 8855
Table 4.- Number of persons living on f.:-rs on January/annually from 1932
to 1935, number of births and deaths occurring in the farm
population, and runber of persons ricvin- to and from farns annually
front 1932 to 1934 for the Unit--l States and major geographic divi-
sions 1/


: Frr:
:ropulrtio r
Division on
and :January 1
year


:Thousandi

East South Central:
1932 : 5,287
1933 : 5,472
1934 :5,549
1935 : 5,640

West SYouth Central:
1932 : 5,500
1933 : 5,682
1934 : 5,715
1935 5,775

M.rDn tain :
1932 : 1,174
1933 : 1,136
1934 : 1,188
1935 : 1,174

Pacific :
1932 : 1,168
1933 : 1,208
1934 : 1,211
1935 : 1,232


: Increases in f-rn : Decreases in ferm
: por.ulrtion duri2. : population during
: the year, due to -: the ye-ar, due to -
: :Arivals : :Departures
: Births frontn city: Deaths :to city,
: :torr,or ::torn or
: villar : :village
: Th'usmnds : Throu.rnds :Thou sa.r ds : Thousands


]59
170
155



154 :
155 :
160



25
33 :
29



14
21
19


190
115
83 :



275
170 :
149



86 :
50
42



103
66
52


116
148
94



192
239
206



90
70
70



71
72
59


j_/ Annual eFti-r.-tes for the rpriod 1920 through 1931, by geogra.rhic divi-
siGnr.s, r -- also.-, be secured fr,-.m the Burcpel of NAricu'. ..jrLl Ecor.onics.
Th:- esti. -',s of chln1-es during 1934 include a.juc' :....r fr far'n-to-
f-.rq 5i..- .'. .' bctwcr:n georrarhic divisions, a t.pc tef niratio:n that,
ta '.:I e'v t3- from fwarers for precoding years, pract.cal)y balanced
: l..in e~az feL. -,aphic division. All eatinates subject to revision when
19.;5 census data become available.

2/ De-.th racs, based on the schedules submitted ty farn families, rere
UI.u..lll low in thesc divisions in 1932, and a little above the average
for preceding yen.rs in 1933. Large samples were involved in both years,
but no reasons for the marked increases in death rates were obtainable
from th. schedules.


mi: ll "Et llilillaallti. lii.. iimiilhi