|
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
- -- --- ---------- ---- -
|
RSS
HIDE
