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:
1936
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:
AA00009497:00009

Full Text



Released October 27, 1936.


UNITED STATES PEFART.EJTT CO AGRICULTURE
Bureau of Agricultural Econorrics
Washington


FAR?' POPULATION ESTIMATES, J..-..o-ur 1, 1I..


Although every census of the United States shows that there
are more reople in the country, than there were 10 years before, the
number of people living on farms in this countr-y today is less than it
was 25 years ago. Each year mar.'y people who are living on farms move
to small towns or cities, and peerle who live in small towns or cities
move to farms. Each year a large rnumr of y _ung men and women, who
grew ur on farms, are ready to begin w,:.rking on their own; some of
them remain on farms as hired han'Js, ten-,ants, or owners; many. of them
leave the farms to find emrlcyment else-here. Then employment oppor-
tunities in towns ard cities are gocd, a large number of people move
away from farms; -hen emrol--.',cnt .-.pportinities in to'-ns and cities
are poor, many 'rho would oth.--r-is ha'-ie gone to, citi.,s, remain at
home, and some rersons living in towns anA, cities move to. farms. In
the years of prosr., rit, before l 9, more reorle moved away from
farms than moved to farms an. b:- 19.70 the nu'ibribr of pe,.l.; living on
farms was less than --t any time sir.c.:- 1910. Since the droorescion be-
gan, fc-er people ha,:e moved to. towns and citi,:s and sore e-ople have
moved back to farms, and tod:.y th-re are more reoole on firms than
there rv-cr when thc. depression began; neverthoel.-:, th-e numbe-r of per-
sons on farms todayni is luss than it was at thi b.--ginning of 1910.

The number of rcrsons living on f.rms in the United States in
1936 was nearly the sime- as one year earlier. According to estimates
made by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, th- farm population was
31,809,000 on January 1, 193.5, comrared with 31, :?fl,000 one year
earlier. ThL net gain of 6,000 pL-ronr.s during 1935 was smaller than
the net gain during 1974, which was 31,000 persons, and had been the
smallest gain reported since 1930.

It is estimnt,:-d that during th,:- year 195 ??727,000 babies were
born to farm women and 333,000 farm residents died. Therefore, if
there had been no migration from or to f.rms during the year, the
farm roculation -ould have ir.cre!c od by 394,000 persons. But there
were migrations both to and from f--rms: 1,211,000 persons moved
from farms to vill.ge., towns, and cities, nrid F25,000 persons moved
from villages, towns, and cities to farms. That is, 376,000 more
persons left farms than came to farms. In spite of this loss, there
were 8,000 more persons on farms at the end of the year, for the num-
ber of babies born to farm womer. wrs enough to mak-'e up for all the
losses through migration and through deaths and leave a net gain of
8,000 persons. The null of industrial centers, with their slowly
increasing emrloyment our-rortuni.ti.es, continued to make itself felt
during 193E, as it had during 1934, and 'or every 100 persons who












moved to farms from villages, to-ns, or citie-s, nearly 150 persons
moved from farms.

Although the net change-in farn oor ulation for the United
States as a whole was slight, there were rrono,'nced changes in some
geographical divisions. In the West !Torth Central, West South Cen-
tral and Mountain States, where the drought cf 1974 had been rartic-
. ularly severe, the decreases in total farm noculation reTorted dur-
ing that year -.ere continued during 1935. In the No- England and
Middle Atlantic States, slight decreases were also reported. In the
other groups of States, the East NIorth Central, South Atlantic, East
South Centrn.l, and Pacific States, the farm ro-ulatior:.increased dur-
ing 1935. For the first time since 1930, each region, except one,
recrted more persons moving from farms to torn and cities than to
farms from towns and ci-ies. The Pacific States were the only ex-
certicer. and there the movement- of rersor. from farms to towns and
cities was equal to the movement to f:lrms.

In addition to the exchr'nge of poo.il..tir'n between forms and
towns and cities, there is also some movement from farms in one
division of the country to farms in other divisions. There was a move-
ment from farms in the West !Torth Central and "Test South C-ntral States
to farms in other divisions, whereas the East Yorth Central, Middle
Atlantic, and Pacific States rwre recei'rin:r more farmers from other
Divisions than they lost to other Divisions. The THe England, South
Atlantic, Erist South Central, and Mountain States, neither gained nor
lost f.rm rDorul-.ticon as a result of nrrvenents front one f.rnm to another.

The number of persons moving front farms in other States to
farms in the Pacific States nay seer small in view of the widely dis-
cussed novemeont of farm *.r:rs-.ns -hr. went to -C.lifornia, Washington,
and 0rcg.-n ,"ith the intention of securing agricultural errlo:yment.
The figures given here refer 6n]y., to the persons living on farms and
do not include persons who work on fprms but do not live on farms.
This would be .of especial irmocrtance in a State like California in
which many seasonal workers are e omloyed on farns. Many of the per-
sons who come front farms in other States tL farrs in California, se-
cure emriloyment as farr laborers or.d li've in tourist camps, labor
camps, villages, and other races not on farms.

R,-ici'n of F-r:. P-ul-.tin:: -tin-.t- for the Y,:-ar 1930--1934

Annual eqtinrites of far. noroulnti.n, births, deaths, and mi-
gratirn, as previously rLleased for the years 1930 ?4 have been re-
vised in the li.-ht of the findings of the 19,7.. Census of Agriculture
and the reports of the Division cf Vital Statistics of the Bureau of
the Census. It 7was found necessary also to make some-allowances for
the effect of (a) changes to or from farming withclt a change in res-
idence and, (b) differences in interpretation of instructions to Cen-
sus enumerators. An examination of the 1935 Census returns and of










-3-

other related materials suggests that in a number of areas there has
been a marked movement to bring into operation tracts of land that
could not be classified as farms in 1930, either because no farming
was carried on or because there was not enough farming to warrant in-
clusion of the tract as a farm. (The census of 1930, like that of
1935, defined a farm so as to exclude a place of less than 3 acres un-
less the farm products were valued at $250 nr over.) Families that
were living on small tracts, in many instances began or increased farm-
ing operations in order to offset reductions in other income. In some
mining and in some forest areas where many families had previously
carried on some small-scale. farming as a supplement to another occu-
pation, the farming portion-of the family's enterprise had become so
important by 1935 that the family could properly be included as a farm
family. Some allowances have also been made for the movement in some
areas whereby, because of changes in farm organization or for other
reasons, individuals who were formerly classified as farm operators
ceased to operate farms without changing their place of residence.
Some of these persons may have become farm laborers instead of farm
operators but they would no longer be counted as part of the farm popu-
lation if the place on which they were living could no longer be class-
ified as a farm.

Increases in the Farm Population
January 1, 1930 to Januar-. 1, 1935

The number of persons on farms increased by 1,632,000 between
January 1, 1930 and January 1, 1935. The increase results from the
fact that each year children are born to farm women, that some people
move from villages, towns, and cities to farms, and that some persons
already living in rural territory began to farm without moving. On
the other hand, some losses occur because during each year some farm
people die, some persons move from farms to villages, towns, and cities,
and some people stop farming but do not move. For the period 1930 to
1935 it appears that if all persons on farms in 1930 had remained there
until January 1, 1935, together with the children born during the 5
years, as well as the 1,995,000 persons who moved to farms, and the
207,000 who did not move but became farmers, there would have been near-
ly 6 million more persons on farms in 1935 than in 1930. Even if we
take into account the fact that more than li- million farm persons died,
the total increase would still have been greater than 4 million per-
sons, if no one had moved away from farms. Since the Census shows that
the farm population increased by only 1,632,000 it is clear that at
least 212 million (2,593,000) persons must have moved away from farms.
A comparison of the number of persons who moved to farms and the num-
ber who moved from farms leads to the conclusion that the number who
moved away from farms was 598,000 more than the number who moved, to
farms.

In the last paragraph it was shown that 1,995,000 persons moved
to farms and were still there on January 1, 1935, and that 2,593,000







- 4-


persons moved from farms and had not returned by January 1, 1935.
It is apparent that these figures do not include those persons who
moved from farms to towns or cities anP returned to the farms nor do
they include those people -'ho moved from towns or cities to farms and
back again during the 5 years, When all of these nersons are taken
into account, it is estimated that between 1970 and 1935, a total of
6,578,000 persons moved to farms from villages, towns, and cities and
that a total of 7,176,000 persons moveu front farms to villages, towns,
and cities. Including these persons d.6es not affect the difference
between the number leaving farms anq the number going to farns; the
excess of persons leaving was 598,000, as shown in the last raragra-h.

A comparison of the figures for 1930--1934 with those for the
5 years precedin,- 1930 shows immediately that there was much less
migration to and from farms during the d.e-ression years. The number
of persons leaving farms .9ecreascd from 10. million to 7 million; the
number of irersons moving to farms decreased norr than 1 million, from
7A to 6- million. Since the mnrber leaving farms decreased more than
the number moving to farms, there was also..a shamrn reduction in the
net losses as a result of the Miovement from farms tc villages, towns,
and cities. During the 5 prederression years, the number of persons
who left farms was nearly 3 million greater th-.n the number who came
to farms, an average of 600,000 persons each year. During the de-
pression years this large annual outflow of farm people was slowed
down to such an extent that the total number fo'r the entire 5-year
period was only 600,000 or about as much as .the annual average for'
the 5 years just receding 1930. Although many neonle left towns antr
cities to move to farms after 1930, the growth of the farm norulation
was even more affected by the fact .that fewer persons left farms than
would have been the case had the conditions of the late nineteen twen-
ties continued.

As has been shown above, the fact that more recnle move away
from farms than move to farms does not necessarily mcan that the farm
ponulation is decreasing. If there hard been no moving to and from
farms, the farm no-ulation would have been increased by 400,000 each
year, and so long as the excess mi.rraticn away from farms ^iO not ex-
ceed this figure there was no net loss to the farm no-nulation.

The changes in the fr-rm :Dpoulation bet-cen 1930 an- 193E are
the results of year-to-year changes M-ich were not uniform. (Tables
3 and 4.) The first notable change in the movement to and from farms
during the depression years came in the number of persons leaving
farms to move to towns ana cities. Thereas more than 2,000,000 per-
sons left farms during each year between 19P2 and- 1999, the number
leading farms was only 1,800,000 in 1930, and by 1934 it hna drorred
to nearly 1,000,000.The number of -ersons who moved to farms from
towns and cities did not increase markedly until 1932. The number of
persons moving to farms showed little chan,:e in 1930, Aronned slightly
in 1931, and rose to 1,777,000 in 1972. During 1937 and 1934 it
'Ironrped ra-idly.




I-


If movements to and from farms only are considered, there was
a net loss in farm population during 1930, 1931, 1933, and 1934,
though in each case these losses were less than any reported since
1921. Only during 1932 were more .ersons report' as moving to farms
than .moved from farms, although during-1931 the two movements nearly
balanced. But by 1933 the loss due to migration was already greater
than in 1930 and it increased still further during 1934 and 1935.

The different geographical divisions of the country do not
show uniform trends over the 5-year period. In the three divisions
that are most urbanized, the Now England, Middle Atlantic, and East
North Central States, the.movement to farms was most pronounced.
.Only in the New England and Middle Atlantic States was the number of
arrivals on farms from villages, towns, and cities during 1930.- 34
greater than during 1925 29. The number o.f persons moving to farms
from towns and cities exceeded the number leaving farms during each
.year 1930 33 in the 'New' England 'States, 1930 34 in the Middle
Atlantic States, and 1930 32 in the East North Central States. In
the South Atlantic States the movement from farms exceeded the move-
ment to farms during each of the 5 years, though the difference was
only 2,000 in 1932. In the other divisions the number moving to
farms was generally less than the number moving from farms after 1932
and greater before 1932, except in the Pacific States where more per-.-.-..
sons were arriving on farms than were leaving farms during 1933 and
1934. The individual States in each division show-much diversity in
respect to these movements.

The year-to-year increases between 1930 and 1934 were very
irregular. For the United States as a whole, there was a ranid in-
crease beginning in 1930 which continued through 1932; during 1933
the rate of increase was very much less and during 1934 and 1035 the
increases were so small that the farm population was nearly station-
ary. The New England States reported increases through 1933 and
slight decreases thereafter. The.Middle Atlantic States reported
increases through 1934 and a slight decrease in-1935. The East North
Central and the South Atlantic States reported increases during each
year, but during 1933 the rate of increase.in the South Atlantic
States was small. The West North Central States reported a slight
decline during 1930, increases during 1931 through 1933, and decreases
thereafter. In the West South Central States the development was sim-
ilar, except that the decrease began during.1933. The East South Cen-
tral States reported gains during each.year, except 1933, when there
was a slight loss. In the Mountain States, there were increases
through 1933 and sharp decreases during 1934 and 1935. In the Pacific
States there was an increase during each year except 1931, when the
movement from the farms in California brought about a temporary de-
crease.

A decrease in the farm population of a State or region does not
necessarily imply a decrease in the total population of that area, nor







- 6-


does an increase in the farm ronulation imply an increase in the
total or.o lation of that area. Although no data are presented here
tc show the geoigra-hical origins or destinations of these migrants,
it is a rell established observation that the majority of nersoas who
move go. only a short distance. There seems to be no reason why this
should not also apnly to the persons moving to and from farms. ..There
may have been some increases in long-distance migration of farm per-
sons from the drc.ught States, but for the large majority of mi-rants
to and front fprms it is to be presumed that they moved only short
distances.

Summary and Conclusions

The number. of persons on farms on January 1, 1936, is estimated
as 31,00C,000, a figure rhich lies halfway between those for 1910 and
1920, Thus, rhile the population of the country has increased by near-
1;- 40 per cent'in 25 years, the size of the farm population has remain-
ed nearly stationary. Since 1020, the total number of persons on farms
has changed less than 6 per cent. This relative stability in nu'bters
.,has been maintained in srite of the fact that the excess of births over
deaths in the farn no-ulation annually added between 400,000 andr 500,000
to the por-ulation. Since 192n, there have beer three distinct trends:
(1) from 1920 to 1922 there were small increases; (2) from 1923 to 1929,
_.- with one minor exception, there were annual decreases; (3) from 1930 to
1936, there, were annual increases. The fact that the increases during
1934 and. g1935 ere very *small suci-,ests that .in the next few years the
size of the farm population may remain stationary or even decrease again.

In general, it apnrears that the farm population decreases during
urban rirosperity and increases during urban depression. Its decreases
are due to the fact that it sends more nersons to urban and other non-
farm territory than it receives from them. Its increases occur large-
ly because it retains a larger proportion of its own numbers. If there
were no migration, annual increases would be the rule.

To say that the f-irn 'rjpulation has remained almost stationary
is to speak of numbers only. During each year for which figures are
available (1920 36), there has been a'considerable degree of moving
about of farm people. Between 1922 and 1932, the total number of per-
sons annually moving to and from farns was equal to 10 ner cent of the
Snuriber of persons on farms and the number of persons moving from one
farm to another "as as large or lar,-er. "In some of the more recently
settled agricultural areas of the Middle Western States, there has
been an even greater relative turnover. Many people have left the
..farms but others have taken their places and the total numbers are
left almost changede.

Real or suTnosed employment opportunities in cities, towns, and
villages appear to have been a rajor factor in the movement from and
to-farms.. The number of persons moving to farms from cities, towns,
and villages is affected to a large extent by the number of persons











previously coming from farms to cities, to ts, and villages. After
1925, the largest number Of persons leaving farms for cities and towns
moved during 1926. The number of persons moving from farms decreased
- each year from 1926 through 1934. Only during 1935 did it again in-
crease. After 1927 the number of persons moving to farms from villages,
towns, andr cities decreased during each year except 1930, 1932, and
1935. During 1935, as compared with 1934, there was an increase in
both, the number moving from farms and' the number moving to farms.
The figures for 1930 and 1932 indicate movements away from cities
brought on by the depression, and possibly hastened departures which,
under normal conditions, might have occurred later.

It appears then that, duringthe last -16 years, a large num-
ber of persons annually moved from farms and that, with one exception,
a somewhat smaller number moved to farms. In part, these are the same
persons. Because of this moving to and from cities,.at least two
and insome years three and four times as many persons have been leav-
ing farms as have been lost to the farm population.

Who these persons are, why they move, what they do when they
reach their destinations and what happens to the areas which they
leave and those to which they go, are matters of vital concern, but
about which there are no adequate data.


- '?







- 8 -


Table 1. Farm Porulation in the United States


N: umber of :
:persons on farms:
: January 1 :


Year


Number of
persi, ns cn farms
January 1


1910 :1/ 32,076,960 : 1928 30,275,000
1920 :.2/ 31,614,269 : 1929 30,257,000
1921 31,703,000 : 1930 : 3/ 30,169,000
19?22 ., 31,768,000 : 1931 4/ 30,497,000
1923 : 31,290,000 : 1932 4/ 30, 71,000
1924 : 31,056,000 : 1933 : 4/ 31,693,000
1925 : 31,064,000 : 1934 : 4/ 31,770,000
1926 : 30,784,000 : 1r,5 : 2/ 31,800,907
1927 : 30,281,000 : 1936 31,809,000


I/ Estimated, U. S. Bureau cf the Census
2/ Enunerated, U. S. Bureau of the Census
3/ Estirated., based on census enumeration of Arril 1, 1930
4/ revised estimates




Table 2. Recent Losses and Gains in the Farm
PF.rnilation of the United States



: Net loss of : Net r,;ain in
During period or c-lerA:,ar year farr: roiulation : frrn r.p.onultion

1910 Is1 : 463,000 ----
10P0 1C-24 550,000 -------
19'5 1929 895,000 -----
1930 1:34 ------- 1,632,000
1910 1934 : 27p,000 :

1930 : / ------ 328,000
1931 : / ------- 474,000
1932 :/ ---- 722,000
1933 : / ------ 77,000
1934 I/ ------- 31,000
1935 ----- 8,000


I/ Revised


Year


_I__C ____ _








-9-
9 -

Table:3. Movement To and From Farms

(Births and Deaths Not Taken into Account)


Persons : Tersons : -*-.Net.movement from
-:arriving at : leaving : Cities, : Farms -to-..
Year :. farms : fprins.for : towns,and : cities,
*':from cities,: cities, : villages : towns, and
: towns, and : towns, and: to farms : villages
: villages : villages :


560,000
759, 000
1,115,000
1,355,000
:1,581,000
1,336,000
1,427,000
1,705,000
1,698,000
1,604,000
1,611,000
1,546,000
1,777,000
944,000
700,000
825,000

5,370,000
7,770,000
6,578,000


896,000
1,323,000
2,252,000
2,162,000
: 2,068,000
: 2,038,000
: 2,334,000
: 2,162,000
: 2,120,000
: 2,081,000
: 1,823,000
: 1,566,000
: 1,511,000
: 1,225,000
: 1,051,000
: 1,211,000

: 8,701,000
:10,735,000
:*7,176,000


I/ Revised


192n
1921
1922
1923
1924-
1925
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935


336,000
564,000
1,137,000
807,000
487,000
702,000
907,000
457,000
422,000
477,000
212,000
20,000

281,000
351,000
386,000

3,331,000
2,965,000
598,000


-----



266,000


1920
1925
1930


- 1924
- 1929
- 1934







- 10 -


Table 4. -


Annual estimates of the farm population, births and deaths occurring
in the farm copulation, and number of persons moving to and from farms,
for the United States and major geographic divisions, 1930 36 V/


:Increases in farm : Decreases in farm :Gain or


Division
and
year


UNITED STATES:
1930 4/
1931
1932 .
1933'
1934
1935 j/
1936

New England:
1930 4/
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935 5/,
1936


:Farm Douu-:
: lation :
: on :
:Jan-uary 1 :


000 1


30, 169
30; 497
30,971
31,693
31,770
31', 801
31,809


568
631
660
698
713-
712
708


Middle Atlantic::
1930 4/ 1,692
1931 1,751
1972 1,784
1933 1,850
1934 1,893
1935 5/ 1,904
1936 1,900

East North Central:
1930 4/ 4,442
1931 4,508
1932 4,583
1933 4,695
1934 4,750
1935 5/ 4,769
1936 4,790


population during :
the year due to: :
: Arrivals:


Births


000's-


742
741
746
721
S. 749
72.7



10
11 .
10
10
11
10



29
28
27
26
25
25


population during : .'I .le:
- theyear due toe :t. fj-.:*, :
:Dernartures:to farm :


:from city: Deaths :


town or
village
000's


1,611
1,546:
1,777
944.
700
825.



.64
* 63
56
32
27
29



130
101
139
95
64
61


000's


3 44
:334"
328

344
333



8
8."
8
8

8



24
24
23
24
24
22


259
236
293
181
112
139


(Continued)


for city
town or
village
000 's


W r,-. .-
tior.
2/
00rs I


1,823
1,566
1,511
1, 225
1,051
1,211


4
4
- 1

1



1
1
1
7
4
20


Allow-
ances
includ-
ed
3/


000's


142
87
38
- 37
- 23




47
12
9
8
1




19
17
10
9


16
16
14
9


246
211
231
188
150
190








Table 4. Annual estimates of the farm population, births and deaths occurring
*in the farm npoulation, and ninnberof persons moving to and from farms,
for the United States and major geographic divisions, 1930 36 _/,
continued.



:Increases in farm : Decreases: in farm :Gain or
:Farm ponu-: population during : oorulation during :1-oss .uao: Allow-
Division : lation ... te..ear.due..t: .: the year- due to: :to farn : ances
and : on : : Arrivals : :Departures:to farm : includ-
year :January 1 : Births from city: Deaths : for city : nigra- : ed
town or : : town or : tion : 3
: village : 'village : 0 :
000's 000's 000's 000's 000's 000's 0001's


West North Central:


1930 4/
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935 5/
1936


South Atlantic:
1930 4/
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935 5/
1936


5,030
5,005
5,069
5,149
5,162
5,108
5,041


5,864
5,947
6,038
6,131
6,140
6,204
6,275


116
114
112
109
111
104



160
159
164
157
169
164


375"
298
291
175
204
212



207
196
180
207
151.
162


- 10
- 7
- 4
- 2
- 2
- 22





- 9
8
20
2


8
1
3
2





30
28
8
- 21
- 10


East South
1930 4/
'1931
1932
1933
1934
1935 5/
1936

West South
1930 4/
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935 5/
1936


Central-:
5,052
5,136
5,230
5,357
5,322
5,335
5,377

Central:
5,275
5,249
5,299
5,464
5,415
5,388
5,344


(Continued)


146
146
153
147
154
153



147
150
147
142
149
141


169
153
191
105
.75
109



264
305
308
157
131
138


177
151
159
193
142
161



378
346
233
235
199
221


5
1
- 5.
- 23
- 5




2

- 7
- 25
- 9


1
- 17
- 12
- 2



- 6
- 6
2
- 36
- 46
- 51




UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
llll llll ll 1111111111111 i 1111111111111111111
3 1262 08589 7899


- 12 -


Table 4. -


Annual estimates of the farm rorulation, births and deaths occurring
in the farm population, and number of nersons moving to and from farms,
for the United States and major geograrhic.divisions, 193n 36. I/,
continued.


: :Increases in farn : Decreases in farm :Gain or
:Farm nocu-: nrovulation during : po-ulation during :Ins Puo: Allow-
Division : nation the year due to: : the year due to: :to frrn : ances
and : on : Arrivals: :DeTartures:to farm : includ-
year :January 1 : Eirths frontn city: Deaths : for city : rigra- : ed
S: torn or : : torn or : tion :
: : : village : : villn;ae : 2/
ONo's nolts 00o's on's 000's nonss 0f"s

Mountain States:
1930 4/ 1,122 31 113 13 123 3 7
1931 1,140 3n 97 12 56 9 5
1932 1,183 29 121 12 131 10 2
1933 1,202 29 47 12 69 8 2
1934 207 30 43 13 72 7 --
1935 5/ 1,188 30 42 13 81 2 --
1936 1,164

Pacific States:
1930 4/ 1,124 17 157 13 171 8 8
1931 1,130 18 123 13 141 1 7
1932 1,125 19 185 13 165 8 4
1933 1,14? 18 64 13 62 12 2
1934 1,163 19 49 13 43 13 -
1935 5/ 1,193 19 60 14 60 12
1936 1,210


1/ Figures for 1930 34 revised.


Estimates for 120) 29.available in a separate


- release by the Bureau of Agricultural Econcnics.


2/ Persons who mr,ve from farns in one division of country to farms in another
division. For the United States as a whole this obviously must balance.

3/ Allowances due to (a) changes to or from farning without change in residence
and (b) changes in interpretation of Census instructions. It is not possible
to se-arate the effects of these two factors.

*4/ Estimated as of January 1, 1930, on basis of Census of Anril 1, 1930.

. 5/ Census of January 1, 1935.