• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Title Page
 Half Title
 Table of Contents
 List of Tables
 Acknowledgement
 Introduction
 Status of farming in the Shadeville...
 Cooperative farming in the Shadeville...
 Summary and conclusions
 Bibliography
 Appendix






Title: Study of the Merits of Cooperative Farming in the Shadeville Community, Wakulla County, Florida
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/AM00000035/00001
 Material Information
Title: Study of the Merits of Cooperative Farming in the Shadeville Community, Wakulla County, Florida
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
Creator: Williams, Rufus
Affiliation: Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University
Publisher: Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University
Publication Date: 1955
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: AM00000035
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: Florida A&M University (FAMU)
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: notis - AAA0897
notis - ABV5548

Table of Contents
    Title Page
        Page i
    Half Title
        Page ii
    Table of Contents
        Page iii
        Page iv
    List of Tables
        Page v
        Page vi
    Acknowledgement
        Page vii
    Introduction
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
    Status of farming in the Shadeville Community, 1949-1954
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
        Page 31
    Cooperative farming in the Shadeville Community
        Page 32
        Page 33
        Page 34
        Page 35
        Page 36
        Page 37
        Page 38
        Page 39
        Page 40
        Page 41
        Page 42
        Page 43
        Page 44
        Page 45
        Page 46
        Page 47
        Page 48
        Page 49
        Page 50
        Page 51
        Page 52
        Page 53
        Page 54
    Summary and conclusions
        Page 55
        Page 56
        Page 57
        Page 58
        Page 59
    Bibliography
        Page 60
        Page 61
        Page 62
        Page 63
    Appendix
        Page 64
        Page 65
        Page 66
        Page 67
        Page 68
        Page 69
        Page 70
        Page 71
        Page 72
        Page 73
Full Text







A STUDY OF THE MERITS OF COOPERATIVE FARMING IN

THE SHADEVILLE COMMUNITY, WAKULIA COUNTY,
FLORIDA









A Thesis

Presented to

the Faculty of the Graduate School

Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University









In Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree

Master of Science

f


by

Rufus Williams

July, 1955









A STUDY OF THE MERITS OF COOPERATIVE FARMING IN
THE SHADEVILLE COMMUNITY, WAKULLA COUNTY,
FLORIDA







A Thesis

Presented to the Faculty of the Division of Graduate
Study Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University in Partial
Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science
in Agriculture






by
Rufus Williams


APPROVED:


iv'


A-9


w,, .o r.Tc
AJ I soft"" jooe


--imw-%m-P =2


6m.mW









C 2 /


TABLE OF CONTENTS


CHAPTER PAGE

I. INTRODUCTION 1

THE PROBLEM 2

Statement of the Problem 2

Scope of Problem 2

Importance of Study .. 3

DEFINITION OF TERMS .

Cooperative 4

Farm unit 4

Full-time farmer 4

Non-owner 5

Part-owner 5

Part-time farmer 5

Tenant 5

LIMITATIONS 5

Description of Wakulla County 6

REVIEW OF LITERATURE 8

II. STATUS OF FARBING IN THE SHADEVILLE COMMUNITY,

1949-1954 14

Farming Pattern 15

Size of Farming Units 15

Land Tenure 18

Capital Investment per Farm Unit 19

Farm Income 25








iv


CHAPTER PAGE

Summary 30

III. COOPERATIVE FARMING IN THE SHADEVILLE COMMUNITY 32

Economic Problems Facing the Shadeville Com-

munity Farmers 32

Capital Investment in the Wakulla County

Negro Farmers' Cooperative 33

Services Performed by the Cooperative for

Members and Non-Members 35

Effects of Cooperative Activities on Farming

in the Shadeville Community 40

Capital Investment per Farm Unit 41

Farm Income. 42

Size of Farm Units 43

Acres Cultivated 44

Ownership and Operation of Farm Ma-

chinery 44

Adoption of Approved Farming Practices 45

Purchase of Farm Supplies 47

Community's Economy 47

Farm and Home Improvements 48

Marketing Principal Crops and Livestock 49

Summary 51

IV. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 55

BIBLIOGRAPHY 60

APPENDIX 64










LIST OF TABLES


TABLE PAGE
I. Average Size of Farming Units Operated by

Twenty-Five Farmers in the Shadeville Com-
munity, 1949-1954 16

II. Average Number of Acres in Principal Crop Enter-
prises, 1949-1954 17

III. Average Size of Livestock and Poultry Enterprises,
1949-1954 .. 18

IV. Tenure Status of Twenty-Five Farmers in the
Shadeville Community, 1949-1954 19

V. Average Capital Investment Per Farm .. 21

VI. Total Capital Investment in Livestock and Poultry

by Twenty-Five Farmers in the Shadeville Com-
munity, 1949-1954 24
VII. Farm Income of. Tenty-Five Farmers in the
Shadeville Community, 1949-1954 26

VIII. Income From All Sources of Twenty-Five Farmers
in the Shadeville Community, 1949-1954 28

IX. Services Performed by the Wakulla County Negro
Farmers' Cooperative, 1952-1954 . 38

X. Participation in Approved Farming Practices by
Twenty-Five Farmers in the Shadeville Community

for the Periods 1949-1951 and 1952-1954 46










LIST OF TABLES


TABLE PAGE
I. Average Size of Farming Units Operated by

Twenty-Five Farmers in the Shadeville Com-
munity, 1949-1954 . 16

II. Average Number of Acres in Principal Crop Enter-
prises, 1949-1954 17

III. Average Size of Livestock and Poultry Enterprises,
1949-1954 .. 18

IV. Tenure Status of Twenty-Five Farmers in the
Shadeville Community, 1949-1954 19

V. Average Capital Investment Per Farm 21

VI. Total C&pital Investment in Livestock and Poultry

by Twenty-Five Farmers in the Shadeville Com-
munity, 1949-1954 .. 24
VII-. Farm Income of.Twenty-Five Farmers in the
Shadeville Community, 1949-1954 .. 26

VIII. Income From All Sources of Twenty-Five Farmers
in the Shadeville Community, 1949-1954 .. 28

IX. Services Performed by the Wakulla County Negro
Farmers' Cooperative, 1952-1954 . 38

X. Participation in Approved Farming Practices by
Twenty-Five Farmers in the Shadeville Community

for the Periods 1949-1951 and 1952-1954 46











ACKNOWLEDGMENTS


The writer wishes to acknowledge the very valuable

assistance of Professor Godfrey P. Van Meter, Assistant

Professor Graduate Agricultural Education; Professor T. T.

Lewis, Associate Professor of Agricultural Economics;

and Professor Lonnie A. Marshall, Associate Professor of

Agricultural Education and State Itinerant Teacher-Trainer

in Vocational Agriculture, for their guidance and coopera-

tion in the making of this study.









CHAPTER I


INTRODUCTION

Cooperatives give men something more than goods and

services. They give them a sense of control over their

destinies, and a sense of kinship with their fellows on

common problems. The greatest asset of cooperatives is

their democratic form of organization--supporting the idea

that people together can solve their economic problems.

All rural communities need the stimulating influence

of organization through which problems can be attacked and

activities stimulated by the collective effort of all the

people who call the locality home. Farming must not only

be profitable, but it must be pleasant as well. The ideal
community may develop through the people who live there if
they will but pool their efforts. In such a community the
increased income from farming will maintain a higher stand-

ard of living; the homes, the highways, farms, and public

buildings will be attractive; health will be protected, and

the social activities will make life brighter and happier
for everyone in the community. Cooperation by itself may

not be a way of life but it is a way to better living.


4JA38







2


I. THE PROBLEM

Statement of the Problem. Prior to the organization

of the Wakulla County Negro Farmers' Cooperative in 1952,

poorly organized farms and low farm income characterized the
farming pattern of Negro farmers in the Shadeville Community.

Many farmers supplemented their farm income by off-farm ac-

tivities, frequently, at the expense of farming operations.

In recognition of these conditions, the Wakulla County Negro

Farmers' Cooperative was organized.

The purpose of this study is to examine the operations
of the cooperative organization to determine whether it has

contributed to the solution of the problems which existed
before 1952.

cope of Problem. There are forty-eight Negro farmers
and four white farmers in the Shadeville Community and con-

tiguous areas covered by this study. Of this number, twenty-

five of the farms were selected and surveyed as a basis for

securing data for this investigation. The twenty-five farms

surveyed included eleven which were affiliated with the
Wakulla County Negro Farmers' Cooperative and fourteen farm

units that were non-members. A six year period beginning

1949 and ending in 1954 was covered. This represents three

years of non-cooperative farming and three years of cooperative










farming.

The specific areas which are the concern of this

inquiry are indicated on a map of Wakulla County. (See

Appendix.) These will be referred to as the Shadeville

Community although some of the farm units studied are found

in contiguous communities. These communities have much in

common and can safely be studied as a unit.

Importance of the Study, Evidence of the low economic

status of farming was common throughout the Shadeville Com-

munity. The small size of the farm unit, the low farm income,

and the relatively small capital outlay per farm unit were

of special concern to many persons in the community. It was

the general opinion of those concerned that if the adverse

conditions were to be changed, extensive changes in farming

methods would be necessary.

In light of the above conditions and with the hope

that cooperative action might give a degree of relief to the

small farmers in the Shadeville Community, the Wakulla County

Negro Farmers' Cooperative was organized in 1952. It was also

hoped that through cooperative action the standard of living

of the community in general might be raised. This effect,

it was felt would result mainly from increased farm income

made possible by cooperative purchase of farm machinery and

supplies and through cooperative marketing of farm produce.







4


To determine the extent to which cooperative efforts

have alleviated the conditions existing prior to 1952 is the

concern of this investigation. The information gained from

this study will serve as a guide to future cooperative action

in the community.

The desirability for information bearing on the problem

was indicated by most of the residents of the community. The

steady decline in community population, church membership, and

the ineffective functioning of other community organizations

were matters of grave concern. The general consensus of

opinion was that a closer working relationship between farmers

of the community was necessary to avert economic and social

disaster.

An effort will be made to show the extent to which

success has been attained in succeeding chapters of this study.

II. DEFINITIONS OF TEMIS USED


Cooperative. An organization of farmers whose ob-

jective is to carry on farm operations to the advantage of

its members on a non-profit basis.

Farm Unit. The complete farm under the control of one

person or in partnership with another person.


Full-time Farmer. A farmer whose value of sales of

farm products exceeds $1,199.00 provided (1) he does not work








5


off his farm more than one-hundred days, or (2) the non-

farm income received by him and the members of his family
is not greater than the value of farm products sold.

Non-owner. A farmer who owns none of the land on
which he farms,

Part-owner. A farmer who owns a portion of the land
on which he farms, and rents or leases a portion.

Part-time Farmer. A farmer whose value of sales of
farm products ranges from $250.00 to $1,199.00 provided (1)
he works off the farm one-hundred days or more, or (2) the
non-farm income received by him and the members of his
family is greater than the value of farm products sold.

Tenant. A farmer who rents from others or works on

shares for others all the land he operates.

Limitations. This study is limited to a comparison

of cooperative and non-cooperative farming in the Shadeville

Community for the period 1949-1954. For this purpose records
of twenty-five farmers in the Shadeville Community will be
used as the principal source of information.








6


III. DESCRIPTION OF WAKULIA COUNTY

Wakulla County is located in North Florida. It is

bordered on the east by Jefferson County, on the north by

Leon County, on the west by Liberty and Franklin Counties,

and on the south by the Gulf of Mexico. The county is

sparsely populated with about 5,400 persons inhabiting its

385,980 acres of land.
About 37,000 acres of the land in the county is in

farms. Of this acreage approximately 21,000 area are

cleared for cultivation. About 7,000 acres are being cul-

tivated by the sixty-six commercial farmers and two-hundred

seventy-seven other farmers in the county. The other

14,000 acres are lying idle or classified as unimproved

pasture.
In general, the soil is of the sandy type, which

predominates over the entire county. It ranges in drainage

from poorly drained to excessively drained.

The average annual rainfall is 54.03 inches which is

reasonably distributed throughout the year. The heaviest

rainfall comes in July, August, and September.

The Shadeville Community, in which this study is made,

is one of the small communities found inside the borders of

Wakulla County. It is located on U. S. Highway 319, ap-

proximately two miles southwest of Wakulla Springs and








7


approximately four miles east of Crawfordville, the County

Seat.

Farming occupies an important place in the economy

of this community. There are fifty-two farmers in the com-

munity. Most of the farms are of the general farm type with

corn and peanuts constituting the principal crops grown.

Hogs and chickens represent the principal livestock and

poultry enterprises.

At the time the present investigation was begun, farm-

ing and timbering afforded the major sources of income for the

people in the Shadeville Community and were the principal ac-

tivities. For many years, however, there has been a steady

exhaustion of timber. The exhaustion of timber has reflected

itself in a decline in the number of persons employed by the

timber industry. A further reduction in the number of persons

employed by the industry is expected in the near future. Un-

less farming is improved to the point where it will absorb

these workers on a full-time basis, families will be forced

to seek employment in areas outside the community. This will

cause serious disruption of community activities and a break-

down in community organization.

It is estimated that it will take fifteen years from

the time of this study, under efficient timber management, to

grow a supply of timber which will be conducive to an appreci-
able expansion in employment. Farming can be expanded in a

much shorter period of time.









REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Literature dealing directly with the study is very,

very much limited in quantity. The writer was unable to
find any literature on cooperative farming in the Shade-

ville Community, nor for a sectional area that would in-

elude the community. Most of the literature received is
only indirectly applicable to the study.
According to a study made by the Florida State

Department of Agriculture more than half of Wakulla County

is located in the Apalaohioola National Forest which em-
braces 106,800 of the 385,980 acres of land found in the

county. It is further stated that the lumber and naval

stores industry, once the county's major source of income,

are still important assets to the county's economy. Com-

mercial fishing and tourists comprise the main sources of
income, in addition to agriculture and timber. Corn,

sweet potatoes, sugar cane, velvet beans, and peanuts are
the principal crops grown in the county, continued the

study.



Know Florida. Florida State Department of Agricul-
ture, p. 75.






9


Of the three-hundred forty-three farms in Wakulla
County, sixty-six are commercial farms and two-hundred

seventy-seven are classified as other farms.
A generalized soil map of Florida gives two general
classifications of the soil found in Wakulla County.

1. "Imperfectly to poorly drained, sands and loamy
sands over dominantly non-calcareous materials.
2. Somewhat excessively to moderately well drained
sands.1g
According to Laird approximately 7,000 acres of land

in farms are cultivated and approximately 14,000 acres of
cleared land are lying idle or classified as unimproved
pasture in Wakulla County.
Hopkins5 pointed out that "a farmer can accomplish
much by working with his neighbors in performing jobs that
either he cannot do at all by himself, or at least could not
do so economically or so well." He further pointed out that

2
250 Agriculture Census. United States Department
of Commerce, Vol. 1, Part 18, pp. 131, 137.
3
S. N. Edison and F. B. Smith, Soils and Fertilizers
for Florida Vegetable and Field .Crop. University of Florida
Experiment Station, Bulletin 554, (February, 1953), p. 12.
A. S. Laird, "Annual Plan of Work for Wakulla County,
Florida" (unpublished Report of An Annual Plan of Work for
Wakulla County, 1954).
John A. Hopkins, Elements of Farm Management. (New
York: Prentice Hall, Inc., 1939), pp. 3- 1-51.







10


farmers cooperate to an advantage in exchanging labor, haul-
ing, ownership of large and expensive pieces of equipment
that cannot usually be used economically on a single farm,
and ownership of breeding sires.
6
Hunt added selling of farm products, farm crediting,

beef clubs, and cold storage lockers as desirable types of
farm cooperation. He asserted that "the activities of the
farm operator should not be confined to the line fences of
his own farm when trying to increase farm income."
Mears and Tobriner' defined cooperative marketing as
"the organized sale of farm products on a non-profit basis

in the interest of the individual grower." They took the

stand that it is murderous competition for two small farmers

to try to outbid each other to gain the favor of commercial

buyers.
The greatest saving to farmers results from the in-
creased specialization in marketing, grading, control over

shipments, trade names, advertising, and merchandising,
reported Mears. and Tobriner.

6
Robert L. Hunt, Farm Management in the South.
(Danville, Illinois: The Interstate Printers and Publishers,
1942), pp. 464-83.
?
Elliot Grinnell and Matthew 0. Tobriner, Principles
and Practices of Cooperative Marketing. (New York: Ginn
and Company, 1926), p. 580.
.bid., p. 580.





11


SOnly by Joining and working together can farmers

provide the capital, manpower, and facilities for efficient

lspration, meet organized groups on an equal basis, carry

on research, and develop new ideas that will benefit all
9
people.
10
Chapman emphasized the importance of rural organi-

I nations through which problems can be attacked and high

standards of living maintained.

The following accomplishments have been made by

farmers through their cooperatives: aided in improving

quality of food, fostered standardization of products,

improved storage facilities, reduced transportation costs,

reduced production costs, improved method of production,

lowered cost of credit, and helped stabilize farm prices.1
12
Timmons lists the following things which a

cooperative can do: Help improve distribution between

markets, finance marketing operations, decrease wasteful



Five Questions About Farmer Cooperatives. United
States Department of Agriculture, Information Bulletin
Number 4.
P1aul W. Chapman, Successful Farming in the South.
(Atlanta, Georgia: Turner E. Smith and Company, 1942),
pp. 290-95.
11
Farmers Hel Everybody When They Work Together.
United States Department of Agriculture, Information Bulletin
Number 3.
12
1D. E.. Timmons, Cooperative Agriculture in Florida.
Florida Department of Agriculture, p. 70.





12


practices, make cheaper credit possible, make for cooperative

production, make for cooperation in preparation for market,

Sand get the grower a quality price for a quality product.

He also lists things cooperative cannot do as ?make a good

Farmer out of a poor one," etc.
13
According to McKay marketing co-ops have increased

farm income by improving the quality of the products they

handle, encouraging farmers to improve their production

practices, and reducing marketing costs; the purchasing

cooperatives by providing at cost the kind of supplies the

farmers need.
He pointed out further that if the farmers are helped

all of us are helped--the bankers and businessmen. Through

the opportunities for leadership in a cooperative organiza-

tion farmers are developed, their interest in the churches
and schools is stimulated, and a cooperative progressive

spirit is developed.
14
Williams and others in reporting on the functions

and some of the activities of the Sweet Home Community Far-

mers' Cooperative in 1951, stated that the Sweet Home


13
A. W McKay, Farmers' Cooperatives in Our Community.
United States Department of Agriculture, Circular E-32,
May, 1948).
14Rufus Wlliams, C. J. Randolph, W. W. Anderson and
L. A. Marshall, A Report on the Function and Some of the


Activities of the Sweet Home Community Farmers' Cooperative
Association,' (unpublished Committee Report of a Field Trip
to the Sweet Home Community Farmers' Cooperative Association,
Seguin, Texas, 1951).







13


ity Farmers' Cooperative was organized for the

wrpzpose of securing the necessary machinery needed by the

:farmers in the community to increase their farm labor in-

~Ime. As a result the average farm income increased from

$500.00 to $2,500.00 in nine years. It was further re-
perted that outstanding improvements had been made in the

living standards of the farmers in the community which was

a direct or indirect result of cooperative action by far-

mers in the community.










CHAPTER II


STATUS OF FARMING IN THE SHADEVILLE COMMUNITY, 1949-1954


Farming was at a low state in the Shadeville Com-

munity at the time this study was made. The farms were

small on the average and the average farm income was far

below the state average per farm unit. Considerable pro-

gress has been made in improving various aspects of this

situation through the cooperative farming program initiated

in 1952, but much remains to be done if the economic status

of the group is to be raised to a level comparable to the

higher income counties of the state. The small average

farm income reported for the period may be attributed pri-

marily to the small size of the farms, the small investment

in modern farm machinery and equipment, and the part-time

nature of farming followed in the community. As a direct

result of this situation, there has been a tendency for

established farmers to discontinue farming in recent years.

Others have reduced the number of acres cultivated and have

taken up part-time employment outside the community. This

is indicated by the large number of tillable acres lying

idle (See page 6.) or growing up in inferior grades of

timber.

The situation that existed in the community was

further complicated by the passage of state legislation in







15


1951 requiring the fencing of livestock. The effect of
this was to reduce still further the acreage planted in

crops since pasture had to be provided for the livestock

kept. Although livestock numbers were small, as will be

shown, the increased acreage used for this purpose affected

the income of farmers appreciably.

I. Farming Pattern

In the Shadeville Community there were forty-eight

Negro and four white farming units. Most of the farmers

follow a general type of farming. Corn, peanuts, hogs,

and poultry constitute the principal crop and livestock

enterprises.

Size of Farming Units. As previously stated, the

average size of the farming unit in the Shadeville Community

is small in terms of acreage and capital invested. It will

be seen in Table I that the average size of the farm units

studied varied from 52.4 acres in 1949 to 68.8 in 1954.

The average number of acres cultivated by the twenty-

five farmers surveyed increased from 20.0 in 1949 to 31.9

in 1954, representing an increase of 11.9 acres.







16


TABLE I
AVERAGE SIZE OF FARMING UNITS OPERATED BY TWENTY-FIVE FAR-
MERS IN THE SHADEVILLE COMMUNITY, 1949-1954


Item 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954

Farming units (Acres) 52.4 52.9 52.7 52.7 62.1 68.8

Acres owned 39.7 39.7 40.2 38.6 40.2 40.2

Acres rented 12.7 13.2 12.5 14.1 21.9 28.6

Acres cultivated 20.0 19.2 19.7 21.7 26.6 31.9

Acres in pasture and
timber 32.2 32.8 31.3 29.6 34.4 35.5


Most of the increase was accounted for by proportionate

increases in the number of acres rented for the same period.

The number of acres owned remained practically the same

throughout the period covered by this survey. The average

acreage increase of land used for pasture and timber was

three and three-tenths acres per farm unit during the 1949-

1954 period.
Of the crops cultivated, corn occupied the largest

acreage with peanuts ranking second for the period 1949-

1954. Most, or 98.2 per cent of the increase in acreage
reported was devoted to corn and peanuts. For other crops

the acreage cultivated remained relatively constant, or the
increase was negligible.










TABLE II

AVERAGE NUMBER OF ACRES IN PRINCIPAL CROP ENTERPRISES, 1949-
1954

Enterprise 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954
i/ il ii |111 . . . .. . .

Corn 11.0 9.9 9.9 9.6 12.7 19.7

Peanuts 7.3 7.6 8.0 10.4 11.9 10.3

Truck crops, general 1.2 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.7 1.5



The livestock and poultry enterprises remained

relatively stable showing only slight increases. (See Table

III.) Of the twenty-five farmers interviewed, ten had dairy

cattle, twenty-three had breeding hogs, and twenty-three had

poultry. This was true for each year covered by this in-

vestigation. It is significant that none of the farms

studied reported raising beef cattle. The small size of

the average farm unit and the pasture requirement for beef

cattle combined to restrict this enterprise.







18


TABLE III

AVERAGE SIZE OF LIVESTOCK AND POULTRY ENTERPRISES,
1949-1954


Kind of Livestock or 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954
Poultry


Cattle, dairy (head) 1.3 1.3 1.3 .9 .9 1.0

Hogs, breeding (head) 3.2 3.3 3.5 3.5 4.0 3.1

Poultry layers (head) 20.0 21.6 22.7 22.9 19.8 17.4




II. Land Tenure

The tenure status of the twenty-five farmers inter-

viewed remained relatively steady for the period 1949-1954.

(See Table IV.) The three-year period reflected small

changes in most tenure categories, but these changes were

not significant. It remains to be seen whether activities

of the cooperative will reflect themselves in an increase

in farm operators in the area. It should also be pointed out

that the number of full-time farmers continued to decrease

while the part-time farmers increased. This reflects the

precarious situation existing in the community to which
reference has already been made. The low farm income has

forced farmers to seek off-farm employment. This is

especially true of the smaller than average farms where

incomes derived from farm operations have not been sufficient







19


to sustain them on even the lowest standards.

TABLE IV

TENURE STATUS OF TWENTY-FIVE FARMERS IN THE SHADEVILLE
COMMUNITY, 1949-1954


Item 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954

Number of operators 23 23 24 25 25 25

Number of owners 11 10 12 13 13 13

Number of part-owners 9 10 10 9 9 9

Number of tenants 3 3 2 3 3 3

Number of full-time
farmers 12 12 12 13 11 11

Number of part-time
farmers 11 11 12 12 14 14




III. Capital Investment Per Farm Unit

The average capital investment per farm unit for the

twenty-five farmers interviewed showed a steady increase

from 1949-1954. (See Table V.) Average investment in land,
household goods, farm machinery, livestock and poultry, and

automobiles showed increases. The investment in farm build-
ings and in workstock decreased during the period. This

decrease was due in part to depreciation in value of existing

buildings and workstock.







20


Average capital investment in land showed an

increase from $686.39 in 1949 to $881.60 in 1954. This may

be attributed to the fact that two farmers who did not own

land purchased land during the period, and two other farmers

purchased additional land. There was no land sold on any

of the twenty-five farms surveyed.

There was a slight decrease in capital investment in

buildings. This may be attributed, in part, to the fact

that more interest was exercised in farming operations, and

considerably more capital invested in farm machinery during

the latter part of the period than at the beginning.

Capital investment in household goods remained

relatively constant during the period. The average in-

vestment showed an increase of about five dollars. This

may also be attributed to the use of available funds for

purchase of modern farm machinery and equipment following

organization of the cooperative.

The average capital investment in farm machinery

showed a substantial rise in 1954 over 1949. The increase

was sharp in 1952 and 1953. This was due primarily to the

introduction of three farm tractors with attachments, a

peanut picker, and hay baler; and the increased purchase of

farm trucks during the latter part of the period covered by

this study. The rise was from an average investment of

$86.28 in 1949 to an average investment of $451.80 in 1954.




TABLR V
AVERAGE CAPITAL INVESTMENT PER FARM


1949-1954


Capital Investment 1949\ 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954

Land $ 686.39 $ 810.22 $ 826.49 $ 824.60 $ 855.60 $ 881.60
Buildings 1,313.04 1,300.00 1,280.00 1,278.00 1,278.00 1,290.00
Household goods 630.43 656.52 631.25 617.60 625.60 635.00
Farm machinery 86.28 80.39 75.00 269.40 458.80 451.80
Livestock and poultry 222.52 234.91 243.04 225.20 250.24 225.60
Workstock 58.04 57.39 56.25 48.60 37.80 37.20
Automobiles 97.83 228.13 227.08 220.00 228.00 218.00


Average per farm $3,090.11 $3,367.69 $3,339.08 $3,484.40 $3,734.04 $3,543.18


ro.
HJ







22


Investment reached the peak in 1953 with an average capital
investment per farm unit of $458.80. This represents an

increase of more than 500 per cent over 1949. The increase

in capital investment reflects primarily the efforts of the

members of the Wakulla County Negro Farmers' Cooperative, as

the investment of non-members remained practically steady

during the period covered by this study.

The average capital investment in livestock and

poultry remained relatively stable throughout the period
covered by this study. The average investment in productive

livestock and poultry for 1949 was $222.52. This was in-

creased to an average of $225.60 in 1954. This represents

an increase of 1.4 per cent.

The average capital investment in workstock showed

a steady decrease. By 1954 there had occurred a 35.1 per

cent decrease in capital investment under 1949. This may be

attributed to three factors: (1) fewer workstock owned by

farmers in 1954, (2) capital investment in tractors, and

(3) value decrease of workstock due to age. Twelve farmers
maintained workstock for the entire period covered. Eight

owned workstock for a portion of the period, and five farmers

did not own workstock for any year covered.

Of the twenty-five farmers interviewed only one owned

a truck for the entire period covered by this study. Four

owned trucks for a portion of the years covered. The total




4s,


23


Capital investment in trucks increased from $450.00 in 1949

Sto $1,525.00 in 1954, representing a 238.9 per cent increase.
Two of the farmers owned trucks in 1949 and five in 1954.
Average capital investment per farm unit in auto-
mobiles increased from $97.83 in 1949 to $218.00 in 1954,

representing an increase of $120.17 or 122.8 per cent. Six
of the twenty-five farmers owned automobiles for the entire
period covered by this report of investigation, and six
owned automobiles for a portion of the period. Of the
twenty-five farmers, six owned automobiles in 1949 and eleven

in 1954.
By separating the capital investment in livestock and
poultry into the kinds of livestock and poultry making up
the total investment, it may be noted that the total capital
investment in hogs for all twenty-five farms increased from

$2,355.00 in 1949 to $3,040.00 in 1954. (See Table VI.)
This represents an increase of $685.00 or 29.1 per cent
during the period covered. Twenty-two farmers maintained
one or more breeding hogs for each year of the period
covered with the exception of 1949 and 1950 during which
time two of the twenty-two farmers were not carrying on farm-

ing operations and did not own breeding hogs. Three of the
farmers did not have breeding hogs for any year during the
period covered by this study.








TABLE VI

TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT IN LIVESTOCK AND POULTRY BY TWENTY-
FIVE FARMERS IN THE SHADEVILLE COMMUNITY, 1949-1954


Kind 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954


Hogs, breeding $2,355.00 $2,560.00 $2,705.00 $3,060.00 $3,810.00 $3,040.00

Cattle, dairy 2,010.00 2,030.00 2,240.00 1,675.00 1,600.00 1,980.00

Poultry, layers 753.00 813.00 888.00 920.00 846.00 720.00



Total all farms $5,118.00 $5,403.00 $5,833.00 $5,655.00 $6,256.00 $5,640.00
. ............ .... ,L I IIL, ._ ......I, I" -..... 2 .. -: ... _.."...


r)
-pr-








25


IV. Farm Income

One of the best methods for determining the success

of farm operations is to measure the income produced over
a period of years. The farm income received by the twenty-

five farm units included in this study before and after

the organization of the Wakulla County Negro Farmers'

Cooperative should reveal, to some extent, benefits result-

ing from cooperative efforts.
It will be seen that the total farm income for the

twenty-five farmers under study increased from $22,747.00

in 1949 to $34,662.50 in 1954. This represents an increase

of $11,915.50. For the same period the average farm income
per farm unit increased from $987.39 to $1,386.50, repre-

senting an increase in average income of $399.11 or 40.4 per

cent. The most substantial rise occurred in 1952 when the
average rose from $599.08 in 1951 to $1,240.46 in 1952.

Of the total farm income in 1949, income from crops
contributed 28.2 per cent; income from livestock and poultry

contributed 25.3 per cent; and value of products used on

the farm accounted for 46.4 per cent.
In 1954, of the total farm income of the twenty-five
farmers constituting this study, income from crops contri-
buted 28.8 per cent, income from livestock and poultry con-

tributed 37.4 per cent, and value of products used on the






TABLE VII


FARM INCOME OF


TWENTY-FIVE FARMERS IN THE SHADEVILLE COMMUNITY,
1949-1954


Source of Income 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954

Crops $ 6,423.00 $ 6,211.00 $ 6,699.00 $10,887.00 $11,319.00 $ 9,967.00
Livestock and
poultry 4,749.00 5,511.50 6,518.00 7,810.00 11,281.30 12,973.00
Timber 0 0 0 200.00 0 314.00

Products Used on 10,575.00 10,411.00 10,761.00 12,114.00 12,080.00 11,408.50
farm

Total income per
farm unit $22,747.00 $22,135.00 $23,978.00 $31,011.50 $34,680.30 $34,662.50

Average income
per farm unit $ 987.39 $ 962.33 $ 999.08 $ 1,240.46 $ 1,387.21 $ 1,386.50

---- -- ---; -- ---------------- ---- --- --- ----;---- ---now- --


01)







27


farm accounted for 30.3 per cent.
For the most part, farm income from each major

source showed an increase for the period covered by this
investigation. Income from crops increased from $6,423.00
in 1949 to $9,967.00 in 1954, representing an increase of

$3,544.00. Income from livestock and poultry increased
from $5,749.00 in 1949 to $12,973.00 in 1954, showing an
increase of $7,224.00. Value of products used on the farm
rose from $10,575.00 in 1949 to $11,408.00 in 1954, repre-
senting an increase of $833.50.
Most of the farmers in the Shadeville Community do

part-time farming and engage in off-farm work to supplement
their low farm income. Therefore, off-farm income is con-
sidered in this study. (See Table VIII.) Income is divided
into three categories: (1) cash farm income, (2) non-cash
farm income, (value of products used on the farm), and (3)
cash off-farm income.
Income from all sources for the twenty-five farm

units increased from $37,134.00 in 1949 to $52,262.50 in

1954, representing an increase of $15,128.50. For the same
period the average income from all sources per farm unit in-
creased from $1,614.52 to $2,090.50, representing an increase
of $475.98 or 29.9 per cent.








TABLE VIII

INCOME FROM ALL SOURCES OF TWENTY-FIVE FARMERS IN THE SHADEVILLE
COMMUNITY, 1949-1954


Item 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954


Cash farm income $12,172.00 $11,722.00 $13,217.00 $18,897.00 $22,600.00 $23,254.00

Non-cash farm
income 10,575.00 10,411.00 10,761.00 12,114.00 12,080.00 11,408.50

Cash non-farm
income 14,387.00 15,560.00 17,722.00 18,845.00 18,045.00 17,600.00


Total for all farms $37,134.00


Average per farm $ 1,614.52


$37,693.00 $41,200.00


$ 1,638.83 $ 1,716.67


$49,586.00


$ 1,998.24


$52,725.00


$ 2,109.00


$52,262.50


$ 2,090.50


00
O


now&


momop"


W"


posum


~IIC~llllllk~L- --I-- .-- ~~---Ynk~-l-~ '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' --~~ -CllplaCb~ -- --I----~~IIILIIII-LIIL-L~I Ill~a(l~Pll~a~CLII~~IIIC-ll -Yi







29


Of the total income from all sources, cash farm

income contributed 44.5 per cent in 1954. Cash off-farm
income contributed 38.7 per cent in 1949 and 33.6 per cent
in 1954.
For the period covered by this study the combined cash

income of the twenty-five farms surveyed rose from $26,559.00
in 1949 to $40,894.00 in 1954, representing a rise of

$14,335.00 or 54.0 per cent. There was a sharp rise in 1952
when the total cash farm income rose from $13,217.00 in

1951 to $18,897.00 in 1952.
It may be noted in Table VIII that with the excep-
tion of the years 1952, 1953, and 1954 the cash off-farm
income was substantially higher than cash farm income.
This may be attributed to the fact that the cash farm
income was relatively lower during the years 1949, 1950,
and 1951 than 1952, 1953, and 1954. The increase in cash
farm income during the years 1952-1954 put cash farm income
slightly in the lead in 1952, and substantially in the lead
in 1954 over cash off-farm income. This reverse in lead
was due primarily to the increase in number of acres cul-
tivated resulting in a greater yield, and to the increase
in average market price received in 1953.

Cash off-farm income increased from $14,387.00 in
1949 to $17,600.00 in 1954, representing an increase of

$3,213.00 or 22.3 per cent. This increase may be







30


attributed, in part, to the operation of the Wakulla

County Negro Farmers' Cooperative's modern farm machinery

on a custom basis. This enabled farmers to carry on their

normal farming operations with less of their personal time

devoted to these activities. This also gave farmers more

time to do off-farm work. Some of the farmers used all or

portion of this time to expand the size of their farming

business. Others used the time doing off-farm work.








31

income increased from $14,387.00 in 1949 to $17,600.00

in 1954, representing a combined increase of $3,213.00 or
?2.3 per cent. With the exception of 1952, 1953, and 1954,
the combined cash received from off-farm work by the
twenty-five farmers surveyed was greater than the combined
cash received from the sale of farm products.









CHAPTER III

COOPERATIVE FARMING IN THE SHADEVILLE COMMUNITY


The period 1949-1954 covered by this study includes

two three-year periods for purposes of comparison. The

period 1949-1951 represents the non-cooperative farming

period in the Shadeville Community and the period 1952-

1954 represents the cooperative farming period in the com-
munity.

The purpose of this chapter is to make a compari-

son of various aspects of farming in the community during

each of the selected periods in order to determine the

relative merits of the cooperative program initiated in

1952.

I. Economic Problems Facing the Shadeville Community Farmers


The farmers in the Shadeville Community have been

faced for many years with the problem of carrying on farm-

ing operations with very little of the resources necessary

for success. It will be seen in Table I that the average

size of the farming unit is small considering acres farmed

and farm income received. Of the total acreage in farms,

less than fifty per cent of this was cultivated during the

years 1949-1954.

A diversified system of farming was followed with

corn and peanuts being the principal crops grown. Of the






33


total acreage cultivated, corn represented 55.4 per cent

in 1949 and 61.8 per cent in 1954. Peanuts accounted for

34.7 per cent of the combined acreage cultivated in 1949
and 32.2 per cent in 1954.

According to information gained from the surveys,

peanuts and hogs contributed the major portion of the cash

farm income. Peanuts contributed 29.2 per cent to the com-

bined cash farm income in 1949 and 14.1 per cent in 1954.

Corn was fed primarily to livestock and poultry. As shown

in Table VII, the average farm income was relatively low

for the entire period covered by this study.

II. Capital Investment in the Wakulla County ero Farmers'

Cooperative


Individual capital resources of the farmers in the

Shadeville Community were found by the investigator to be

very limited at the time of this study. On the other hand,

the need for capital to carry on farming operations more

efficiently was evident on every farm in the community.

The farmers were faced with the following major problems.

First, inability to operate their farms efficiently due to

an almost complete lack of modern farm machinery and capable

workstock. Before 1952 no farm tractor was owned by any








34

Negro farmer in the Shadeville Community. Second, in-

ability to harvest and market their peanut crops efficiently

due to lack of peanut harvesting machinery. Several far-

mers had lost entire crops of peanuts after they were stacked

in the fields because of the lack of available machinery

for picking the crop. Third, lack of adequate trucking

facilities for hauling their products to market. The major

products marketed were hogs and peanuts. Most of the farmers

sold these products on their farms for much less than what

they could have received on the open market.

The Wakulla County Negro Farmers' Cooperative was

organized in 1951 with the objective of improving the farm-

ing status of the Shadeville Community. To realize this

broad objective, steps were taken to purchase the necessary

farm machinery and equipment which would permit more effi-

ciency in farming operations than was possible under in-

dividual farmers.

The initial cooperative efforts embraced the purchase

of a farm tractor with attachments, a peanut picker, hay

baler, and truck. Operations on a cooperative basis in

preparing land and performing other services for members

and non-members began in the early part of 1952.

At the end of the 1954 farm year the eleven members

of the Wakulla County Negro Farmers' Cooperative had a net

capital investment of $4,050.00 in machinery and equipment








35


purchased cooperatively.

III. Services Performed b2 the Cooperative for Members and

Non-Members


In an attempt to give some degree of relief to the

economic problem facing most of the farmers in the Shade-

ville Community, the Wakulla County Negro Farmers'

Cooperative rendered custom services for non-members as

well as members. Custom services mean the performing of

certain jobs by the Cooperative for members and non-members

at their request. A service charge was set up by the poopera-

tive for each service offered. The non-members for whom

services were rendered were known as customers of the

cooperative. The nature and extent of these services are

shown in Table IX. During the 1952-1954 period the services

performed fell into ten job categories ranging from clearing

land to hauling products to market. (See Table IX.)

Of the eleven members of the cooperative each had

been served by the cooperative in some capacity. Services

had been performed by the cooperative for most of the non-

member farmers in the community. The number of members

served during the period 1952-1954 ranged from a low of

three in clearing land to a high of ten in harrowing, ferti-

lizing, and hauling. The number of non-members served ranged

from a low of zero in clearing land and fertilizing to a high








36


of thirty-four in harrowing. No requests were made by non-

members for clearing land and fertilizing. These Jobs were

performed by hand and with mules.

The scope of service rendered members ranged from a

low of sixty-one acres of land cleared to a high of 643

acres harrowed. For non-members the range was from a low

of zero acres cleared and fertilized to a high of 1,542

acres harrowed. Five-thousand eight hundred and eighteen

miles of hauling had been performed for members and 379 miles

for non-members.

According to information gathered from the members

of the Wakulla County Negro Farmers' Cooperative, the wide

range in scope of services for members and non-members may

be explained as follows: clearing land represents the low

in number for number served for members and non-members,

and low in scope of service for members and non-members.

But, on the other hand, clearing land represented much

greater effort and time per acre than did any other service

performed by the cooperative. This was due primarily to

the fact that much of the land cleared had been growing

up for a considerable length of time, and had never been

cleared for tractor cultivation. Much more land had been

cleared by hand.

Harrowing represents the high for the number of

members and non-members served, and scope of service of








37


members and non-members. This may be attributed to three

factors: First, the operation of harrowing or preparing

land for planting was begun far before the time for planting,

thereby giving more time for the service to be rendered.

Second, the service was in demand by most of the small far-

mers who did not cultivate but one to three acres and did

not have workstock. Third, much of the land was rough with

vegetation and harrowing wasespecially desired.

The jobs of fertilizing, planting, rotary hoeing,

and cultivating were performed during the rush of the farm-

ing season and were done in routine cycles. The scope of

these jobs, therefore, are controlled by the capacity of the

available machinery for doing the jobs. For the reason

as stated, the service performed by the Cooperative during

the period 1952-1954 in fertilizing, planting, rotary hoe-

ing, and cultivating are relatively the same in scope and

are limited primarily to members. As the demand increased

for these services by members, plans were made to purchase

another tractor and attachments. This, undoubtedly, would

put the organization in a position to broaden these ser-

vices to members and non-members as more land is cleared

for tractor cultivation.








38


TABLE IX

SERVICES PERFORMED BY THE WAKULLA COUNTY NEGRO FARMERS'

COOPERATIVE 1952-1954

tC~~l~ m II ... ..... .. t -:L ,_,~ C ,, .. ., ,_- .....m .. : ,. .


NUMBER
SERVICES PERFORMED :

: Members


Clearing land (acres)

Harrowing (acres)

Fertilizing (acres)

Planting (acres)

Rotary hoeing (acres)

Cultivating (acres)

Plowing up peanuts (acres)

Picking peanuts (acres)

Baleing hay (tons)

Hauling (miles)


3

10

10

5

5

5
4

6

6

10


SERVED

Non-
:Members


0

34

0

2

2

2

.1

3

3

7


:Men
,-.
6



32


31
31


E

23

9

581


SCOPE OF
SERVICE
Non-
abers :Members

;1 6

[3 1542

?0 0

52 8

.8 8

.0 8

39 10

[4 27

)9 12

.8 379


mow&


*o


w


- -r---a rrarrasr- _.s -ra~---


-.I ---~ --


a~rrr r rrrr 411r- r- r- -~r- Il ~1








39


The services of picking peanuts and baleing hay

S were needed only by the farmers with peanut allotment.

Peanut marketing was under the control of the Production

Marketing Administration. The cooperative had served all

of the six members needing and requesting services in

these jobs. Three non-members had also been served.

The service performed by the cooperative organiza-
tion in hauling was of three general types: (1) general

hauling on the farm, (2) general hauling in the county, and

(3) general hauling out of the county. Hauling on the farm
was primarily done in the distribution of fertilizer,

clearing of land, and hauling materials for construction

and repairs. Hauling in the county consisted mainly of

hauling of building materials, fertilizer, feed and hogs.

Hauling out of the county consisted mainly of hauling

fertilizer, seed, and hauling products to market.

Hauling relative to marketing farm products has

brought about a major change in the marketing custom of

farmers in the Shadeville Community. As has been previous-

ly stated, before 1952 farmers marketed most of their

products on their farms because of a lack of trucks to

haul their products to the open markets. Since the pur-

chase of a truck by the Wakulla County Negro Farmers'

Cooperative in 1952, cooperative marketing of hogs and

peanuts have brought to farmers participating the







40


realization of receiving prevailing market prices for

products marketed. Approximately one-hundred tons of

peanuts have been harvested and marketed cooperatively by

the members of the Cooperative organization, and ap-

proximately two-hundred head of hogs. Through the pooling

of products for market by the small farmers in the community,

a sizable sum has been saved in the cost of hauling by

those participating.

IV. Effects of Cooperative Farming in the Shadeville Com-

munity


The effectiveness of cooperative farming in the

Shadeville Community will be determined by dividing the

broad topic into related categories and investigating

each. The period 1949-1954 is divided into two periods,

1949-1951 and 1952-1954, to provide a basis for comparison

of the non-cooperative farming period, 1949-1951, with

the cooperative farming period, 1952-1954.

To determine the effects of cooperative farming in

the community the following aspects will be compared for

the two periods mentioned: capital investment per farm

unit, farm income, size of farm units, acres cultivated,

ownership and operation of farm machinery, adoption of

appr~v d farming prac ticoes, purchase of farm Isupplies,

community's economy, farm and home improvement, and marketing









principal crops and livestock. The purpose of the

succeeding sections is to determine the effects coopera-

tive farming has had on each of the above stated aspects

of farming in the Shadeville Community.


Capital Investment Per Farm Unit. Reference has

been made elsewhere in this study to the small size of the

farm unit in the Shadeville Community. Reference has also

been made to the small capital outlay and the part it has

played in bringing about the conditions existing among

farmers in the community, especially prior to 1952. To

what extent these conditions have been changed since the

organization of the cooperative is a legitimate subject

of this inquiry. For this purpose a comparison is made of

the average capital investment per farm unit for the two

periods under study. The results are shown in Table V.

The average capital outlay per farm unit was

$3,265.63 for the 1949-51 period and $3,587.31 for the

1952-54 period. This represents an increase of 9.8 per
cent. This increase is relatively small and cannot be

considered significant of itself. Since the years 1952-54

represent the period following organization of the coopera-

tive, its indirect effects on individual farmers should

also be considered. One of the functions of a cooperative

is to perform services in areas where individuals are








42


unable to perform themselves. This is especially true

where expensive machinery and equipment are involved.

Services of this nature were performed on a broad basis by

the Cooperative in the Shadeville Community during these

years.

It seems logical to conclude, therefore, that the

increase in capital investment per farm unit is largely

accounted for by the purchase of tractors and other farming

equipment on a cooperative basis rather than as individuals

working alone. It also must follow that services performed

by the cooperative for members and non-members remove

part of the necessity for purchase of similar equipment

on an individual basis. The situation described here re-

flects itself in a lower capital outlay per farm unit

than would have been necessary to carry on the same opera-

tions on an individual basis.


Farm Income. The income derived from any business

indicates in large measure the success or failure of that

business. This is also true with the business of farming.

Farm income is influenced by a number of factors, some of

which are controlled by the farmer. Just how the farm in-

comes of the twenty-five farmers in the Shadeville Community

were affected during the cooperative farming period of

1952-1954 will be discussed.






43


For the period 1949-1951 the average farm income
per farm was $982.93, and for the period 1952-1954 it was

$1,338.06. This represents an increase of $355.13 or
36.1 per cent per farm unit. Average cash farm income
during the cooperative farming period showed an increase
of $494.82 or 134.2 per cent over the non-cooperative
farming period, 1949-1951.

The increase in average farm income for the period
1952-1954 may be attributed primarily to the four following
causes: (1) an increase in total yield, (2) farmers

carrying their major products to marketing centers rather
than marketing them on their farms, (3) a higher grade of
peanuts marketed due to the availability of peanut harvest-

ing machinery, and (4) a higher market price received for
hogs in 1953 than any other year covered by this study.
Size of Farm Units. Throughout this report of in-
vestigation reference has been made to the small size of
the farm units in the Shadeville Community. Prior to 1953
there was a relative freeze in the size of the farm units

as is shown in Table I. The effects cooperative farm

operations have had on size of farm units will be discussed
in terms of comparison of the two farming periods.
The average size of farm units for the twenty-five

farmers constituting this study for the period 1949-51 was

52.7 acres, and for the period 1952-54 the average size of







44


farm units was 61.2 acres. This represents an increase of

8.5 acres of 16.1 per cent. This increase was due primarily
to the introduction of modern farm machinery by the Wakulla

County Negro Farmers' Cooperative in 1952 and the purchase
of two additional individual tractors by two members of the

cooperative.

Acres Cultivated. Size of farm unit may not give a

true picture of the volume of business on a given farm.

One of the best methods of measuring volume of business of

a farm is in terms of acres cultivated or tilled. Acres

cultivated gives, more nearly, the portion of a farm which

is in productive use. According to the report of the twenty-

five farmers in the Shadeville Community, the average

number of acres cultivated for the period 1949-1951 was 20,6
acres. For the period 1952-1954 the average was 28.0

acres. This increase represents primarily the efforts
of the eleven members comprising the Wakulla County Negro

Farmers' Cooperative. The number of acres cultivated by

the fourteen non-members included in this study remained

relatively stable for the six-year period covered.

Ownership and Operation of Farm Machinery. During

the period 1949-1951 no farmer in the Shadeville Community

owned a farm tractor. Peanuts were grown for market but no

peanut picker was owned. Only two trucks were owned by the







45


twenty-five farmers comprising this inquiry. The average
capital invested in farm machinery was $80.56 per farm unit
for the period.
During the period 1952-1954 the following machinery
and equipment were purchased and put into operation. In 1952
the Wakulla County Negro Farmers' Cooperative purchased and
put into operation in the community one tractor with attach-
ments, one peanut picker, one hay baler, and one truck. In

1953 two members of the cooperative purchased two individual
tractors and put them into operation. This made a total
of three farm tractors in operation at the end of the period

1952-1954. The average capital invested in farm machinery
in 1954 was $393.33. This representsan increase of $312.77
or 388.0 per cent over the period 1949-1951.

Ad option of Approved Farmain Practices. Success in
farming is closely associated with the adoption of improved
and approved farming practices by farmers. An investigation
of the effects of cooperative 'farming in the Shadeville Com-
munity on the adoption of improved farming practices is the
objective of this section. It may be noted in Table X that
for each of the nine practices investigated there was a
substantial increase in participation by the twenty-five

farmers interviewed during the 1952-1954 period. The in-
creases in participation in approved farming practices may be






TABLE X

PARTICIPATION IN APPROVED FARMING PRACTICES BY TWENTY-FIVE FARMERS IN THE
SHADEVILLE COMMUNITY FOR THE PERIODS 1949-1951 AND 1952-1954


T 0 T A L S : INCREASES
:: Increase
PRACTICE : 1949-1951 : 1952-1954: Total in
: : : Increase : Per Cent


Cover Crops Planted (Acres) 79 182 : 103 130.4

Cover Crops Plowed In (Acres) 79 : 182 103 : 130.4

Fertilizer Used (Tons) 55 3/4 : 120 3/4 65: 116.3
Crops Fertilized (Acres) 422 : 1,195 : 773 183.2

Green, Winter Pasture Crops : :
Planted (Acres) 35 : 176 : 141 : 402.9

Land Reclaimed (Acres) : 63 : 373 : 310 492.1

Virgin Land Cleared 10 38 : 28 280.0
Land Grubbed or Stumped (Acres) : 37 : 433 : 396 : 1070.3
Certified Seed Planted (Acres) 695 1,682 997 129.1
9 9 :
S, m ___________________________________-:. -9. ........____._. ________________* 9- -- ..,,,.---,.- --------- ~-M Ii W l







47


attributed, in part, to three factors: (1) the introduc-

tion into the community of modern farm machinery during the

1952-1954 period, (2) the sharing of experiences by members
of the cooperative organization through their group meetings,

and (3) the supervision of cooperative activities by the

agriculture teacher in the Shadeville High School.


SPurchase of Farm Supplies. The cooperative purchase

of farm supplies by the farmers in the Shadeville Community

presents an open economic endeavor worthy of active partici-

pation. Very little was done in this area during .either

period under investigation in this chapter. Fertilizer

was being purchased by the members of the cooperative from

local dealers with small savings to each member concerned.

Ton prices were being paid rather than hundred pound bag

prices. Plans were set up for the purchase of fertilizer

in conjunction with a cooperative group of white farmers

in the county in carload or truckload lots. Under the plan

each farmer participating will realize a substantial

saving over what was realized at the time of this study.


Community's Economy. As has been stated elsewhere
in-this study, the broad purpose of the organization of the

Wakulla County Negro Farmers' Cooperative was to improve the

economic condition of the Shadeville Community. The effects










cooperative efforts have had on the farmers in the com-

munity have been discussed. At this point the effects of

cooperative effort on the community in general will be

explained.

During the period 1952-1954 the Wakulla County Negro

Farmers' Cooperative gave full time employment to one per-

son. It gave short-period employment to forty-one addi-

tional persons, including men, women, and children. This

does not include the persons employed by the individual

members of the organization. The cooperative paid to the

persons employed a total of $4,853.35. To local business

establishments the cooperative paid $2,851.55. This ex-

p nditure was primarily for farm supplies, fuel, lubricants,

parts, repairs, interest, and capital investment. The co-

operative paid to land owners in the community a total of

$271.00 for rent on land.

Farm and Home Improvement. In an attempt not to

leave uninvestigated any major factor on the farms of the

twenty-five farmers constituting this study which might

reveal effects of cooperative farming, farm and home im-

provements were investigated. Effects of cooperative

farming as well as individual farming may be reflected on

the farm and in the homes of farm families. To determine

the possible effects of cooperative farming on farm and










home improvement a comparison is made of imprcve:ments during

each of the two periods under investigation.

It has been shown in Table X that considerably more

improvement was made to farm land during the period 1952-1954

than during the 1949-1951 period. The increase in cover crops

planted, cover crops plowed in, land reclaimed, virgin land

cleared, and land grubbed or stumped indicate definite farm

improvements. (See Table X.) This was not found to be true

of the homes, however. Improvements made to the homes did not

off-set the decrease in value due to depreciation. This does

not mean that no homes were improved above depreciation. On

several farms surveyed the homes had been improved remarkably

in connection with painting, screening, lighting, and running

water.

When the farmers' incomes are increased sufficiently,

they will undoubtedly spend a larger sum for home improvement.
As a rule, w-hen a farmer does not have adequate funds to take
care of both home improvements and farming operations, he will
neglect home improvements in favor of farming operations.
He is aware that he must rely much more on farming operations
for a living than he does on home improvements.

Marketing Principal Crops and Livestock. Marketing is

an integral part of the farming business. Marketing as re-

lated to farming may be defined as the rendering of those

essential services which enable the consumer to utilize the

produce of the farm. Cooperative marketing as it relates to







50


farming is defined as the organized sale of farm products on

a non-profit basis in the interest of the individual grower.

To determine how ccoperative marketing has affected farming

in the Shadeville Comm'unity is the purpose of this section.

The small far-'s in the Shadeville Community were

especially adapted to cooperative marketing. The principal

products marketed were hogs and peanuts. Very few farmers

were marketing enough hogs to comprise a truck load. The

pooling of hogs and peanuts for transportation to market

was being practiced by the members of the Wakulla County

Ne.ro Farmers' Cooperative. This practice was being carried

out at a saving in hauling cost to each member participat-

ing.

As has been stated elsewhere in this chapter, prior

to 1952 only two farmers out of the twenty-five farmers in-
terviewed owned trucks for hauling their products to market.

During the period 1952-54, five trucks were owned by the

twenty-five farmers in the Shadeville Community.

It may be noted in Table VII that the farm income

from crops, and livestock and poultry, which.represents cash

farm income, made a sharp increase during the years 1952-,54,

over the years 1949-51. More trucks being available for

hauling peanuts and hogs to open markets was one of the con-

tributing factors responsible for this upsurge in cash farm

income.







51


SUMMARY


For the purpose of comparison, the six-year period

covered by this study was divided into two three-year

periods. The period 1949-1951, prior to the organization

of the Wakulla County Negro Farmers' Cooperative, repre-

sents the non-cooperative farming period, and the period

1952-1954 represents the cooperative farming period. In

order to determine the relative merits of the cooperative

farming program initiated in 1952, various aspects of farm-

ing in the Shadeville Community were investigated and

results compared for each period mentioned.

The farmers in the Shadeville Community had very

little of the necessary resources for success in farming.

On an average the size of the farms were small, and

the farm income relatively low. Corn and peanuts were the

principal crops grown.

Prior to 1952 the farmers in the community were

faced with the problems of not having the necessary capital

to carry on farming operations on a successful basis, and

an almost complete lack of modern farm machinery for har-

vesting and marketing their products.

By the end of 1954 each of the eleven members of the

Wakulla County Negro Farmers' Cooperative had a net coopera-

tive investment in machinery and equipment of $368.18 aside







52


from their individual investments. In 1953 two of the

members purchased individual tractors and attachments.

The cooperative rendered custom services for non-

members as well as members. The service rendered con-

sisted of most of the major farming operations ranging

from clearing land to hauling products to market. During

the three-year period of cooperative farming, harrowing

represented the most demanded service offered. A total of

1,542 acres were harrowed for thirty-four non-members and
643 acres were harrowed for ten members. Other services

were equally as helpful to those needing the service and

were served.

The average capital outlay per farm unit was

$3,265.63 for the 1949-51 period and $3,587.31 for the

1952-54 period. This represents an increase of 9.8 per
cent.

The average farm income increased from $982.93 for

the period 1949-51 to $1,338.06 for the period 1952-54.

This represents an increase of $355.13 or 36.1 per cent.

The average size of the farm units increased from

52.7 acres for the period 1949-51 to 61.2 acres for the

1952-54 period. This was an increase of 8.5 acres or 16.1
per cent.





For the period 1949-1951 the average number of

acres cultivated was 20.6 acres and 28.0 acres for the

period 1952-1954. This represents an increase of 7.4 acres
or 35.9 per cent.

During the period 1952-1954 the major pieces of

machinery which were purchased and put into operation by

the members of the cooperative either individually or

cooperatively included three tractors with attachments,

one peanut picker, one hay baler, and one truck. The

average capital investment in farm machinery increased

from $80.56 for each farm unit for the period 1949-1951

to $393.33 for the period 1952-1954. This represents an
increase of 388.0 per cent.

There was a substantial increase in participation

in approved farming practices during the 1952-54
period over the 1949-51 period. The per cent increase

ranged from 116.3 in tons of fertilizer used to 1,070.3

for land grubbed or stumped.

Very little had been done by the farmers in connec-

tion with the cooperative purchase of farm supplies. Plans

were set up for the purchase of fertilizer in conjunction

with a local white cooperative at a sizable saving to

those participating.


53








54


In connection with improving the economy of the

community, the cooperative organization has employed one

person on a full-time basis and forty-one other persons

at intervals for short periods. This employment has netted

the employees $4,853.35 for the three years of cooperative

farming. The cooperative has paid to local business es-

tablishments $2,851.55 and to land owners, as rent on

land, $271.00.

There were marked improvements to the farms surveyed

during the cooperative farming period over the non-coopera-

tive farming period. On an average, the homes were not im-

proved, although a few homes had been improved in regards

to painting, screening, lighting, and the installation of

running water. The greatest effort was in the direction

of farm improvement rather than home improvement.

The principal products being marketed by the farmers

in the community were hogs and peanuts. A cooperative owned

truck was of much value to the farmers in marketing these

products. A saving in hauling had been realized by the

members of the cooperative and a few non-members through

the pooling of these products for hauling to market. A

greater cash return had also been realized from these pro-

ducts by more farmers being able to carry their hogs and

peanuts to open markets during the cooperative farming

period of 1952-54 than during the non-cooperative period of

1949-51.










CHAPTER IV


I SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

This study has brought to light some significant

information concerning cooperative farming in the Shadeville

Community. But a follow-up study will undoubtedly be of

much value. No previous studies were found which were

made of the problem in the Shadeville Community, nor a

sectional area that includes the community. Literature with

direct bearings on the subject was found to be very limited.

The points which follow may be of assistance in

future studies of the problem.

1. Prior to the organization of the Wakulla County

Negro Farmers' Cooperative in 1952, poorly organized farms

and low farm income characterized the farming pattern of

the Negro farmers in the Shadeville Community. Many farmers

supplemented their farm income by off-farm activities,

frequently, at the expense of farming operations.

2. Farming and timbering were affording the major

sources of income. A steady exhaustation of timber was

being reflected in a steady decline in the number of persons

employed by the timber industry.

3. The farming units were small. Corn, peanuts,
and hogs comprised the major enterprises produced. Most or

98.2 per cent of the increase in acreage cultivated during










the period 1949-1954, was devoted to corn and peanuts.
4. The tenure status of the twenty-five farmers
studied remained relatively stable during the period.
There was an increase in part-time farmers and a decrease
in full-time farmers.

5. Capital investment per farm unit increased
from $3,090.11 in 1949 to $3,543.18 in 1954, representing
an increase of $453.07. Capital investment in farm ma-

chinery increased more than 500 per cent, representing the
greatest investment made during the period 1949-1954.
6. Average farm income rose from $987.39 in 1949

to $1,386.50 in 1954, representing an increase of $399.11
or 40.4 per cent.

7. Off-farm income increased from $14,387.00 in
1949 to $17,600.00 in 1954, representing a combined increase
of $3,213.00 or 22.3 per cent. With the exception of 1952,
1953, and 1954, the combined cash received from off-farm
work was greater than the combined cash received from the
sale of farm products.
By dividing the period 1949-1954 into the non-
cooperative farming period, 1949-1951, and the cooperative
farming period, 1952-1954; and comparing the results of
various aspects of farming during each of the two periods;;
the following information was revealed:







57


8. Prior to 1952 the farmers were faced with the

problems of not having the necessary capital to carry on,

farming activities on a successful basis, and an almost

complete lack of modern farm machinery for harvesting and

marketing their products.

9. By the end of the 1954 farm year the eleven
members of the Wakulla County Negro Farmers' Cooperative

had a total capital investment of $4,050.00 in machinery

and equipment purchased cooperatively.

10. The cooperative rendered custom service for

non-members as well as members. The services rendered con-

sisted of most of the major farming operations ranging from

clearing land to hauling products to market. During the

three-year period of cooperative farming, a total of 1,542

acres were harrowed for thirty-four non-members and 643
acres for ten members. Other services were equally as

helpful to those needing the service and were served.

11. The average capital outlay per farm unit was

$3,265.63 for the 1949-51 period, and $3,587.31 for the

1952-54 period. This represents an increase of 9.8 per
cent.

12. The average farm income increased from $982.93

for the period 1949-51 to $1,338.06 for the period 1952-54.

This represents an increase of $355.13 or 36.1 per cent.





13. The average size of farm units increased from

52.7 acres for the period 1949-1951 to 61.2 acres for the
period 1952-1954. This was an increase of 8.5 acres or
16.1 per cent.
14. For the period 1949-1951 the average number of

acres cultivated was 20.6 acres and for the period 1952-

1954 the average number of acres cultivated was 28.0.
This represents an increase of 7.4 acres or 35.9 per cent.

15. Average capital investment in farm machinery
increased from $80.56 per farm unit for the period 1949-1951

to $393.33 for the period 1952-1954, This represents an
increase of 388.0 per cent.
16. There was a substantial increase in the partici-

pation in approved farming practices during the 1952-1954
period over the 1949-1951 period. The per cent increases
ranged from 116.3 in tons of fertilizer used to 1,070.3

for land grubbed or stumped.

17. Very little had been done by the farmers in
connection with the cooperative purchasing of farm supplies.

Plans were set up for the future purchase of fertilizer
in conjunction with a local white cooperative at a sizeable

saving to those participating.
18. The community's economy has been improved in

a small measure through the cooperative farming program.


58





The cooperative organization has paid to employees

$4,853.35 during the three years of cooperative farming;

paid to local business establishments $2,851.55; and paid

to land owners, as rent on land, $271.00.

19. There was marked improvement made to the farms

during the cooperative farming period over what was made

during the non-cooperative farming period. This was not

true with the homes. In general, home improvement did

not off-set depreciation, although a few homes showed re-

markable improvement.

20. Hogs and peanuts were the principal crops mar-

keted. A cooperative owned truck was of much value to the

farmers in marketing these products. A sizeable saving

had been realized by the farmers through the pooling of

their products in hauling them to market. A greater cash

return had been received from the products marketed by the

farmers being able to carry their hogs and peanuts to open

marketing centers during the cooperative farming period.


59
































BIBLIOGRAPHY








61


BIBLIOGRAPHY

A. BOOKS


App, Frank, and Allen G. Waller Farm Economics.
J. B. Lippincott Company, 1938


Chicago:


Black, John D., Marion Clawson, Charles R. Sayre, and Walter
W. Wilcox, Farm Management. New York: The Macmillan
Company, 1948.

Chapman, Paul W., Successful Farming in the South. Atlanta,
Georgia: Turner E. Smith and Company,r1942.

,and Roy H. Thomas, Southern Crops. Atlanta,
Georgia: Turner E. Smith and Company, 1947.

W. Gordon Leith, Frank P. King, and L. S.
Hardin, Efficient Farm Management. Atlanta, Georgia:
Turner E. Smith and Company, 1948.

Degraff, Herrell, and Ladd Haystead, The Business of Farming.
Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1948.

Hart, V. B., M. C. Bond, and L. C. Cunningham, Farm Manage-
ment and Marketing. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.,
1g9 .---


Hopkins, John A., Elements of Farm Management.
Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1939.


New York:


..___.__, Elements of Farm Management. New York: Prentice-
Hall, Inc., 1950.
Hunt, Robert L., Farm Management in the South. Danville,
Illinois: The Interstate Printers and Publishers, 1942.

Mears, Elliot Grinnell, and Mathew 0. Tobriner, Principles
and Practices of Cooperative Marketing. New York: Ginn
and Company, 1926.


Pearson, Handy S., Success on the Small Farm.
McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1946.


New York:


Robertson, Lynn S., and Ralph H. Woods, Farm Business Manage-
ment. Chicago: J. B. Lippincott Company, 1946.








62


B. PUBLICATIONS

Agricultural CooeQration i the. coastal Bd Area f TT&.
Department of Agricultural Economics and Sociology, Texas
Agricultural Experiment Station Progress Report, 1378.

Brooks, D. W., "C. P. A. Accounts for More Corn In South,"
News for Farmer Cooperatives (Farm Credit Administration,
United States Department of Agriculture, April 1952).

"Co-ops Shouldn't Relapse into Complacency," News for Farmer
Cooperatives, Farm Credit Administration, United States
Department of Agriculture, August 1952.

Duggan, I. W., "Three Essentials in a Successful Co-op,"
News for Farmer Cooperatives, Farm Credit Administration,
United States Department of Agriculture, April 1952.

Farmers Hel Everybody When T Work Together, United
States Department of Agriculture, Information Bulletin,
Number 3.

Fetrow, Ward W., and R. H. Elsworth Agricultural Coopra-
tion in the United States. United states D6ertment ef.oT
Agriculture, Bulletin Number 54, April 1947.

Five Questions About Farmer Cooperatives. United States
Department of Agriculture, Information Bulletin Number 4.

Hurst, Fred J.,"Alabama Co-op Aims for Abundance," News for
Farmer Cooperatives, United States Department of Agricul-
ture, February 1952..

Killinger, G. B., W. E. Stokes, Fred Clark, and J. D. Warner,
"Peanuts in Florida." University of Florida Agricultural
Experiment Station, June 1947.

Knapp, Joseph G., "Democratic Organization Greatest Asset,n
News for Farmer Cooperatives, Farm Credit Administration,
United States Department of Agriculture, August 1951.

Land of Plenty. Chicago: Farm Equipment Institute, 1950.

Lilliston Peanut Harvesting Equipment, Lilliston Implement
Company, Pamphlet, Albany, Georgia, 1953.
McKay, A. W., Farmers' Cooperatives in Our Community.
United States Department of Agriculture, Circular E-32,
May 1948.






63


Myers, J. Mostella, and Frazier Rogers, Mechanical
Drying and Harvesting of Peanuts. University of Florida,
Agriculture Experiment Station, Bulletin 507, November,
1952.
"New Implements to Speed Harvesting of Peanuts," Industrial
Progress in Florida. Florida State Department of Agri-
culture, August 22, 1952.

"Term Co-op Differs over the World," News for Farmer
Cooperative s, Farm Credit Administration, United States
Department of Agriculture, March 1952.
Timmons, D. E., Cooperative Agriculture in Florida, Florida
State Department of Agriculture.

10 United Census of Agriculture. United States Department
of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, V. 1, pt. 18, 1950.
Wakeley, Roy E., "Villages with Co-ops Grow Stronger," News
for Farmer Cooperatives, Farm Credit Administration,
United States Department of Agriculture, December 1951.

"Wakulla County," Know Florida. Florida State Department
of Agriculture, 1953~.

Why Co-ops? United States Department of Agriculture,
Pamphlet E. M. 23, G. I. Round Table, 1999.

C. UNPUBLISHED MATERIALS

Laird, A. S., "Annual Plan of Work for Wakulla County,
Florida." Unpublished Report of An Annual Plan of Work
for Wakulla County, Florida, 1954.

Lawrence, W. L., and W. J. Anderson, "How the Farmers' Co-op
in Marion County, Florida has Helped In-School and Out-
School Groups to do a Better Job of Farming." Unpublished
Committee Report to the Florida Negro Vocational Agri-
culture Teachers Conference, 1951.

Williams, Rufus, C. J. Randolph, W. W. Anderson, and L. A.
Marshall, "Report on the Function and Some of the Activi-
ties of the Sweet Home Community Farmers' Cooperative
Association." Unpublished Report of Committee on a field
trip to the Sweet Home Community Farmers' Cooperative
Association, Seguin, Texas, August 1951.
































APPENDIX















QUESTIONNAIRE


1.


2.


3.


4.


Date____


Number of years organized


Present membership_


Name of organization


Date organized


Initial membership


Capital investment to date:


I tenm


Tractor


Harrow


Fertilizer attachments


Planting attachments


Rotary hoe


Peanut digging plows


Plows (as sweeps, etc.)


Truck


Peanut picker


Hay baler


Others (List)


Value


Amount owed on capital investment


Cash assets,


Net assets and capital investments per member


Amount owed on outstanding debts


Services rendered since organized:


Number Owned
__


~ ~UY -- ---~L~.----











-- --


I -- -- --- ---


-- --


__~, _


_._ __ ___ __





___~~


__ _I____


__ c_ -_..


I


~I --


---








66


: Number Served : Scope of Service
SERVICE PERFORMED : Non- Non-
Members : Members : Members : Members:

Clearing land (Acres) : : :

Harrowing (Acres) : : : :

Fertilizing (Acres) : :

Planting (Acres) : : :

Rotary hoeing (Acres) : : : :

Cultivating (Acres) : : :

Plowing up Peanuts (Acres) : :

SBaleing hay (tons) : : : :

S S *
Picking Peanuts (Acres) :

Hauling (Miles) : : : :

Others (List) : : : :






11. Services rendered the community's economy since organized:

Number of persons employed

Amount paid to persons employed ____M

Amount paid to local business establishments

Amount paid to community land owners for rent of land

12. Remarks:


-- C --L-l~- .- --.-l--L ~- --- --~~~--

.. -~ -L ----- C L -411-









67


QUESTIONNAIRE


Name of Farmer

Community

Number in Family_

Size of Farm Acres

Type of Farming


Date

Co-op Member Yes No

Farm Experience in Wakulla County

Acres in Timber AgeNo

Acres in Pasture


I. FARMING STATUS

Acres owned

Acres rented

Acres cultivated

Sharecropper (check)

Full-time Operator (check)

Part-time Operator (check)

If a part-time operator
what per cent of your
income was from your
farm

II. FARM CAPITAL

Land (Acres and Value)

Buildings (Value)

Household (Value)

Livestock and Poultry

Hogs, breeding (Number and Value)

Cattle, breeding (Number and Value)


YEARS
1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954


-II .~---o ~,


-- --~- II-~- II-~ -UI ~ -~c-~ -- --


MAIN


--------~r --C---____ ~CC I -*______. I_._ ~. _1-_~--__-_ LI__~~__~I __--- ___~~ L___.~_~








68


1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954



FARM CAPITAL, Continued

Workstock (Number and Value)

Poultry, layers (Number and Value)

Others

Tractor and Attachments

Tractor (Number and Value)

Harrow (Number and Value)

Planter (Number and Value)

Fertilizer distributor
(Number and Value)

Hay baler (Number and Value)

Peanut picker (Number and Value)_

Rotary hoe (Number and Value)_

Weeder (Number and Value)

Disc tiller (Number and Value)

Peanut digging plows (Number and Value)

Peanut shaker (Number and Value)

Cultivator (Number and Value)


Others

Truck (Number and Value)

Auto (Number and Value)

Trailer (Number and Value)

Horse equip ment and attachments

Wagon (Number and Value)

Single Stock (Number and Value)







69
Horse Equipment and Attachments, Continued


1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954

Double stock (Number and Value)

Harrow (Number and Value)

Weeder (Number and Value)

Cultivator (Number and Value)

Planter (Number and Value)

Fertilizer distributor
(Number and Value)

Others

Other machinery and equipment
(Number and Value)


III. CROPS PRODUCED

Peanuts (Acres)

Marketed (Acres and Value)

Hogged (Acres)

Used at home (Value)

Hay marketed (Tons and Value)

Hay used at home (Tons)

Corn (Acres)

Marketed (Bushels and Value)

Hogged (Acres)

Useda at home (Bushels and Value)

Watermelons (Acres)

Marketed (Melons and Value)

Used at home (Value)











CROPS PRODUCED, Continued

Sugarcane (Acres)_

Syrup marketed (Gallons and Vali

Syrup used at home (Gallons and
Value)

Sweet potatoes (Acres)

Marketed (Bushels and Value)

Hogged (Acres)

Used at home (Bushels and Value

Pasture, green (Acres)

Hay crops (Acres)

Hay marketed (Tons and Value)

Used at home (Tons)

Velvet beans (Acres)

Marketed (Bushels and Value)

Grazed or hogged (Acres and Val

Used at home (Bushels and Value

Truck crops (Acres)

Marketed (Value)

Used at home (Value)

Others

IV. Average distance to place where
crops were marketed

V. LIVESTOCK AND POULTRY PRODUCED

Hogs on hand, meat (Number and Valu

Hogs marketed (Number and Value)


1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954




ue)













) ____ _"m_ -m


ue)


)_____________________________


ue)I~~I -- I--rWIYIT~


---- --_ -._--___ 1-.-e -- -- --- --


--------------- -- --e -- ~-- ---~-~__ _.,


-- -- -- ---- ---- --I----~- -II ~-. --.--1 -- _


-- -- --- --- ------ -- -- -----


- _-_F I__ -- I __ __ __ -_ ---- I~___~_I_~~I_~








71
1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954


LIVESTOCK AND POULTRY PRODUCED, Continued

Hogs used at home (Number and Value)

Cattle on land, beef (Number and Value)

Cattle marketed (Number and Value)

Cattle used at home (Number and Value)

Milk and butter marketed (Value)

Milk and butter used at home
(Value)

Poultry, eggs (Number and Value)

Eggs marketed (Dozens and Value)

Eggs used at home (Dozens and Value)

Poultry, .meat (Head)

Marketed (Head and Value)

Used at home (Head and Value)

Others (List)

VI. Average distance to place
where livestock and poultry
were marketed

VII. JOBS PERFORMED OR PRACTICES

1. Cover crops planted (Acres)

2. Cover crops plowed in (Acres)

3. Fertilizer used (Tons)

4. Green, winter pasture
planted (Acres)

5. Crops fertilized (Acres)

6. Land reclaimed (Acres)

7. Virgin land cleared (Acres)


8. Land grubbed or stumped (Acres)







72


1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954



JOBS PERFORMED OR PRACTICES, Continued

Others (List)

VIII. Participation int the services
Offered by the Local Co-op

1. Clearing land (Acres)

2. Harrowing (Acres)

3. Crops fertilized (Acres)

4. Planting (Acres)

5. Rotary hoeing (Acres)

6. Cultivating (Acres)

7. Picking peanuts (Acres)

8. Plowing up peanuts

9. Bailinglhay (Tons)

10. Hauling crops to market (Miles)

11. Hauling hogs to market (Miles)

12. Other hauling (Miles)

IX. REMARKS










APALACM

4


*r"


COLA




'S






V .




NAL .
45 *,~ ~

.45 a..
4b :'.
r ;0~
r5


"4


\ E N I C 0


C 1


L-%


'V 1


/ ,-


WAKULLA COUNT'

FLORIDA





*Areas Investigated





Rif4


O- o.


....-1 ---


4'


NATION


V


)F*4r I


;Al. ~c



1




J
r .;


H) ~I~~.'~(I'~
r, rlh( ~~~II
,t ~-~IL ((~
~C
~- --~ -I~-
ru u.--\'. ~




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs