• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Title Page
 Half Title
 Table of Contents
 List of Tables
 List of Figures
 Introduction
 Review of the literature
 Analysis of data
 Summary, conclusions and recom...
 Bibliography
 Appendix






Title: Factors Influencing the Internal Migration of Farmers in Alachua County, Florida, 1940-50
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/AM00000037/00001
 Material Information
Title: Factors Influencing the Internal Migration of Farmers in Alachua County, Florida, 1940-50
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
Creator: Jackson, Nathaniel P.
Affiliation: Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University
Publisher: Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University
Publication Date: 1954
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: AM00000037
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 - AAA0908
notis - ABV5547

Table of Contents
    Title Page
        Page i
    Half Title
        Page ii
    Table of Contents
        Page iii
    List of Tables
        Page iv
        Page v
    List of Figures
        Page vi
    Introduction
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
    Review of the literature
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
    Analysis of data
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 29
        Page 31
        Page 33
        Page 34
        Page 37
        Page 39
        Page 40
        Page 43
        Page 45
        Page 48
        Page 50
        Page 53
    Summary, conclusions and recommendations
        Page 54
        Page 56
        Page 57
    Bibliography
        Page 58
        Page 59
        Page 60
    Appendix
        Page 61
        Page 62
        Page 63
        Page 64
        Page 65
        Page 66
        Page 67
        Page 68
        Page 69
        Page 70
        Page 71
        Page 72
        Page 73
        Page 74
        Page 75
        Page 76
        Page 77
Full Text




FACTORS NTLU:C'Cr G T=- INTN TAL MIGTA'TON OF FAYEIMRS

IN AIAJ&UA COUNTY, FLORTDA, 19hc-'0










A Theris

Presented to

the Facult-y of the School of Graduate Study

Florida Agricultural and eolianical Universlty










In Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirvent.s ryr the &ogrce

Ma-to.: of Scienoe







by

Nathaniel P. Jackson

Augus t 195








".TR-S I: F.!NIRTL THE IF.P"T'.T. MISPATTO T T FA.S


i1 .uCci"J. COG "., fLORI.A, 9!L3-50


APPROVEfD


Cha iran /


t i.- L


_ _


--- --- -'


JfLe


LJ~ks~







TABLE F CONTENTS


CHAPTER PAGE

I INTRODUCTION .. a 1

Statement of Proble . . *

Definitions of Term . 5

Baaio Assumptions u . 6

Need for Study. .. 8

Summary . .* 9

Procedure followed and source of data. 9


II, REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE . 11

Motives for the urbanward movement . 11

Problems created by migration . 13

Farm to Farm Migration . 1

Farm Youth in Migration. 16

Education arn Migration . 19

Inferiority feeling among Farmers . 24


III, ANALYSIS OF DATA .. .. 26


IV. SUMARY, COmCLUSTONS, AND RECOM]ENDATIS .


. .


BIBLIOGRAPHY . a * a

APPENDIX . S S .. * 5







LIST OF TABLES


TABLE PAaG

I. A Complete Breakdown of Rural Areas in Alachua County,

Showing Number of Farms For Each Distriet . 28

II, Nutber and Acreage of Farms Operated by Negro Farmers

in the Three Main Agricultural Districts in Alachua

County Included in this Study. Years Include

194o-45-50.. P.a a s. .. a a 30

III. Number of Farms Operated by White Farmers in Three

Agricultural Districts Used in this Study in

Alachua County p a e a .* a 32

IV. Number of Far Population in Three Comtnities Under

Study in Begards to Age, Sex, and Color in Alachua

County p a *. a* a *. 34

V. Tears Completed in School for Negro and White Farmers

Under Study in Three Main Farming Areas in Alachua

County .a .. .a *e t & a a a a a a ** a a 36

VI. Table Shnw Farm Tenure of White Farmers Living in the

Three Main Rural Areas Under Study in Alachua County

Between 19?0-1950 . a 38

VII. Table Shows Farm Tenure of Negro Farmers Living in the

Rural Agricultural Sections Under Study Between

19o0-1950 .* . a a ho





TABLE FAGE

VIII. Major Crops and Livestock Grown by White Farmers and

Negro Farmers in Three Main Agricultural Districts

With Reference to their Use in their Farming Programs 42

IX, Value of Products Sold on Farms in 1950 as Compared

with White and Negro in the Three Uain Agricultural

Areas in Alachua County .. ... I* 4

X1 Huaber of Non White Farmers that Changed Farms in

Comparison with those of White Farmers in Three

Main Agricultural Districts Under Study in Alachua

County 4 . . 46

XI. Number of White and Negro Young Adults Leaving and

Returning to Farms Between 1940 and 1950 in the

Rural Farm Communities of High Springs, Alachua,

and Newferry .. .. a 49

XII. The Results of an Inventory of Farms of Both White

and Negro in regards to their Equipment and

Facilities in Use on their Farms ... .* 51

XIII. Average Percent of Family Goals for Farmers in All

Three Alachua County Farming Districts for Both

White and Negro . .* . ., 54








LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE PAGE

I. Three of the Largest Farming Districts in Alachua

County with the Exception of Gainesville Shown

Here as the County Seat, Other Three Areas Were

Used in Investigation . . . 62








CHAEPT~ I


INIWDZCTION

This report presents data dealing with t h rural farm popula-

tion of Alabhua county in regards to their economic and social status.

It also gives information of other areas that hbe similar problems.

It is felt that by showing the farmer in his actual everyday

life, by exploring and finding reasons for his discontent, that some

kind of solution can be worked out, and his migratory desires may be

discouraged.

It Is true that in king an investigation of rural farmers,

sow farts are found to be more efficient than others. "The degree

of efficiency in production in many cases is a function of the way

in which the operator has access to the rights in the land which he

fars,"1 For this reason an invatigation was aade into the status

of individual farmers covered in this report as to the tenure under

which he has operated, his educational experience, his social activity,

and even his desire to improve his present surroundings, instead of

moving to urban center, where in most case ha becomes maladjusted.

A survey of the county leading farming areas shows a deolioa

in the rural population among Negroes and whites between 19 D195.0


rgatre t Jarman Hagood, "Levels and Trends In Rural Fertility"
Journal of Rural Sociology, 73:31, March, 195h




44839








Although this report deals with the ten year period between 190 and

1950, it should be noted that migration slowed down during war years

when farm prices reached record levels, and even the hired farm workers

enjoyed fair wages.

An attempt was made to show results of this investigation on a

comparative basis between white farmers and colored farmers, since

they comprise 95 per cent of the farm population in Alachua County.

The results how, when individuals lack farm management and proper farm

leadership, it does not matter about his race or color, he is always

forced in the lowest economic group. His children stop out of school

early, that was true many years ago, and is true today.

"Education of farmers is essential, but the urban dwellers

should be educated also to the importance of the farmer to our very

existence.2

Then farmers move to urban centers, a problem is created not

only for him and his immediate family, but also to the environment in

which be moves. It is true that he and his family have to becoa ad-

justed to the new environment, and the new environment has to become

adjusted to him.

In most cases the farmer is resented because he adds to the

crowded population of the city area and imnediately sets up competition


2Herbert M Hanlin, Agricultural Education in Commuit School
(Ilinois: Interstate Printers, 19 0), P.~ 33







for employment, thus making or causing a cheap labor movement

The question has often been asked, why did the farmer leave

the farma "The typical Negro farmer is a tenant rather than an in-

dpendent farn orer, since about one-fifth of the Negro farmera are

part owere of the land they operate, the overall breakdown for the

entire united States in 1940 showed 15A8 per cent oers, .7 per cent

part onersu, 11.1 per cent cash tenants, i,.7 per cent were croppers
and 23.5 per cent were classified as other tenants."3 Moat of Negro

farmer training has been work on farms, he is ifaailiar with many

jobs in urban camunitles, but even in his local communities be can-

not make the best of new farming method due to his lao educational

status.

Adult farming cases haw been established in the county but

the interest has lagged due to the lack of motivation on the part of

the officials. Evidence shors the rural population in the county is

still declining, but at a decreased rate, management of farms will be

the deciding factor.










3dwardw Bryon Reuter, The American Race Problem, (New larkt
Thaas rY. Growell Company, 19To%, pp* 1396-3L







THE PROBLEM


Statement of the Problem. In the last ten years there has been

a tendency for the farm population to migrate to urban centers. It

has been found that mass movements of such nature present a challeng-

ing and critical problem that confronts the American people today.

The urgency of the problem lies not only in the fact that farm-

ing is essential to our very existence, but from the consideration

that the essence of democratic philosophy is its concern for each in-

dividual and his welfare.

It is believed that the rural population of Alachua County has

been on a steady decline since 1940, thus creating a social and eco-

nomic situation that has a direct effect on the cultural patterns of

the c omuninty.

The writer worked exclusively with the rural population for

the past five years in Alachua County, and has be ome interested in

making a survey that would assist the farmers to become better estab-

lished in farming.

The seriousness of the problem of gross movements of farmers

to cities has drawn the attention of the federal government, since

movement of large groups from rural to urban areas creates hardships

on the economic and social functions of cities or urban areas within

Alachua County, which had suffered a housing shortage due to war time

conditions, when the demand exceeded the supply.







It is believed that if measures are undertaken to give the

farmers economic security, social content, and health facilities, the

migration of farmers in large numbers will be on a decline.


Definitions of Terms. A Farm may be defined as a place or

track of land of 3 or more acres if the value of agricultural pro-

ducts exclusive of home products amounts to one-hundred and fifty

dollars or more. The agriculture products could have been either for

home use or for sale, the land under control of one person or partner-

ship.

Farm Operators. A farm operator is a person who operates a

farm, either performing the labor himself or directly supervising

it, he mTay be an owner, a hired manager, tenant, renter, or share-

cropper.

Migration, Migration in this study refers to farmers who move

from rural to urban places and also those who nove from urban to rural

places.

Farm Family. A group of persons constituting a family which

lives in an agricultural or open country environrmnt.

Land Tenure. Land tenure deals with the relationship between

two or more individuals-with respect to their rights in the use of

land.

Owners, Farm owners who own the land they operate and do not

rent from others.




6

Managers. Managers are those farmers who operate land for others

and are paid in salaries for their services.

Tenants. Those farmers who rent from others, or work shares

for others on all or part of the land they operate.

Sharecroppers. This applies to farmers where the Landlord fur-

nishes land, equipment, fertilizer in exchange for labor, they share

one-half from the sales of the products.

Character of Migration. This refers to the patterns of occur-

ence and some of the socio-economic conditions coexistant with migration

Socio-economic status. This term has reference to the position

that an individual or a family occupies with reference to the prevail-

ing average standard of effective income, material possession, and

participation in community groups.

Urban Places. The urban population comprises all persons and

places of 2,500 inhabitants or more, and incorporated as cities, bo-

roughs and villages.

Young Adults. This is used in agriculture to draw a line of

demarcation of age levels of farmers which ranges from 18 to 25.



Basic Assumptions. The following basic assumptions are made

for this study

(1) That all farmers will become more efficient in farming

and develop greater interest in operating and maintaining his farm

if his future economy can be assured; (2) That farmers will have





7

less tendency to leave their farms, if a program is designed to create

better living conditions for him and his fam.Iy; (3) that a long time

program set up with several objectives as a basis to promote his pro-

gress will be effective if supervised by competent agencies; and (4)

that special programs to create interest among young farmers should

be initiated under careful study and supervision of qualified per-

sonnel, since it is believed tist the larger percentage of migration

takes place among the younger generation.


The Delimitation or Scope of Investigatton. This study is

limited to the migration of the farm population of Alachua County,

Florida. Other statistical data showing migration from other rural

areas may be used to give comparison.

Hwe can a plan be initiated among farmers to stimulate interest

to such an extent that it will mEce it very clear to them their im-

portance in the community?

The farmer can be more effective by being more efficient in

his farming methods, and moving may is not a good solution to his

problem, but places him and his family in unfamiliar places and sur-

roundings and encountering many obstacles that may make it difficult

for him to make a living.

He will then became maladjusted to this new society. How can

the farmer be made content to stay on the farm by making him aware of

his contributions to the welfare of our nation?




8

They should know what organizations and agencies are now opera-

ting fully for their benefit by local and state as well as federal

agencies, and procedures to take when securing the services of these

various agencies.


Need for the Stuy. It is true that one of the most important

operations in a county is its agricultural enterprises, and its impor-

tance to a stable enomny.

The relationship the farm community has with the urban centers

cannot be over emphasized. The farm cmunity mst be encouraged not

only to remain on the farm, but to become more economically efficient

and secure by increasing his knoarledge, understandings, and skills

which will result in increased production.

Farmers should be encouraged to review their farm and home

situations, and propose a long time plan covering the kind of train-

ing they will need in developing a satisfactory program to fit his

individual needs.

Development of the consciousness of the farm families regarding

their civic responsibilities in their local communities, state, and

nation, also the ability to participate effectively in discharging it

usat be made clear to the farther in order to create a knowledge of

his importance, and the vital part he plays in the progress of his com-

aunity.

Farmers may be re inteterested in remaining on the farm if he

can be motivated to increase his interest and appreciation of some of
the advantages of being a farmer.






The fanmer should evaluate his program and know the potentialities

and development of future operations.


Sunar. The writer has attempted in Chapter I to state the

problem and its objectives, and to reveal the hypothetical situation

upon which this study is based; to define terms used in this study,

and to state the basic astamptions upon which this study is predicated.

The study is limited in its scope, and will present in the

following chapter anannalysis and interpretation of data on the factors

that influence migration of farmers in ilachua County.


Procedure to be follmad and Source of Data. The remainder of

this study will be organized as follows: Chapter II will give a brief

resume of the rural population, types of farming, their cultural pat-

tarns, economic status, modes of transportation, social and educational

activities aaang youths and adults, and a review oa otho r studies re-

lated to this study.

Chapter III will give an analysis of the data for thia study.

In an effort to secure data for this investigation, question-

naires were given farmers in the three largest coammmities engaged in

farming in the county. The personal interview method was used by the

writer filling out questionnaires on the individual farms. Since this

study was doe on a comparative basis, half of the total number of

fams used was taken from the white populat ion, and the other half was

taken from the non-white population.







10

Chapter IV will include the summary, conclusions, and recom-

mendations, and finally, Chapter V will consist of the bibliography

and the appendix.







CHAPTER II


REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE


Mi&tse for the urbanward moveant. "From the standpoint of

the farmer, the movement to the city is less dangerous than the move-

ent from farm to farm, because when a farmer stops farming there is

less competition for those left behind.h

The urban community has come to be known as the modern forward

looking and progressive area. The city is supposed to provide an area

for individual development, personal expansion, and a greater life of

experience and expression. The city is regarded as the place of oppor-

tunity by rural farmer in most of Alamcua County. They think of the

city as progress and the farm as a place where life can be secure.

"The farmer who claims be dislikes the city, will at the same

time educate his child for a white collar job, with the rationalism-

tion that my child will not have to work hard all his days as I have.*

Even farmers who have been doing well and are now prosperous w have

the desire to move to the city when he finally decides to retire, thus

making a confession to himself that he considers the urban environment

superior to his own.


eIs C. Mayo, "Research and Fardaing, thiversity of Florida
PFesa, (July, 193), 12.

5Paul H. Iandis, Rural Life in Process (New Yorkt MtcGraw
Hill Company, 1948), pp. 61-6r-







wy did so many farmers in the county leave their farm, or

discontinue farming Their am answer would show that low inoame,

and small profits drow most of the away, while others seeked richer

educational, social and cultural opportunities Some of the social

scientists or bociologists th te land has lost its importance as

a maane of livelihood ad that the fanrr found more alluring and pro-

fitable moans of subsistence in the city. 'In 1920, Agriculture was

the leading American occupabia, but by 1930 less than ne-fo rth wre

employed in agriculture."

Mechanimation decreased the need of man paer on the farm, and

helped increase the efficiency of those who refined behind on the fara

wMigratory farm workers who took part in the seasonal periods of migra-

ticn, were greatly influenced by increased machinery on farms."7

Indeed sach taoka as butter mUking alog with curing of eats were

trns ferred from the farn housa to c a rmeroal institdtions often l-

cated in the city.

Many such i~peraonal fators influenced migration, tiderlying

all these factors, there was a natural increase in the farm population

as was evident, since the fact is wll known that the birth rate is

greater in the country. The country supplies not only surplus food but

the excess population for the replenitshnt of cities.


T. H. olb, A StWr of Rural Society, (Boston, New or*: Hough-
ton Mifflin Company, 19O), pp. 839

7Richard I. Ely, Land Ecmnaies, (New Yorkr cMillan Publishing
Company, 1950), p. 192




13

Problems created b Migration. Migration of local people from

farms creates intense problems of adjustment, both for the people who

migrate and those who remain. To those who migrate, the associated

risk and uncertainty, the cost of moving, the coat of relocating the

family, and the necessary adjustments to working conditions that are

new presents a crisis situation.

Most farnurs in Alaohua County knew very few skills necessary

to be employed in city industrial centers, and when they migrate most

of them are forced to take low paying jobs. From the standpoint of

the farmer who remains, these outward movements of the population may

undermine the local institutions to the point of endangering the

schools, churches, marketing agencies, and governmental units. "Where

people have recognized the institutional problem created by migration,

and have taken appropriate action, fewer but stronger institutions

serving a larger territory has been developed."

In Alachua County these institutions in the more isolated areas

are being discontinued, curtailed, and otherwise weakened, by the loss

of patrons or attendance. If this migration continues, it may proceed

to the point of actual iapoverislment of the lives of the few people

remaining behind. Even nw the farmers and local industries have felt

the pinch of labor shortages, merchants lose their customers, schools


leebice, "Depopulation of the Rural Area." Tennesee
and Home Science, VII (May, 1953), 9








their pupils, churches their congregations, families their solidarity,

and real estate its value. "*I changing from farm to non farm occupa-

tians, the worker and his family become purchasers of farm products

originally produced on the farm."9

The social and psychological effects of migration caeates still

another problem that cannot be ignored when trying to arrive at a so-

lution of migration causes. In its stplemt forms, migration of a

person places him in a situation involving adjustment greater in degree

than he is accustomed to, and very often & new kind of situation.

Farmers live a very simple life in Alachua County, as they do

in most rural counties, his taaks are not of a skilled nature, and

his social requirements are few. If the environment he left is quite

similar to that which he enters, his adjustment are not so great, and

are relatively easy, and he is not likely to suffer from being inte-

grated, nor is he likely to become mladjusted in the community which

he enters.

The adjustments may be difficult in sme areas due to the wide

differences in cultural patterns between the farer who spent all his

life in the rural and his aity brother.

"The hereditary differences between Migrant and native are of

minor significance unless the Migrants are of a distinctly different


9Lwry Nelson, "What is the future for Small Towns. Fanr and
Home Sciences If (October, 1953), 10








race, which would be easy distinguishable by their physical charac-

teristics."10 It is practically certain that the Migrantsand their

families will show a large degree of instability in conduct, often

resulting in considerable lawlessness and crime.

When the farmer moves into the urban area, he not only creates

a personal problem for himself and his immediate family, but the com-

munity finds assimilation of the migrant farmer into their society

very difficult, and in some extreme cases antagonism results.

The urban areas are not in need of increased population, mince

industry and labor have become stabilized, in fact unemployment has

begun to make presence felt in the cities without the burden of the

migrants adding to that critical situation.

Farm o Farm Migration. It is much easier for the urban migrant

to break into a new community. He needs to kno only his skills, he

needs no capital to make investments, while the farm family must have

money to buy land and to hold a place and keep it in operation. Much

of the farn to farm migration is motivated by compulsive forces, and

not by opportunities; these could be soil depletions, tractor farming,

and other influences, "Migration motivated by compulsive forces up-

roots a considerable proportion of the people in the early middle years

of life, who ordinarily have family responsibilities, thus causing a


B0grren Simpson Thompson, Population Problems (New York: McGraw
Hill Book Company, 1942), pp. 86-87





16

serious problem of social accoiuodations, one of which is of concern

not only to the migrant, but also to the territory in which he serves."11

There are no agricultural areas in rural coaaunities that will

offer excellent chances for expansion without sufficient capital.

Farmers in Alachua often change farms for economic reasons, or either

sell their property near highways, due to its increased value, and

buy more land far back into the interior because it is cheap. But the

farmer is still at a disadvantage because of condition of new land

and lack of good roads, and transportation problems.


Farm Youth In Migration. The influence of a growing functional

individualism which has proceeded so far in the city has not been with-

out its effect on rural associations. The farm youth throughout the

country looks forward to the day when he will be able to live in the

city. He has not been taught to know his importance in his community,

he idolizes his city brothers, and when his age become above 16, that

is the period he is likely to migrate to the city.

'It is estimated that one-third of those moving from farms to

towns, and cities during the decade, 1940-50, close to two million

were youths, ages ranging from 15 to 25, and this estimate is very

conservative of migratory youth, since it was noted that more girls

left from the farm than boys."'2


Gee Wilson, The Social Economics of Agriculture, (New Yorki
The MacMillan Company, 19 ), pp. 2-11

Thited States Departaint of Agriculture, Extension Circular
0. Population Vol. VII (vashingtont Govenent Printing Office, 1953),
P.





17

When the youth enters the city, he enters a vocation, acquires

new friends, new habits, and a new philosophy of life. When he re-

turns home, he is disappointed, and stuck with the fact that he has

only a few things in cearon now with his family and his neighbors, he

then awakens with the realistion that he has become a person with

very special interests. The old topics of conversation among the famn

people no longer appeal to him, the dress the young farm girls wear

no longer appeal to him, and are not to his satisfaction since they

vary from those in the city. The things the youths are now most in-

terested in are outside the realm of his old friends and neighbota.

"The farmer must be made to realize how much modern farming depends

on youth, who will some day replace his father, the largest number of

farmers are nor older than middle age, and replacements will be cri-

tically needed if this city rush is continued."1

These prevailing conditions are typical of youth living in

Alachua Comuty, but the same situations are in evidence throughout

the state, as well as the nation.

How are urban values built into farm attitudes? Many influences

are at work in addition to those fostered by fiar parents who put a

premium on urban values. The city fascinates the farm youth, it is

considered a wonderful place of bright lights and endless recreation,
while the farm is considered as a place of manual labor and tiresome
chores.


3James E. Taylor, Rural Sociology (New Yorkc The Moraw-Hill
Book Company, 1968), ppP. -17





18

The turner of cash in the city is hard for the farmers, both

young and old to overlook, it always appears to the farmer that the

city dwellers are handlers of plenty of cash. The young child, who

attend school in the city and visits friends there is impressed by

the neatness of furniture, and convenience in the home, wider scope

of reading matter, greater freedom aaong children; and because of this

he is likely to measure success in terms of these manifestations, and

finally he is likely to conclude that urban communities are the more

desirable places to live.

"DTring tie years 1940-1950, 82h,000 mn 25-69 years of age in

rural farm population will die or reach retirement at 70 years of age,

and to replace them 3,039,000 youths will reach their 25th birthday,

or ratio of 167 young men to every 100 men leaving agriculture*."

Because rural teachers are usually trained in the cities makes

tbeam prejudiced in favor of urban societies, and although he deals di-

rectly with farm and rural children, he sees nothing fascinating about

the rural environat. The attitudes of pupils in a class are directly

influenced by the teacher in the claseroon and in the commmity. It is

believed that in extreme cases where the rural teacher goes to town on

weekends, indicates very clearly to ppils that the town is the best

place to lie.


Ilated States Census of Agriculture, Department of Coaerse;
1950 Far Tennre Vol. V. (ashlngtkta Government printing Office,
1952), p. 30







No problem has been more vital to the farm people than the

loff of their youth to the city. Its best blood being drained awy,

the b adrship of tomorrow's rural institutions being lost. There

are many who have done research on this problem through extensive

study, yet it is a problem where there still is no answer. The mi-

grations of farm youth to cities have serious Implications in the

city.

"A higher proportion of youth going to citise continued their

schooling beyond 18 years of age, but those who remain behind very el-

dm go to college or universities."1

Farm and non farm girls and boys are much alike in their migra-

tion patterns, but differ significantly frao farm boys in this respect

factors such as communication, parents, socio-econcmic status, parental


education and attitudes of farm life.


Education od Migration. Education has been a large factor in

enabling the farmer to know the potentialities of his farm, and his

place in society as a farmer. In recent years throughout the nation,

great interest has been stiwalated in educating the adult farmers as

well as young boys. In most areas the cost of educating the farmer

as ell as young boys. In most areas the cost of educating the farmer

has been supplemented by the federal government, although supervision


Edward Brunner, migration and Education (New York: The
MacMillan Company, 1950), pp. p8-07





20

as administered by the local counties. A very good example of this

can be observed in the Veterans, on farm training program, that was

functioning in every part of the state.

Education, with the implications it gives of larger worlds be-

yond the immediate home and local community, undoubtedly is a major

factor in migration, and presumably might be related to the distance

of migration or the city a farmer will select. Some farm families

move to nearby towns within the county, while others leave the state.

"Children living in far communities are absent more than city

students from school due to natural conditions such as weather, Deed

for help at home, and in some areas county schools have short terms

due to busy farming seasons and labor problems, Rural teaching equip-

ment is poorer, and as a rule better teachers are found in the cities.

With all this being true there has been a question as to comparison of

intelligence of rural and non rural educational qualities.,16

The relationship between education and migration is only that

which can be expected, since education stimulates ambition. Then since

the facilities on the farm is very limited and discourages expansion,

many find it necessary to migrate if they are to find opportunities to

exercise their acquired interests to their liking, while some people

migrate for the sake of occupational advancement.


l6E. E. Windes, Hi School Education on the Farm (Boston:
Houghton Mifflin Company, 1950, p. 6





21

hite versus Ne Most Negroes live in the country in Alachua Coun-

ty, aad while urban Negroes are increasing in importance, the Negro

who lives a the fam is still a large problem. How these persona

make a living as an Important question, since most persons living in

the country till the soil to make a living. "In 190 the farms ope-

rated by htilte farmers as owners averaged 168 acres; by white tenants,

136.3; by white managers 810,2 acres, and by Negro owners 71.6; by

Negro tenants 38.9, and by Negro managers 217.7."17

Let us note the various classifications of farmers as reported

by the United States Bureau of the Census. When considering the size

of the farms of Negroes in oamparisn to that of white, and the low

quality of land cultivated by the Negro, we get a clear picture as to

why migration is becoming greater among Negroes.

It is true that the number of farms owned by Negroes does not

indicate the actual progress made by the individual farmers, that is

one reason why seemingly prosperous farmers are moving to the city,

and even the acreage is not sufficient instruments to measure progress.

The value and interest holding capacity of the farmers depends on the

productivity of the soil, the location, and facilities for transporta-

tion.

To say that Negroes om more land than whites in eome isolated

areas does not mean that they are proportionately more wealthy. Most

land owned by Negroes are not uniformly fertile, and lack of farm


7-United States Bureau of the Census, Characteristics of the
population: 12. (Washington: Government Printing Office, 17927-
p. 32





22

Management has retarded his progress, since most of them have no soil

building program.

"The Negro farmer often becomes discouraged and moves to the

city, because he is often the victim of what the business world calls

fleecing, he pays more and sells for less in most cases."18

Unfortunately throughout the rural district where Negroes are

found, conditions are usually so unfavorable tha tthe Negro farmers

find themselves too handicapped to make much material progress. In

the first p] ce land owned by most Negroes is that land which poverty

stricken whites had to give up or abandan and move away and engage in

some other kind of livelihood in urban centers. The only reason that

the Negro can obtain this land is due to its low value, and poor qual-

ity, ths the land becomes worthless When the Negro buys this land

it is no wonder he is discouraged and moves from th farm.

A number of Negro farmers in Alachua County are unable to make

a living on their own land, and in most cases have to rent additional

land. Naturally in these cases farmers in control of their farms are

manch better off, but even then in order for him to compare with the

white farmer, he must be dependent upon some souros of outside employ-

sent, or seek work as a tenant farmer.

*Capital is the Negro's biggest problem, he does not have enough

money to buy at wholesale prices. He is not able to hold his crops


Benjamin Hibbard Agriculture Economics, (New York: The
McGraw Hill Company, 1948), p. 235





23

until value increases, and in most cases he has to sell to the buyer

at low prices."19

The white farmers in the areas enjoy the privilege of being a

member of farm cooperatives, which enable him to be less concerned

with migration, since this organization assures him of a ready market,

with standard prices for his product. The Negro margin of profit is

so small that he does little more than help the middle man increase

his wealth at his expense.

There has been much talk of advancing money to poor farmers at

a low interest and for long periods in order to make their programs

more economical and the marketing more profitable, but these loan

facilities are made available to those who already enjoy the advan-

tages of having san capital to operate their farm properly,

#A survey of banks in the Southern States showed that they

would hardly think of granting such opportunities to the class of poor

farjmrs, to which the Negro belongs."20

In spite of their obstacles many Negroes are determined not to

sell their land and move away, or go into other occupations. Some

Negroes have improved unproductive and worn out lands which they were

permitted to purchase. In the first place meet Negroes who are engaged


19R. L. Neubergur, "From the Sod to the Side-walk,' The New
York Times Magasia Section July 6, 19l3, p. 6
20
2L. Lawrence, "Uaiking a Living in the Country," The
Negro History Bulletin, III (July 19I0), pp, 67-7I*







in farming worked very hard since they lack the modern machinery

that have replaced man power on the farm. If hard work under un-

desirable conditions can enable the Negro to do more than the un-

profitable white farmer, how much more could he then accomplish

had he been as favorably circumstances as his white neighbor, and

how much more would have he produced not only to enrich himself but

his country.

"After all a man has but so much energy to spend in this life,

and if he feels he has to work always against handicaps, he must

finally fall short of his possibility and capabilities and the

county which thus hampers this for the apparent benefit of the privi-

leged class is hanging a mill stone over his head, such a country mst

fail in competition with those that have no such impediment"21


Inferiority felin of farmers. Often farmers young and old

possess an intense feeling of infeorority because of his lack of

social graces. As long as he remains in his environment to which he

is habitated, he is at ease, but when he faces the city people he

sometimes feel awkward. Feeling of inferiority is prominent even

among children, especially those who commute to tomn schools eTeryday,

and make their decisions out of unfavorable comparisons of themselves

and the towm children. The fact that the urban child seems accommodated

and know their way around in the new world into which the farm child is

thurat helps feed his sense of inferiority feeling.


2Aassociated Press Dispatch, Tampa (Florida)Morning Tribune
December 30, 1953






"Oe who lives in isolation developed introverted traits; the

rural environment is conducive to meditation and day dreaming; the

ca thing a farmer detests in his city cousin is his extroverted

character, his tendency to be aggressive, talkative, and forward as

compared to his own tendency to be bashful and reserved.n22

Then it may be asked if fate is stacked against a farmer in

a small community, his customs, his importance to the city life-line,

the latest figures on the population decline would indicate such,

but in spite of all predictions the farmer till stands, he still

produces, and is now integrated into the aohine area. He now pro-

duces more with less, his education is evident, he is in continuous

contact with new trends in farming, and there are many activities in

which he can take an active part.

















22Conrad Toeuber, Replacement rats for tala hited States
Department of Agriculture, Vol. III (ahington Qoernment Printing
Office, 1950), p. 39







CHAPTER III


ANALYSIS OF DATA


In an effort to secure the data for this study, questionnaires

were used, some were mailed to farmers in three of the largest rural

communities in Alachua County, which made up a cross-section of the

rural population. The personal interview method was used by filling

out questionnaires on individual farms, this gave a great opportunity

to evaluate the farming programs. By being present, it was possible

to get the attitudes of most members of the family in their regards

to remaining on the farm or moving away.

A total of 150 questionnaires was collected and used for this

atudy. The study was made from 150 farms from three main farming

districts, from which one half of the total was white, the other half

Negro farmers.

This number constituted a representative sample of 20 per cent

of the total number of farms. The study was made on a comparative

basis between colored and white to give the study more validity.






According to Table I, it was revealed that there was a ca-

plate breakdown of the rural areas in Alachua County, with the ex-

ception of Gainesville. Many of the people who live in the rural

sections do not participate in farming. The number of farms found

in each section are listed as follows: Arredondo section 103 farms,

Rochella-Hawthorne 160, Micanopy section 102, Waldo 120, Archer 133,

Lacrosse 416, Brooker 160, Gainesville 120. The last three districts,

which are considerably larger, consisting of High Springs, Alachua,

and Newberry. These districts have 180, 214, and 325 respectively.

It should be noted that figures given for each rural area

show the number of farms listed in column opposite the town, and

should not be confused with the number of people living in these

areas.

Data found in this table not only shows individual farms in

each area but gives a complete total of all farms listed in Alachua

County. The total number of farms for the entire county was 1804.




29

Data presented in Table II shows a breakdown of farms and acre-

age with regard to color.

In 1940 Negro farmers in the High Springs area operated 195 fans,

comprising a total of 3,905 acre. Each farmer had an average of twenty

acres. On the other hand, in Alachua, the number of farms operated by

Negro farmers in 1940 was 304, for an average of 35 acres per farm, and

showed an increase of 109 acres over High Springs area. The total acre-

age for Alachua in 19L0 was 10,610.

The smallest number of Negro farmers in 1950 was found in the

Newberry area, which consisted of 73 farms. The number of acreage

totaled 2,336, with an average of 30 acres per farm.

The total number of farms in the High Springs area in 1950 was

87, which showed a decrease of 180 farms since 1940s and with a total
acreage of 3,Z82, which showed a decrease of 123 acres since 1940. The

average number of acres per farm increased from 20 in 1940 to 40 in

1950.

Alachua in 1950 had 191 Negro farm with a total acreage of

7,831, which represented a decrease of 2,809 since 1940. Newberry in
1990 operated 71 farms. This represented a decrease of 2 farms since

1940, and a total acreage of 3,450. This showed an increase of 1,124

acres sinoe 190, The average number of acres per fa Increased from

30 in l190 to 48 in 19S0, an increase of 18 acre.







Information presented in Table III ahowa the number of farms

and acreage of white farmers over a period of ten years from 19h0 to

1950, White farmers in the High Springs area operated 205 farms for

an average of 32.2 acres per farm in 1940, and in 1950 in the sam

area they operated 12 farms, averaging 69.7 per acre. There was a

decline of 71 farms for the ten year span.

White farmers in ts Alachua section operated 240 farms for an

average of 37.5 acre per farm in 1940, while in 1950 a total of 307

farms were operated for an average of J5.4 acre per farm. This was

an increase of 47 farms far a span covering a ten year period.

In the Newberry Section there were 400 farms operated by

white farwra with an average of 52.5 acres per farm in 1940. There

were 297 farms with an average of 36 acres per farm in 1950, which

waa a decline of 197 farms for the period between 1940 and 1950.







Farm populations of the main agricultural districts selected

for study according to color and sex are shown in Table IV.

In 1950 the number of white farm families with ages ranging

from 5 to 14 years was greater than those of Negro families for the

same period. The High Springs area showed that the ages of male whites

were 29, female 38, while Negro males were 16 and female 21. This in-

dicated that the number of females on the farm was larger than that

of the males.

In Alachua white farmers with ages ranging from 25-34 were in-

creasingly larger than the same age range for Negroes in the area.

There were 37 white male and 46 female farmers as compared to 12 male

and 13 female Negro farmers. It has been noted that as the age levels

increased more people remain on the farm.

Ages 35-tL showed a greater increase among Negro and white

farmers in the Newberry area, than the other two remaining areas.

Ages 45 to 50 seemed to be content to remain on the farm. There were

60 male whites, and 41 female whites in High Springs who were over

50 years old, while in the same a&e range there were 38 males and

30 females who were Negroes,

The High Springs area showed that the average age level of

male whites 29, females 38; the number of Negro males was 16, and

females 21. This indicated that the number of females on the farms

was larger than the males.




35

Information presented in Table V shows the educational back-

ground of farmers in the three areas which were included in this

study for both Negroes and whites.

Information given in this table shows that there was vry little

difference in the number of whites and Negroes who completed grades

1 through 6 in the High Springs area, as well as in the other two

areas. High Springs had 16 white farmers who completed grades 1

through 6, while Negroes had 15 completing same grades; Alachua had

12 whites and 9 Negroes, while Newberry had 16 whites and 12 Negroes

for these same grades.

The number of whites who had some high school training in the

High Springs area was 7, while the number of Negroes who had some

high school training in the same area was 8. Alachna had 5 Negro

and 5 whites, while Newberry had 6 whites and 2 Negroes who had some

high school training.

There were h white farmers who had college training in the

High Springs area, while records showed no Negroes had college train-

ing in same area. In Alachua area there were two Negroes and two

whites who had college training, while in the Newberry area there

was me white and no Negroes.







The tenure of white and Negro farmers living in three main

agricultural areas under discussion is illustrated in Table VI.

There were 122 white farmers listed as owners in 1940 in the

High Springs area, and in 1950 there were 182 owners, which repre-

sented an increase of 60 acres in this area. In the Alachua area in

1940, there were 197 white owners, and 205 in 1950, this showed an

increase of $3 farm owners. The Newberry area in 1940 had 195 owners

to 176 in 1950. This showed a decrease of 19 in the ten year span

between 1940 and 1950.

The High Springs area had 58 renters in 1940 and 52 in 1950,

while Alachua had 96 in 1940 and 64 in 1950, also in the Newberry

area there were i1 renters in 19h0 a compared with 58 in 1950. The

number of sharecroppers in the High Springs area for 1940 was 92, and

in the Alachua and Newberry areas 103 and 76 respectively. In 1950

they were S1, 47, and 49 respectively.

White managers in the High Springs are 32, and in the Newberry

and Alachua areas, 40 and 80 respectively in 1940. In 1950 they were

Ia, 45, and 76 respectively. Hired workers in High Springs area in

1940 were 37, Alacua 90 and Newberry 39, while in 1950 there were
52 in High Springs area, and in the Alachua and Newberry area 109 and

k~ respectively.




39

The tenure of Negro farmers in the three min rural areas in

Alachua County are shown in Table VII for the period 1940 through

1950.
The Negro farmers, who wre classified as owners in the High

Springs, Alachua, and NeWberry area in 1940 comprised a total of 256

individuals, while in 1950 the number of Negroes classified as owners

were 385. This represented an increase of 129 owners in a span of

ten years. Total Negro renters in 1940 were 253, as compared with

324 in 1950. This was an increase of 71 renters. Negro tenants
totaled 164 in 1940, while 139 were living as tenants in 1950, which

represented a decline of 25 tenants.

The total number of sharecroppers for all areas in 1940 was

315, and in 1950 there were 146, showing a decline of 169 sharecropper
who were Negroes. There was a decline of 169 sharecroppers in a span

of ten years. The total nuAer of managers was very small. There

were 11 in 1940, while in 1950 the number increased to 26, Hired

workers on farms in 1940 were 418, and in 1950 the number increased

to 613. This showed an increase of 195 hired workers in the period

between 1940-1950.






According to information presented in Table VIII, Negroes

grew crops that were similar to those grown by white farmers in the

High Springs area. This table indicated that Negroes in the High

Springs area, did not grow cattle on their farms. Both groups grew

tobacco and watermelons, which constituted the crops of the highest

commercial value, with tobacco having the greatest commercial value.

Sugar cane, sweet-potatoes, and corn in this area are used as sub-

sistence crops by Negro and white farmers.

Identical crops were also grown in Alachua section by Negro

and white farmers. Cucumbers were grown by both groups and were

valuable as truck crops. In the Newberry section Negro and white

farmers grow much the same crops. There was a difference however in

the number of acres planted with each crop.

A summary of Table VIII shows that Negro and white farmers

grew the same crops with little variations.





Information presented in Table IX shars the dollar value of

crops and livestock shcmn in previous table. This study was made

according to white and Negro farmers.

In the High Springs area white farmers took in $36,000 froa

crops, while Negro farmers in the same area only took in $15,000 for

same type of crops grown, this represented a difference of $21,000

for crops alone, Livestock netted white farmers their largest margin

of profit with $71,000, while Negro farmers received a low of

$3,509.00 for the same area. This was no surprise since few Negroes

participate in the growing of cattle.

In the Alaohua area, Negroes enjoyed their highest income from

farming. A total of $19,540 was received, compared with $69,261 for

white farmers in the same area. Livestock in this area showed a de-

cline of $42,000 for white farmers, while the Negro farmers showed an

increase with an income of $7,502,

White farm rs in the Newberry area received their largest in-

come frac crops, which was $77,640. It is believed that this was due

to the high value of watermelons in which the area leads, Negro in-

come from crops in this area was lowest of all areas, at $12,607.

It was found that farmers in this area received ore income

from crops than they did for livestock, both white and Negroes.






Table X reveals the number of Negro and white farmers that

changed farms or migrated to the cities. Income received from the

sale of crops and livestock is also compared with income received by

persons living in the urban areas. In the High Springs are 9 Negroes

changed farms, as compared with only 7 whites. The Alachua area

showed that 6 Negroes and 10 whites changed farus, while in the New-

berry area 7 Negroes changed farms and only 2 white.

It was found that in the High Springs area 12 Negro farmers mi-

grated to the city, compared to 7 white farmers. Alachua had 6 Negroes

and 10 whites, while Newberry had 9 Negroes and 7 whites that moved to

the cities. There were 9 Negroes employed in the cities from High

Springs area compared to 4 whites. Alachua had 11 Negroes and 6 whites

while in Newberry there were 6 Negroes and 5 whites.

Average income for Negro migrants was smaller than that for

whites in all three areas. In the High Springs area Negroes received

an average income of $1,450 in 1950, while white farmers received an

average of $2,900 for the same period. The average income in the

Alachus area for Negroes was $1,175.00, while whites averaged $2,900*0C

for the same area. In the Newberry area, the average Negro income was

$1,820.00, which showed an increase of $345.00 over the Alachua area.

The whites in the sane area received an average income of $2,900.00.





The young adult leaving and returning to the farms in rural

areas which were included in this study are shown in Table II. This

table shows a comparative breakdown of whites and Negroes for the

period 1940-1950.
In 1940 the total number of white young adults leaving the farm

both male and female totaled 310, as compared with 172 for 1950, while

Negro farmers for the same period both male and female totaled 356 for

1940 and 180 for 1950. In the Newberry area there were 107 young whit

adults that migrated in 1940 as compared with 92 in 1950. Negro farms

who left the farm in 1940 totaled 62 as compared with 43 in 1950.

A total breakdown for all three sections in regards to race

shows that there were 310 young white adults leaving the farm in 1940

and 172 in 1950, while the number of Negro farmers who left the farm

were 356 in 1940, and 170 in 1950 in the High Springs area.

In the Newberry area the total number farmers was 107 for 1940,

and 92 for 1950, while the Negro was 62 for 1940 and 43 for 1950.

Alachua had a total of 127 white for 1940, and 117 white for 1950 as

compared with 108 Negroes for 1940 and 54 for 1950.

Total number of whites who returned to the farm were 89 for

1940, and 34 for 1950, while Negroes had 79 in 1940 and 70 in 1950 re-

turning to the farms in High Springs. Newberry had a total of 47

white for 1940 and 31 for 1950. Negroes who returned to the Newberry

area in 1940 was 48 and 24 in 1950.






The contents of Table XII shows the results of an inventory

made on equipment end appliances on all 150 farms which were included

in this study. Tractors owned by white farmers totaled 58, compared

with 22 for Negro farmers in all three areas. White farmer owned 61

planters, while Negro farmers owned 62. Cultivators were owned by 72

white farmers and 66 Negro farmers. Table III further shows that

power mowers were almost non-existent among Negroes. By actual count

Negroes had two power mowers, while white farmers had 43. Trucks owned

by white farmers totaled 52, while Negro farmers owned 34, but Negroes

had 35 automobiles to 33 for white farmers.

In most areas electricity was available, but white farmers had

46 houses with electrical appliances, while Negro farmers had only 26.

Refrigerators among white farmers numbered 20 units while Negro farmers

had 11. Negroes had more sanitary privies than white farmers with 53,

while white farmers had 43 privies, but this can be accounted for in

the fact that white farmers had more indoor toilet facilities.

The investigation showed that Negroes did very well in accum-

ulating modern household appliances, but they were well below the

average white family. There were some isolated cases where electricity

was available but Negro farmers were not making use of this service.




53

Data found in Table IIII showed that in the final analysis of

this investigation, a check list was made to find out the attitudes

and goals of farmers, both Negro and white, in regards to their remain-

ing on the farm, and planning for a better livelihood in their own

rural environment, instead of leaving the farm.

When interviewing farmers, it was found that 85 per cent of whit

farmers provided children with an adequate education, as compared to

I0 per cent for Negro. White farmers that owned farms free of debt

constituted 68 per cent, and Negro farmers were 57 per cent debt free.

This table also showed that 70 per cent of white farmers had electri-

city, and 62 per cent of the Negro farmers had electricity.

Sixty-five per cent of white farmers had modern conveniences

in the home and 20 per cent Negroes had the same. White farmers had

more initiative in repairing homes on the farms. The greatest trend

in this survey showed most Negroes would sell out and leave the farm

if a fair price could be obtained. The number that would sell out

constituted 83 per cent, while 42 per cent of white farmers would sell

their farms.

Seventy-four per cent of white farmers increased their acreage

under cultivation, while only 21 per cent of the Negro farmers increase

their acreage. The desire to create better relationship with urban

centers were equally favored by both races. Forty per cent of the whit

farmers favored being a member of some organisation, compared with

62 per cent for Negro farmers.






CHLPTR IV


SUMa&RY, CONCLUSIONS AND HBC~OMENTATIOTS


Sumary. In summary, it may be said that in a study of farm

groups, it is desirable to ascertain the nature and influences of the

groups' heritages and social organizations; the reaction of farm

groups to unique and new experiences in migration affected their eco-

nomic status.

Negro farmers in Alachua County had problems that were similar

to those of white farmers. Data presented in this study provided basis

for comparison of both groups as to how they operated their farms,

and whether they were successful or not.

It was found that white farmers owned a larger number of farms

than Negroes in the three areas that were included in this study.

This factor alone created an unrest among farmers of both groups, and

as a result they were continually moving to cities and changing farms.

The white farmer's greatest asset was the increased number of

acreage over that of Negro farmers. It was further found that white

farmers had a larger amount of household equipment and farm machinery.

It was found that individuals who had been trained only for

farming became maladjusted when integrated into urban communities.

Problems were created in the community which he enters.

The attitudes of farmers indicated that their greatest desire

for favoring residence in the cities was due to their low standard of







living. The lack of leadership was in evidence among both groups,

but was more dominant among Negroes than whites.


Coaclusion. In view of the data collected and analyzed, several

significant conclusions have been reached regarding the migration pat-

terms of farmers in Alachua County.

Negro and white farmers would have less tendency to migrate if

their fearing programs were successful. Migration had less effect on

farmers who had modem farm equipment, and good transportation.

Farmers wre more contented when their farms were located near

communities than those which were not near them. It was more convnennt

for their children to attend school.

In Alachua County Negroes migrated in larger numbers than white.

It was further found that there were a larger number of white operator

than Negroes in all three. farming areas.


Recommendations: The following are recommendations on the basis

of findings in this study:

1. That far administrators in Alachua County initiate a

farm management program to include; soil improvement,

livestock nnagernnt, home beautification, and main-

tenance of farm machinery and equipment.

2. That County Agents stimulate interest among fanrers by

sponsoring frequent wrkahope an farm leadership, empha-

sising what it mans to the community. This program

should include all farmers in the county.







3. That civic groups set up programs among the urban popu-

lation to educate the people t the kind of activities

carried on in the operation of farms, also their impor-

tance in bringing about an tmderstanding between the

two groups.

l. That all farmers be informed of various agencies and

their functions in regards to services available to

them for their advancement.































BIBLOEALPHT







BIBLIOGRAPHY


Associated Press Dispatch, December 30, 1953

Brunner, Edward S. Migration and Education. New Yorke The Mac-
millan Company, 190. 98-107 pp.

Ely, Richard I. Land Economics. New York: MacMillan Publishing
Company, 1950. 192 pp.

Hagood, Margaret Jarman. "Levels and Trends in Rural Fertility,"
Journal of Rural Sociology, 73 (March 195). 46 p.

Hamlin, Herbert M. Aricultural Education in Community Schools.
Danville, Illinois: Interstate Printers, 1950. 433 p.

Hibbard, Benjamin. Agriculture Economics. New York: The McGraw
Hill Book Company, 1948. 235 p.

Kolb, T. H. A Study of Rural Society. Boston, New York: Houghton
Mifflin Company, 19 0. 38-39 pp.

Landis, Paul H. Rural Life in Process, New York: McGraw Hill
Company, 19648. 1 -i5pp.
Lawrence, MI. If "Making a Living in the Country," The Negro History
Bulletin. III (July 1940), 67-74.

Leubke, L. H. "Depopulation of the Rural Area," Tennessee and Home
Science. VII (May 1953), 9.

Mayo, Selz C. "Research and Farming," University of Florida Press,
(July 1953), 12.
Nelson, Lory. "What is the Future for Small Towns," Farm and KHae
Science. IX (October 1953), 10.

Neurberger, R. L. "From the Sod to the Side-walk," The New York
Times Magazine Section, (July 6, 1953), 6 p.

Reuter, Edward Bryon. The American Race Problem. New York: Thomas
Y. Crowell Company, *iW0-T 39 pp.

Taylor, James E. Rural Sociology. New York: The McGraw Hill Book
Company, 198. -T:17 pp.








Thompson, Warreb Simpson. Population Problems. New York: McGraw
Hill Book Company, 1942. 86-87 pp.

Toeuber, Conrad. Replacement Rates for Males United States Depart-
ment of Agriculture, Vol. VII. Washington: Government Printing
Office, 1950.

United States Bureau of the Census, Characteristics of the Populations
1950. Vol. II. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1952.

United States Bureau of the Census. Extension Circular: 1950.
V0ol VII Washington: Government Printing Office, 19 5.

iUited States Consus of Agriculture, Department of Commerce: 1950.
Farm Tenure, Vol. V Washington: Government Winting Office.

Wilson, Gee. The Social Economics of Agriculture. New Yorks The
MacMillan Company, 194. 2-11 pp.

Windes, E. E. High School Education on the Farm. Boston: Houghton
Mifflin Company, 1950. 6 p.
































APPFHDI























High Springs .a










F I
I -












TBlREE OF THE LARGEST FARING DISTRICTS IN AIACHUA COoI=
WINTH TE EXCErPTION O GA neSVILE Svt HERE AS THE
I














CE TY SAT, rOTHR AREAS WE USED IN
WITH T EXCEPT OF QANSVIL S RE AS TE
COUTY SfAT, OTHER AREAS WERE USED IN
INVESTIGATION








QUESTIONNAIRE

1. Print full name
(first) (middle (ast
Addre s
(St. and o o, R.F.D)- (city, town, village) (county)

Age last birthday (race) Negro h eWite other

Tears at present address Years on farm farm address



2. Martial status: Single Married Separated

Wife's full name Husband's name

No. of children age, male ages female No. relatives

Ages children left farm: Girls Boys

Grades of boys leaving school Girls_

Number of young adults returning to the farm Male Female_

No. that changed farms male female: No, that went to the city

male female Reasons for leaving the farm_

returning Did you sell your farm amount of land

you gave your son Amount of capital given _

Equipment given at maturity _____



3. Years spent on farm as: Operator_ owner renter tenant

sharecropper average acres cultivated No. buildings on farm

type of buildings on farm conditions Equipment used: Check if

apply, plcwsr panthers fertilize distributors _power mowers

water pumps sprayers hay bailers tractors trucks

trailers Do you have electricity running water ___







Why did you stop farming: Check if apply, poor housing

low income__poor health conditions lack of recreation

poor located farms_. Are you now employed Type of employment

Income in city $ Do you cwn property in city_ rent

Are you a member of any social organizations__Na.e of clubs, etc.



4. Would you go back to the farm if the following were available:

Better housing Adequate water supply improved roads Closer

contact with urban areas larger income better farm machinery

use of electricity_ closer school community relationship_____.

considerate federal help better farm leadership cooperative

county agents increased health facilities better school for

children Good transportation to centers_



5. OTHER INFOrATION:


SIGNED


___ ___ ___







TABLE I

A COMPLETE BRE DO(N OF RURAL AEAS IN ALACHUA COUNTY,
S8MWIN NUMER OF FARB FOR EACH DISTRICT



Rural Areas Nuiber of Farm


Arrondona 103

Rochelle-Hawthorne 160

Micanopy 102

Waldo 120

Archer 143

LaCrosse J46

Brooker 160

Gaine ille 120

High Springs 180

Alaohla 245

Newberry 325


SAreas inTestigated in this study
w Arasl fnresigate in thie s~dy







NQUfMR AM ACRAt Of FAMS oMEiBTD n T HxE FARMERS
Il THE TREE al AIN I4u .URAL IUlSTEfT3
IN aLLCHrUL CORrT DCLDED w THM STUDr.
ztARS iLraz 196i0-415-50


SU HBMR SPRUI? AUcfl EmiRst
Nmbar A a L Arage T JLc -- Aeirag e Aimr icr. lv erage
tof A"eage of Acnage of Acreage
Famn Farm Farm

1910 195 3,905 20 3o0 10 ,640 35 73 2,336 30

1916 96 2,BB0 30 275 8,800 15 67 2,345 35

1950 87 3,a82 ho 191 7,831 65 71 3,o50 4





TAWZ IIIr

NML K OF PARMI OPERATED BH IHIE rARIES IN TWS AGRIC ULTUAL DISTRICTS
tED IN THIS STKDY IN AIACHU COGUTT


TAsUS HIGH SENLftS AlACHUA NEWBEMR
Wsr oi f Averag Nuibur of LAvrag IhNer of Alrag
Para Acrnage Fam. Arear Farms Aere ag


MlO0 205 33. t20 37.5 I00 o2.5

1915 129 53.7 372 3 1 397 L8.

1950 12 69.71 30i S5.4 297 36.




TA3it 1t


N1Sum OF FAIN POPUIATIL IN TD HE OWJH ITIES LUDSER STILY
DI PRIAP'DS TO A;3G, SF.X, AYD CCLC.
IN AIACHUA COLUCT


rHIDG SPREIS AIACHUI ) N i E IT
ite eg-o te er ~-- _i tl- ta dgro"
Fe- Fe- F- Fe- Fo- e-
Malu mabl MalLe male Male sale Male mLae Ible m s Male male


5 tp 1h 29 38 16 1 3 35 3 2 5 i 3 2U. 30

25 to 3L 37 L6 12 13 22 20 25 26 20 31 1d lb

3 to l 51 48 4 27 2? 36 17 36 17 22 16 13

t5 to s3 66 42 62 6 25 30 19 23 19 2L 19 17

Over 50 60 41 3d 30 2L 26L 5 43 20 23 24 26


AQES


q __ _L_ __ __ ____ __







TABu V


YEARB CGOMLET IN SC3OWL FOR NEIRO AND WHI"E FARMERS
NafEr ST'UY IN T1EE M=Nl FARTIW AREAT
IN ATACHtL COUNTY


CIASSTFTcATGHV RIDH SPRIiS_ AZACHItA MNiERRY
WRite Negro W.hit N segro

ElemOntuar
gr a 1-6 16 1 16 2 9 16 12

arads 7?.9 6 10 12 97 8

High Sohool
1 t 3 years 7 5 5 6 2

Htgh Shbool
L ynar 2 1 2 l 1

1 to 3 years
C011e7 0 2 2 1 0
Collar ge 0 2 2 D

L y~are oran 0 0 0 0 D 1





TABLE VI

TABLE SHOWS FARM TENIVE OF WTITE FARMERS
LIVING IN THE THREE AIN RURAL AREAS
UNDER STUDT IN ALACHUA COUNTY
BET'sEEK 19L0-1950


HM3H SFIO-S ALCH LUt NEWBERR


Ow2ers 122 182 197 205 195 176

Renters 58 52 96 64 11 58

Tenants W7 2i 83 71 62 12
Sharecroppers 92 5j. 103 47 76 49

Managers 32 l1 ho0 5 80 76

Hited Workers 37 52 90 109 39 L4





TABLE VIT

TAL- SHO" TFArU TiMRE OF EGIHO) FLREUR
LThTD UM THE HIREE RIAL AMICULTURAL
S!CTfiaS -leR STL n! TirEt 19 0-190o


STATUS HIGH SPIMS ALACHUA NES__RT
19460 o 50 190o 19W 19

O wra 64 107 86 166 106 112
Rl:r+4rz 61 6 180 79 81 I

Sharzoropp re 102 43 134 67 79 36

Tanant 34 3Y 71 62 59 40

Manage~ 1 3 8 18 2 5

Hir d Workera 195 207 10 20 119 206




TAIS VIII


HILJCB CROPI AMD LEVSTOCK GCRON BIT WIe FARIWRS ADf NERtO FARMES
IN THREE UIN A GREUILTtRAL DISTRICTS WITH EFERbCE
TO TIEfR USE IN THEIR FARMING PRIOUAW


RAG HI s3s__ S_ AAH____ ____ _____
cuh Home Ueh Ho Cash Hn
Crop. sVe Liveto.gk Craps Use Livestapk Crops tfe liAvestok

tobacoo vegetables oucmbere vegetable peanuts pOrtatoes
squash corn Swine quash arn swine water- cor wine
Negro peanuts eugarc&n water- potatoes melans sugarcan
peas potatoes poultry melm S'Agarcane poultry cmnta- poultry
water- tobac c lupea
Wmlon corn


water- pears tcbacc arn rwater- corn
melons corn swine -prar v~etabltaEs wne m nons sugarcane cattle
White canta- SUgar -a cattle corn pear cattle canta- s. pota- arine
lopes retsales poultry cucumbers potatoes poultry laupee toes poultry
pecas pasture q'uash peanata vee tables
okra potatoes okra
okra

Other -




TABLE II

VALUE O7F f UCTS SUL) t FARCE I 1950,
AS COMCPBED WITH WHIT IAD NE~RO
IN THE THEEB MIN ARCIEULTrUAL
ARES IN AIACHL CCOMTY


Three main
WIfTE naming areas EO
in Alachua

Cropu t&in.B took Other* tropa Livestock Other


$71, o000

42, 100
47,600

i160,700


$ 5, o

12,720

16,075

$43,695


HMl sSRiWs


NMEWiHE I


15,o075

19',540
12,607

47, 222


S3, 509

7,502

2,900

13,M11


* 2,600

4,600
3, $65

$10,665


* By-prodiuts from sale of non-tfa products.


$36,000

69,261

77,6,0O

$182,901


" "- -' --





TABLU X

NUMBER Or !nO WHITE FAIuSE THAT CHANGED FAXlK
IN CO BISON WITH THOSE OF IRITE FAHmS
IN THREE IM IAIb ICULTBRAL SECTIONS
tMDER STUDT I ALACHAU CODTI


HIGH SPRINGS ALACHUA NEWIERRY
X gro hlite Negro 'White etgro WhU-

Muiber that changed
farna 9 7 6 10 7 2

Humber migrated to
Oity 12 4 l- 8 9 7

Number employed in
city 9 11 6 6 5

Average income
in city $1,50o,00 62,900.30 .1,175.00 $2,900.00 $1,820.O St2,?00.00

Average income last
yar on farm 850.00 1,600.00 960.00 1,97L.00 6Qa. O 2,450.00





TABLE X
NUW eR OF WHITE HD NEO YTOM ADULTS LELVInM AND RSTUiW LD TO FAPIG
BETWN 1960 AND 1950 IN THE PWAL fMM COMMUMITM5
OF KIGH SPRINGS, ALACHUA, AND NEWEIRY


fNumbr HIGH SPRIGS NIRMIBElT AIACKUA
leaving white e gsra wBhta Cera WIhitae Mep
Farm 19_h0 1 i 0 160 19Q g 190 1940 190 19L70 1950 19O 10

(male) 191 92 225 106 76 63 52 27 81 77 64 33
(female) 119 M 131 7l 31 29 20 16 4L6 hO Lh 21
TOrAL 310 172 356 170 107 92 62 43 127 u17 10 Sh

lmber

(nm~a) 71 22 12 29 35 2l 32 15 26 30 26 19
(reale) 18 12 37 41 12 7 16 9 12 16 9 20
TO Lr 89 34 79 70 .7 31 I.B 2 35 1 LS 39






TABIE XII

T1HE RESULTS OF AT IXVRTORY OF FAI OF BOTH tWnTE AND rEGRO
IN WARDS TO THMeR VUiPMNT ATD FACILITIES
D 1 UE OH THEIR FARMS

* -, **.=-. '-- .- = -


Tarm Squiprent and
Housebold
Appliances

Tractors

Plantern

Oul tivator
Power MaN te

Water Puqsa (Power)
Tru cks

Autcldbils

Electricity

Refrigerators

Tndoor Toilets

Sanitary Privys


RFIGH SFHIlHS
White He r
FXiTer NRInS


17 5
22 19

26 21

17 0

19 9
16 6

9 12
17 12


9 2


AIACHEM

C&erk 3Fu-
aL~cm


NEBtERR
White tao-
=-,,ha lufcfr


-- ----


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


16 19 2I 17 1I 17






TA IB IIIl

AVTRAL FEERCENT OF FAnrLY GALS FOR FARIRS I
ALL T MEE AJCHU COUNTY FARBMI DISTRICT
FO BOTH WITE ANbD NEiR


Famib'


GDalI


Providing children with good education

OninFg f~orm frwe of debt

Having nAw of ,le-Lt.--2ty

Haitr i moern gonveTniencrs in hmew

Remodel Homestead

Spll out an leave farm

Increase present acreage urier cultivatin

CrAte better relationashp with urban unfater

Bacoing member of aom civic org*niBtI m


_ ____ Avere -Nr_es_ t-Famillas_


ATerse~--Parcen t-Faill s
Whitg Negro



68 57

70 62

65 20

35 3

t2 B3

74 21



40 62


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




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