• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Title Page
 Components for indicators
 Florida farm incomes
 Importance of indicators
 Regional variations in farmer...
 Summary and conclusions
 Population and food














Group Title: New series
Title: Indicators of Florida farm prosperity
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00002284/00001
 Material Information
Title: Indicators of Florida farm prosperity
Series Title: New series
Physical Description: 17 p. : ; 23 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Alleger, Daniel E
Hampson, C. M ( Charles M. ), b. 1891
Florida -- Dept. of Agriculture
University of Florida -- Agricultural Extension Service
Publisher: Dept. of Agriculture
Place of Publication: Tallahassee Fla
Publication Date: 1948
 Subjects
Subject: Farm income -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Agricultural prices -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Genre: government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Statement of Responsibility: by Daniel E. Alleger ... and Charles M. Hampson.
General Note: "April 1948."
General Note: Cover title.
General Note: At head of title: Cooperative extension work in agriculture and home economics (Acts of May 8 and June 30, 1914) ; Agricultural Extension Service, University of Florida, Gainesville; Florida State University at Tallahassee and United States Department of Agriculture, Cooperating.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00002284
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: ltqf - AAA2685
ltuf - AKD9742
oclc - 28563592
alephbibnum - 001963060
 Related Items
Other version: Alternate version (PALMM)
PALMM Version

Table of Contents
    Title Page
        Title Page
    Components for indicators
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
    Florida farm incomes
        Page 4
        Page 5
    Importance of indicators
        Page 6
        Page 7
    Regional variations in farmer prosperity
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
    Summary and conclusions
        Page 12
    Population and food
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
Full Text
ULr I -b Ith



New Series Number 129


COOPERATIVE EXTENSION WORK IN AGRICULTURE
AND HOME ECONOMICS
(Acts of May 8 and June 30, 1914)
AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION SERVICE,
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA, GAINESVILLE
FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY AT TALLAHASSEE
AND UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,
COOPERATING
H. G. CLAYTON, Director of Extension





Indicators of


Florida Farm Prosperity

By
DANIEL E. ALLEGER
Associate Agricultural Economist
Agricultural Experiment Stations
and
CHARLES M. HAMPSON
Extension Economist in Farm Management



AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS DEPARTMENT
AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION SERVICE
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA

Published by the State Department of Agriculture
Tallahassee, Florida
NATHAN MAYO. Commissioner


April, 1948


____






Indicators Of

Florida Farm Prosperity
For nearly a century--since 1850-people have been stead-
ily quitting Florida farms, and in 1945 only 36 percent of
the state's population was rural.' In the main, recent rural
out-migrations have been greatest from those counties where
the annual per capital incomes were lowest. From some rural
areas the negroes emigrated more rapidly than the whites.2
It has long been assumed that happiness and well-being of
the American farm family depends upon rural economic pros-
perity. This paper points out several ways by which the
relationships between incomes and prosperity, as evaluated
by material possessions and services, may be observed. It
does not attempt to measure psychological well-being, or the
personal and social adjustments made by members of Florida
farm families. The "indicators" are (1) average farm in-
comes, (2) an index of farm dwelling facilities, and (3) an
index of the level of living of Florida farm operator families.
Average farm incomes are values obtained from farm oper-
ators. Farm dwelling facilities are those reported for dwell-
ings occupied by families connected with the farming opera-
tions. Level of living comparisons are applicable to farm
operator families only.

COMPONENTS FOR INDICATORS
Average incomes as used herein are those given in the
1945 United States Census of Agriculture and represent all
farm products sold or used by farm households. A Farm
Dwelling Facilities Index was constructed with four relatives
(separate items) or components based upon the number of
farmer-occupied farm dwellings having (1) running water,
(2) electricity, (3) radios, and (4) telephones, as listed in the
1945 Census of Agriculture.
The number of occupied farm dwellings in each county was
taken, together with the number of occupied farm dwellings
with running water, electricity, radios, and telephones, as of
1945. The percentage of the number of farm dwellings with
each component was then computed. The county's percentage
for each component was next expressed as a proportion of the
state average (Table 1). These four percentages were then
averaged to give a final index for the county.
' The Seventh Census of the State of Florida, 1945.
SFarm Tenure Characteristics la Jefferson County. Florida. Hampson and Alleger,
released by Agricultural Extension Service. No-vember. 1946. pp. 4-5.
The authors wish to acknowledge the helpful suggestions given by Dr. C. V. Noble.
Head, Department of Agricultural Ecunomics, the University of Florida. and to other
staff members of the Department; albo to Mr. Clyde K. Beale. Associate Editor, Agricul-
tural Experiment Station and Agricultural Extension Service.






TABLE 1.-RELATIVES USED IN MEASURING FARM
DWELLING FACILITIES INDEX FOR 1945-STATE
TOTAL 67,415 OCCUPIED FARM DWELLINGS.

Relative Farms Possessing Relative
Number Percent Index

Running water 20,068 29.8 100
Electricity --...._...- 22,857 33.9 100
Radios ...- 33,871 50.2 100
Telephones 6,429 9.5 100


The Level of Living Index used was recently released by
the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, United States Depart-
ment of Agriculture.1 It rates each Florida county and the
state as a whole against the average of all counties in the
United States.2


"The items on which the indexes of farm operator level of living are based Include:
(1) The percentage of farms with electricity in the farm dwelling: (2) the per-
centage of farms with telephone in farm dwelling; (3) the percentage of farms
with automobiles; and (4) the average value of products sold or traded in the
preceding year per farm reporting (adjusted for changes in purchasing power).
The indexes show only the average level of living for a county and do not throw
any light on the differences among farm operator families within the county."
Margaret Jarman Hagood. Social Scientist, United States Department of Agriul-
ture. Bureau of Agricultural Economics, in Farm Operator Family Level Of Le g
Indexes for Counties of the United States. 1940 and 1945, p. 1.
Refer to ConAtruction of County Indexes for Measuring Change in Level of Living of
Farm Operator Families. 1940-46, by Margaret Jarman Eagood. Rural Sociology,
June. 1947, p. 139.




UEOGRAPERICRWlITS


Comparison; of A.Verage Farm Incomes hi lelecled
Geographical Arean of Fk.ridn. 1910 and 1915.


1 $ . .N F-
41 5 ;,.' I -ii ? .. f *.' 7
2 7; 2..'37 6-' 1.212 I ',*
3 1 A 1. f1l 1 11 I, r. e.
4 5.; 11.1 I 2 ;.' I

State $1l r.I;l( 4 r16f :'. l.f 16" F2.2.;


'urce The L * e l; .11. ifIo
Fig. 1.-Ma- p 'Iu l. nir? C -.rrbpnicil Ariea rf
Fl-rn. and Tni 7bl Sn,-i g Ir. c,me Com-
parmi'r.< t- :ri Ari'a '-r .19-'i air
l'i4B






A level of living index is more inclusive than a facilities
index only.' In a level of living index not only may all home
conveniences be considered but some components like health
and educational facilities can also be assessed. Moreover,
prosperity implies more than mere acquisition of substantial
incomes. It encompasses the general welfare and well-being
of a people, including intangible psychological factors, such
as a man's love for the soil, which are extremely difficult to
evaluate. However, inasmuch as incomes are relative
measures of other attributes associated with prosperity, they
serve as barometers in analyses of economic adjustments.

FLORIDA FARM INCOMES
From 1940 to 1945 average incomes of Florida farmers
generally were higher than at any previous time in the state's
history. Farmers in every rural neighborhood have first-hand
knowledge of tenants and others who, within this 5-year
period, paid for farms out of war-time farm profits. From
the beginning to the end of World War II the proportion of
Florida farms operated by owners went up about 9 percent.
In 1940 farm land owned by full-owners and part-owners2
amounted to 5.3 million acres, but in 1945 this figure had risen
to nearly 8 million acres. In both cases land in managed farms
was excluded. Florida farm owners operated 119 acres on
an average in 1940, and in 1945 operated an average of nearly
203 acres. However, the increase in crop acreage per owner-
operator amounted to only 6 acres. The general rise in farm
ownership was due to reclassification of certain pasture lands
as well as to an increase in owner-acquisition of farm lands.

S . a working concept of level of living with sufficiently universal validity may
be cast in terms of the level of current consumption or utilization of goods and
services . *. Hagood and Ducoff in What Level of L'iing Indexes Mesure,
American Sociological Review, Volume IX. No. 1, February, 1944.
SFull-owners own all the land they operate. Part-owners own a part and rent from
others the remaining part of the land they operate.

Farmers in some parts of Florida enjoyed a higher degree
of prosperity than in others. On an average, the 1945 farm
incomes increased in amounts across the state from the west
to the east (See Fig. 1), and from the north to the south.1
In southern Florida the average total income per farm was
over seven times larger than in northwestern Florida. The
relative importance of all crops, including citrus and vege-
tables, as an important factor in farm income is shown in
Table 2.

' Figures relate to the crop year, 1944. United States Census of Agriculture, 1945.

[4]






TABLE 2.-THE PROPORTION IN PERCENT THAT CROP
AND LIVESTOCK SALES REPRESENT OF TOTAL
FARM INCOMES, FLORIDA, 1910 AND 1945.
AVERAGE INCOMES PER IFAIRM
Area* T Proportion in Percent
Total Crop Sales Livctock Sales**
194,_ 1945 1940 I 1946 1940 1945
1 $ 568 $1.,05 40.8 48.3 25.0 23.2
2 972 2,328 49.7 54.3 .31.3 30.7
3 1,977 7,051 79.0 85.6 15.8 11.2
4 5.717 11,115 76.8 75.5 21.9 22.8

State $1,517 $4,346 68.7 75.0 21.3 17.7

SSee Fig. I for areas.
** Total value of livestock and livestock p-rm.nt1 sold
Farmers in Florida received nearly 2.5 times more for live-
stock and livestock products in 1945 than in 1940, or 45.5
million dollars as compared to 19 million. However, as a pro-
portion of all farm income, only in the Everglades did livestock
sales indicate an increase over 1940. It may be noted that
crop sales in the "citrus belt" (Area 3) represent nearly 86
percent of the total farm income while in northwestern Florida
the crop sales are only 48 percent. In the Everglades (Area 4),
the proportion of crop sales to total farm income may be biased
by corporation controlled sugar cane acreages,' which, if elimi-
nated, would no doubt emphasize the increased reliance placed
upon livestock in that area for farm incomes.2
The average Florida farm income rose by $2,829 from 1940
to 1945, of which $2,179 was due to crop sales and $650 to
sales of livestock and other farm products. While the increase
of average farm income of $2,829 is noteworthy, real income
consists of goods and services. A dollar will buy more at one
place than in another, and will buy more at one time than at
another. In 1932 the dollar bought more than in 1945. Such
changes in the purchasing power of a dollar indicate that
dollar income alone is not a true measure of prosperity.

I As of 1941. about 35.000 ucres of sugar cane were Ieported under cultivation in the
Everglades. proceeds from which represented about I, of the total farm income
uf the area for the 1940-41 season.
'All cattle and caives on farms in Area 4 increased from 91,327 to 158,664. or about 76
percent from 1940 to 1945. For the state as a whole, the increase was a little
over 50 percent for the same period. However, in two counties of Ares 4 the
total number of cattle and calves declined by over 12 thousand animal.


[5]






IMPORTANCE OF INDICATORS
The indicators of farm prosperity referred to on page 1,
serve a useful purpose in supplementing income statistics in
evaluating the material well-being of farm families.3 The
indexes reflect only the average conditions in a county as com-
pared to the state or the nation. They do not emphasize
differences within a county, wherein the range will probably
be greater than as between counties. The indexes must be
regarded only as estimates. Nevertheless. goods, services,
and opportunities possessed and used by individuals or groups
of individuals are usually highly inter-correlated. Hence, only
a few items in an index or indicator serve as good measures
of changes in many other items enjoyed by farm families, or
deemed essential for personal satisfaction.
Florida farm families have made substantial improvements
in their homes during the past few years. Over 6,000 more
farm families were using electricity in 1945 than in 1940.
The number of homes with telephones increased by nearly
3,000 for the same period. Concurrently, the number of motor
trucks on farms went up about 7,000, tractors by 5,000 and
automobiles by 4,000. These changes, it should be remem-
bered, occurred during war years when a system of priorities
and rationing limited expansion. In all likelihood, had wanted
goods and services then been fully available the true effects
of Florida's increased prosperity would have been far more
conspicuous.
As differences in the quantities or number of items or
services possessed by farm families are noted from year to
year, so likewise are differences from state to state, and county
to county also observed within any given year. Although
the farm dwelling facilities index (Table 3) reflects only esti-
mates of farm family well-being,' yet families with electricity,
for example, are likely to have other home conveniences such
as electric refrigerators, electric washing machines and irons,
electric sweepers, electric radios, or running water, to men-
tion only a few. A county with a high index implies many
more of these conveniences than can be expected within a
county with a low index.

I The irdex values are relative rather than absolute values. The indexes used are un-
weighted, due to difficulties i assigning statistically correct weights to each of
the four components. They show each county's position only in relation to the
mean or average of all counties in Florida. For instance, 67.416 occupied farm
dwellings were reported for Florida in 1946. but only 22.857 farms, or 88.9 percent,
reported farm dwellings with electricity. This 88.9 percent, therefore, represents
an index of 100 for the state as a whole. Of any county, in respect to dwellings
with electricity, has an index of 200, it means that the proportion of farm families
using electricity within that county is double thtestate averagem. on the other
hand the index is 60 it indicates only 17 percent of the farm dwellings represented
by that index have home electrical services which is but half the state average.
SA "level of living index" or a "plane of living index" measures material conditions,
while a standard of living does not. Standards of living are ways in which people
Live and do not necessarily indicate the extent to which goods and services are
utilized.








TABLE 3.-FARM DWELLING FACILITIES INDEX,

FLORIDA, 1945.1

RELATIVES COMPRISING THE INDEX Inde
COUNTIES Running i I Value
Water Electricity Radios Telephones


Al achI.
Baker
Bay
Bradford
Brevard
Brownrd
Calhijun
Charlotte
Citrus
Cany
Colli er
Columbia
Dade
DeSoto
Dixie
Duval
Escambia
Flngler
Franklin
Gadsden
Gilchrist
Glades
Gulf
Hamilton
Hnrdee
Hendry
Hernundo
Highlands
Hillsborough
Hulmes
Indian River
Jacksion
Jefferson
Lafayette
Lake
Lee
Leon
Levy
Liberty
Madison
Manatee
Marion
Martin
Monroe
Nassau
Okaloosa
Okeechobee
Orange
Osoeola
Palm Beach
Pasco
Pinelas
Polk
Putnam
St. Johns
St. Lucie
Santa Rosa
Sarasota
Seminole
Sumter
Suwannee
Taylor
Union
Volusia
Wakulla
Walton
Washington


78
13
106
67
220
117
.0)
112
116
11::
47

157
127
40
174
85I
71

41
78

110
22
89
140
130
223
141
18
227
:IS
26
84
175
151
3K
64
63
67
115
113
167
39
66
43
131
206
161
132
172
206
168
149
143
265
42
160
196
104
50
21
26
173
29
29
24


80
1''
127

I "
S 17 1



66
52'






14
43
53
166
14
125
120
Ito's
I T"
167
40
161
46
22
45
164
118
40
63
68
53
112
101
135
145
55
84
87
178
126
114
148
180
162
16:3
102
233
55
153
166
160
38
26
63
163
27
60
28


83
91
110
97
138
i69
77
63
113
8'
24
75
*2
123
83
125
120
56
:ti
44
111
131
128
84
145
118
118
114
130
78
103
79
62
143
127
119
39
96
75
67
96
106
111
29

98
132
134
140
91
93
126
127

110
146
116
121
127
131
93
108
99
115
83
69
92


2 The state average for 1945 equals 100 on the index scales.


[7]






REGIONAL VARIATIONS IN FARMER PROSPERITY
In Dr. Hagood's level of living index, Florida was rated
75 in 1945 against a national average of 100 (Table 4). In
other words, by comparing all farm operator families in
Florida against all farm operator families in the United States
the average Florida farmer had only three-fourths of the ma-
terial possessions and services enjoyed by the average Ameri-
can farmer. As of 1940 the average Florida farm operator
family rated but 54 in the index scale. An increase of 21
points in 1945 over 1940 indicates the progress made by the
Florida farm operator family in 5 years. This is a 39 percent
improvement against a national average improvement of 25
percent. In general for those counties where increases in farm
incomes were largest (Table 5), improvements in living con-
ditions were most rapid. However, these comparisons do not
necessarily hold true because many factors cannot be held
constant. For example, where members of operator farm
families were engaged in off-the-farm employment, improve-
ment in farm living conditions may have been only incidental
to farm incomes.
Since these data refer to farm families, and usually farm
operator families, high index numbers do not necessarily mean
good living conditions for hired farm workers and their
families.'
Regional variations in farm incomes and level of living of
farm operator families are distinct within the state (Table 6).
In general, improved living conditions are associated with
higher incomes.

'Dr. Hagood. in commenting on her level of living indexes also notes that "the index
numbers for many counties were substantially higher in 1945 than in 1940 because
the number of sub-marginal farm operators had been reduced. This gain was an
addition to any increase in level of living among farm operator families which
remained on their farms or among famllles which had replaced those who had left."
In one county in Florida. as a case in point, the number of farms was reduced from 102
to 60 from 1940 to 1945. Concurrently the average farm income rose from less
than one thousand to nearly seven thousand dollars, and the upswing in the level
of living was 84 points.


[SJ








TABLE 4.-FARM OPERATOR LEVEL OF LIVING
INDEXES, 1940 AND 1945. FLORIDA.*
Index Value I Change 1940 to 1945
Area 1940 1945 I Index Points I Percentage
State 54 75 21 39
Areal 1
Bay 4 11 24
(?h.!h ,in 21 jiU 43
Escambin 49 10 20
Franklin 11 fR 17 41
Gadsden 3,; M 2'7 75
Gulf 3S r61 23 61
Holmes 12 23 11 92
Jackson 1i 28 10 56
Jefferson 10 29 10 63
Leon Li 9 45
Liberty 17 35 18 106
Okalm. a 16 ?5 19 119
Santa Rt.. 22 40 1 X12
Wakulla 27 30 3 11
Walton I 4 : o 16 114
Washingtii 14 24 ]10 71
Area 2
Alachua 16 [ i1 14 0O
Baker 24 :36 12 60
Bradford 40 4 S 20
Clay 40 ,7 19 40
Columbia 33 43 10 30
Dixie 30 RR A 27
Duval 8 122 34 39
Flagler F4 103 10 28
Gilchrist 33 40 7 21
Hamilton 24 31 7 29
Lafayette 33 3' P 18
Levy 37 57 20 54
Madison 29 40 11 38
Marion 53 61 8 15
Nassau 48 63 15 31
Putnam 68 X7 19 28
Suwnnrcc 33 39 6 18
St. Johns 8; 107 22 26
Taylor 34 31 -3 -9
Union 34 48 14 41
Volusia 72 99 27 88
Area 3
Brerard 69 83 14 20
Citrus 48 66 1i 88
DeSoto 65 78 23 42
Hardee 45 75 30 67
Hcrnando 56 75 19 34
Highlands 70 126 56 80
Hillsborough 14 112 28 33
Indian River F. 92 34 69
Lake 65 106 51 93
Manatee 95 93 -2 -2
Orange 66 136 70 106
Osceola 59 90 31 53
Okeechobee 65 68 3 5
Pasco 66 92 26 89
Pinellas 105 143 38 36
Polk 67 180 72 107
Sarasota 110 137 2 26
Seminole 111 150 39 36
Sumter 52 69 17 58
St. Lucie 71 69 18 25
Area 4
Broward 60 73 13 22
Charlotte 65 99 34 62
Collier 98 95 3 -3
Dade 102 151 49 48
Glades 60 74 14 23
Hendry 136 281 95 70
Lee n7 108 21 24
Martin 67 120 68 111
Monroe 25 44 19 76
Palm Beach 126 137 11 9

* United States county average for 1945 equals 100 on 1940 and 1946 index scales.
SOURCE: Bureau of Agricultural Economics. U. S. Department of Agriculture.

[9]









TABLE 5.-FLORIDA FARM INCOMES FOR 1940 AND
1945, FARM DWELLING FACILITIES INDEX, AND
LEVEL OF LIVING INDEX FOR 1945.

Average IFarm Dwelling Level of Living
COUNTIEs Fnrm Income Facilitles Index Index
1940 19E45 1945 I 1945'


Alachua
Baker
Day
Bradford
Brevard
Broward
Calhoun
Charlotte
Citrus
Clay
Collier
('Clumbia
Dade
DeSoto
Dixie
Duval
E..cambia
Flagler
Franklin
Gadsden
Cilchrist
Glades
Gulf
Hamilton
Hardee
Hendry
Hernando
Hiulilands
Hillsborough
Holmes
Indian River
Jarkson
Jefferson
Lafayette
Lake
Lee
I.eon
Levy
Liberty
Madison
Manatee
Marion
Martin
Monroe
Nassau
Okalooea
Okeehobee
Orange
Osceola
Palm Beach
Pasco
Pinellas
Polk
Putnam
St. Johns
St. Lucie
Santa Rosa
Sarasota
Seminole
Sumter
Suwannee
Taylor
Union
Volusia
Wakulla
Walton
Washington


$ 1.129
779
947
593
1,722
3.904
661
947
775
976
9.535
676
5.074
950
670
1.355
644
5,277
894
1.466
862
3.826
940
750
833
12,987
602
4.113
1.401
459
2.226
508
443
775
1.847
4.449
408
755
450
696
3,938
947
2.856
777
1.218
355
849
1,876
1.201
9.227
971
2,281
2.669
1.279
2.717
3,108
466
7,590
4.538
1.034
735
403
705
1.260
467
464
364


The State S 1,517 $4,46 100 100


* Each county is rated against the 1945 state average, where the average equals 100 on
the index scales. In Table 4. 1945 values were adjusted accordingly.

[10)


1 2.549
1.290
1.178
819
4,320
8,490
1.524
6.862
1.964
2.057
10.567
1.768
1,748
11.275
4,869
1,492
8,369
1,263
8.675
2,948
3,95
1,778
4,940
717
1.6-50
3.607
88.232
2.687
10.903
3.656
1.255
8.270
1,549
1,647
1,712
7.010
8.494
1.060
2.400
1.132
1,916
5.550
2.474
6,605
1.115
2.927
1.075
1.719
9.672
4.540
14.446
3.648
9,575
11.970
2.202
6,844
9.852
960
6,296
12,974
2,361
1.855
753
1,52G
3.254
1.077
1.003
1.171


10
sO
48
75
64
111
97
40
182
88
89
127
67
201
104
51
163
79
137
77
84
63
99
81
41
100
308
100
168
149
31
123
37
39
62
141
144
39
76
47
53
124
91
100
59
84
47
77
181
120
183
128
191
185
116
148
119
63
183
200
92
52
41
64
182
40
40
32






Table 6.-Increases in Average Farm Incomes from 1940
to 1945 Shown With Indexes of Farm Dwelling
Facilities and the Level of Living in 1945,
By Geographical Areas of Florida.

Increases in Average 1945 Farm Dwelling Level of Living
Area Farm Incomes Facilities Index*
1940 to 1946 Index 1946

1 $ 937 56 52
2 1,356 78 80
3 5,074 155 133
4 5,398 101 151

State $2,829 100 100

National average arbitrarily adjusted to compare differences between four areas in
Florida. See Tables 4 and 5.


[11]





SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
In 1940 the index of the level of living was lowest in the
Southern States but between 1940 and 1945 these states gained
more on a percentage basis than any other region. For the
South Atlantic States the gain was 33 percent, and for Florida
39 percent.
Rises in farm incomes and improvements in the level of
living for many Florida farm families probably occurred at
about the same time. In one or two instances the recent up-
swings in the level of living were due to causes which were
non-agricultural in nature.
All indications point to the fact that farmer prosperity
has been on the increase in Florida since 1940. The degree of
lag, if any, between receipts for farm products and the acqui-
sition of home facilities, appliances and services, and farm
machinery and equipment, cannot be determined by a simple
analysis of changes over a 5-year interval. However, data
on hand indicate farmer prosperity quickly shows itself in
improved family living conditions if all goods and services
wanted can be acquired.
Regional inequalities will always remain. Changes in tech-
nology or in types of farming, or farming in larger acreages,
or the introduction of new or improved types of crops, or im-
provements in marketing may be among some of the require-
ments for enhancing the general welfare of farm families in
low income areas.
In observing causes and suggesting remedies, agricultural
extension workers are in an advantageous position. Specific
agricultural research, however, may be needed in some coun-
ties to point out the direction of approach. Efficiency in
agricultural production, providing reasonable amounts of in-
come which could be applied to improve rural life, would offer
a most encouraging future outlook for Florida farm families.
Once the ability to pay for home betterments is realized, the
general level of family well-being will be limited only by the
desires of the farm people themselves.


[12]






APPENDIX
POPULATION AND FOOD
By T. J. Brooks
Those who have spent years studying the problem say
that population is rapidly encroaching on the means of sup-
port. The reason is that life expectancy is lengthening and
the soils of the world are being depleted. Somewhere in the
not distant future lies starvation in waiting. We are prone
to ignore the evidence of this forthcoming catastrophe until
it begins to reach home. It has been pointed out to us for
generations that this very thing happened in all Asia and in
southern Europe. The fact that this country is going the
same route is too evident to admit of doubt.
Our lack of conservation has left our top soil-the one we
depend on-open to erosion and to dust storms until we have
already ruined beyond repair 100,000,000 acres and allowed
to be seriously damaged 50,000,000 acres and exhausted to
low-level of production another 100,000,000 acres. All this
leaves only 170,000,000 in prime condition and some 80,000,000
acres that need draining or irrigating.


[13]






EDITORIAL
Washington Evening Star-October 8, 1946
FOOD AND POPULATION
In the past century the world's population has jumped
from about 1,000,000,000 to over 2,000,000,000, and it is con-
tinuing to grow now at the rate of 200,000,000 every decade.
A hundred years hence, in 2046 A.D., it may well be in
the neighborhood of 4,000,000,000--or even more than that if
projected international health programs are effective and our
average life expectancy, which has been increasing steadily
for a long time, keeps on increasing.
Wholly apart from what they can mean in the future in
terms of the balance of power among races and nations and in
terms of far-reaching international economic, political and
social change, these figures have a current significance as far
as the world's food is concerned.
As pointed out recently by H. H. Bennett, chief of the Soil
Conservation Service in the Department of Agriculture, there
are now only about 4,000,000,000 acres of immediately arable
land on the earth, and we are already face to face with the
fact that this total-under present producing conditions-is
not enough to feed mankind as a whole.
As of today, in other words, the world is suffering a short-
age of good land to give sustenance to its more than 2,000,000,-
000 inhabitants. Meanwhile, though the shortage is already
here, the number of human beings is increasing at the rate of
200,000,000 each decade.
Stated another way, it is as if a new Russia or a new North
America were being added to our planet every ten years, with
the additional mouths to feed totaling in excess of the com-
bined population of Canada and the United States.
The United States, incidentally, though better off than
most nations, has little margin left and cannot maintain its
present standard of living, in Mr. Bennett's judgment, if it
loses much more productive soil.
Mr. Bennett paints a decidedly sobering over-all picture,
one that leaves no room for doubt, that both in our own coun-
try and every country there will have to be enlightened action
from now on.
Land technology of a high order will have to be encourage
everywhere. Soil already in use will have to be enriched and
conserved as much as possible. New TVA projects will have
to be built throughout the world to make arid and semiarid
land productive. Indeed, it may eventually be necessary to
[14]






explore and exploit the spectacular possibility of using atomic
energy to transform the earth's Saharas into bountiful garden
areas.
The startling prospective multiplication of human beings,
coupled with the present shortage of tillable soil, demands na-
tional and international programming along this line from this
point on.
In Mr. Bennett's word, "Time is running out between the
impending pincers of an increasing population and a dwindling
area of productive land." If the world sits back and does
nothing it will be condemning itself to future famine on a
scale so vast, with consequences so dire, as to be scarcely
imaginable.
(The bold face type is by the copyist)
TABLE 7.-POPULATION. AREA, AND DENSITY OF
POPULATION OF THE AMERICAN REPUBLICS

Area Population
per
Republic Year Population Square I Square
Square Square
kilometers miles

Argentina ........ 1943 13,906,694 2,778,412 1,072,745 12.96
Bolivia .. ... 1942 3,533,900 1,077,544 416,040 8.49
Brazil ..-----. ....----. 1942 43,550,000 8,511,189 3,286,169 13.25
Chile .- ..- 1943 5,237,432 741,767 286,396 18.29
Colombia .1944 10,082,000 1,139,155 439,825 22.92
Costa Rica-.. ... 1943 706,596 49,827 19,238 36.73
Cuba .-..._ 1943 4,778,583 114,524 44,217 108.07
Dominican Republic_ 1944 1,969,773 49,543 19,129 102.97
Ecuador -. __ 1944 3,171,367 270,670 104,506 30.35
El Salvador -_ ..._ 1943 1,880,000 34,126 13,176 142.68
Guatemala 1943 3,450,732 108,889 42,044 82.07
Haiti -....-. 1942 3,000,000 27,704 10,700 280.37
Honduras .... 1943 1,173,032 153,226 59,160 19.83
Mexico 1948 21,153,321 1,964,647 758,550 27.89
Nicaragua 1943 1,048,603 148,000 57,144 18.85
Panama 1940 631,637 74,010 28,575 22.10
Paraguay 1941 1,040,420 389,834 150,516 6.91
Peru ..... 1943 7,395,687 1,249,049 482,257 15.84
Uruguay .. 1941 2,185,626 186,926 72,172 30.28
Venezuela __- 1942 3,993,203 912,050 352,141 11.84
Sub-total _. 133,888,606 19,981,092 7,714,700 17.35
United States-- 1943 136,485,262 7,827,989 3,022,887 45.16
Total .__ 270,373,868 27,809,081 10,737,087 25.18


[15]






son Average Prices Received by Farmers for Specified Commodit-
Sweet
Cotton Tobacro Potatoa Potatoes Corn Wheat Hay Cottonseed
Cents Cent Cents Cts Cta Cent Cents Dollars Dollars T.
Crop Year per lb. per lb. per btl. per bu. per bu. per be. per ton per ton oC
Au.-July July-June July-June Oct.-Sept July-Jne JuJ July-June
Av. Aug. 1909-
July 1914 12.4 100 69- 87.8 64.2 P.4 11.87 72 5
1920 16.9 17.3 125.3 141.7 (1.8 182 6 16.46 25.65
1921 -. 17.0 19.5 118 113.1 52.3 103.0 11.63 29.14
1922.-- 2.22. 2.8 6.9 100.4 71.5 96 11 4 30.42
1923 .- 28.7 19.0 92.1 1204; S2.5 92.6 13.08 41.23
1924 .. ... 22.9 S1.0 6s.f. 149.6 106.3 124.7 12.44 33.25
1925 19.6 16.8 170.6 165.1 69 9 143.7 12.77 31.59
1924 12.6 17.9 131.4 117.4 74.5 121.7 18.24 22.04
1927 ------. 20.2 20.7 101.9 109.0 85.0 119.0 10.29 34.83
1928 .. 18.0 20.0 53.2 11 .0 84.0 99.8 11.22 84.17
1929 .- 16.8 1 .8 131.6 117.1 79.9 103.6 10.90 30.92
1930 ....--. 9.5 12.8 91.2 103.1 1.9 67.1 11.06 22.04
1931 .7 8.2 46.0 72.G 32.0 39.0 8.69 8.97
1932. 6.b 10.5 39.0 54.2 31.9 SR.2 620 10.33
1933 -- 10.2 13.0 82.4 69.4 52.2 74.4 309 12.88
1934 --..- ---. 12.4 21.3 44.4 79.8 81.6 $4.8 1 20 33.00
1935. ......... 11.1 18.4 69.3 70.3 65.5 83.2 7.52 30.54
1934 .. 12.4 236 114.2 92.9 104.4 102.1 11.20 33.83
1987 6. 8.4 20.4 52.9 82.0 51 S 96.2 8 74 19. 1
1938 ... .... 8.6 19.6 6557 73.0 48.6 56.2 6.78 21."7
1939 --------. 9.1 15.4 69.7 74.9 56.8 69.1 7.94 21.17
1940 9.9 16.0 64.1 86.5 61.8 68.2 7.58 21.78
1941 ----- 17.0 26.4 80.7 94.0 75.1 94.5 9.67 47.46
1942 .. ...... 19.0 86.9 117.0 119.0 91.7 109.8 10.80 41.1
1943 ----------19.9 40.5 1%1.0 204.0 112.0 186.0 14.80 62.10
1944 ... 20.7 40.8 149.0 192.0 109.0 141.0 16.40 62.70
1945
October--..- 22.0 45.9 126.0 180.0 118.0 161.0 14.30 61.4
November 22.52 46.7 131.0 184.0 111.0 13.0 14.90 S1J.
December.. 22.84 43.8 187.0 194.0 109.0 164.0 1.40 51.4
1944
january ..... 22.86 36.3 146.0 208.0 110.0 1M.0 15.70 60."
February -- 23.01 .9 146.0 223.0 111.0 155.0 15.80 Mo.80
March -.. 22.70 31.9 157.0 236.0 114.0 15.0 16.30 47.50
April .. ---- 23.9 429 162.0 245.0 116.0 158.0 16.00 4800
May .----- 24.09 48.0 157.0 251.0 115.0 170.0 14.80 49.00
June .----- 25.98 59.0 147.0 251.0 142.0 174.0 14.70 51.50
July.... 0.88 56.7 148.0 275.0 196.0 187.0 15.00 60.00
August -... 33.55 48.6 148.0 280.0 180.0 178.0 15.10 59.10
September -- 85.80 48.8 128.0 224.0 178.0 179.0 15.40 57.80
Index Numbers (Aug. 1909-July 1914=1080
1920........... 128 178 180 161 96 207 189 114
1921 .. .. 187 196 163 129 81 117 98 129
1922----------- 18 228 95 114 116 109 98 16
192 ... 21 190 133 137 129 105 110 18
1924 ---.-----. 186 190 98 170 166 141 107 147
1925I----- 18 18 24.5 188 109 163 108 140
19'- .......... 101 179 189 14 11 138 112 98
1927 ..... 163 207 146 124 132 185 87 154
1928----.... 145 200 76 134 1&1 113 95 152
1929---..-.. 135 183 189 133 124 117 92 137
1930 --------. 77 128 181 123 93 76 93 98
1931.---- 46 82 66 83 60 44 73 40
1982--.....---- 52 105 55 62 50 48 52 48
1985- 82 130 118 79 81 84 68 57
194 .--.------ 100 213 64 91 127 96 111 140
196 -..-------- 90 184 85 80 101 94 63 111
1936.--------. 100 286 164 106 163 116 94 148
1937 8------- 204 76 93 81 109 74 8?
1938 .--...--. 69 196 80 83 7 64 57 97
1939...-------- 73 154 100 85 88 78 67 94
1940...... .. 80 160 78 97 96 77 64 11
1941 ---------- 187 264 116 107 117 107 S1 211
1942......- 153 369 168 136 143 124 91 202
1943..--------. 160 405 188 232 174 154 125 231
1944 ----.----. 167 408 214 219 170 160 138 284
1945
October .-- 180 459 181 205 176 171 120 228
November. 182 467 188 212 178 178 126 221
December...- 184 488 197 221 170 174 130 228
1946
January-..- 180 363 208 237 171 174 132 226
ebruary.... 186 339 209 254 1 17 175 133 223
March 183 319 225 269 178 179 137 211
April..----. 190 429 232 279 1IM 179 126 213
Ma----...... 194 430 225 286 210 192 125 220
June.------. 210 590 211 286 221 19, 124 228
July--..----- 249 567 212 313 305 212 126 264
August .... 287 486 205 319 2V0 201 127 282
-Sptember-.. 286 488 184 255 269 202 130 254
SSource of Authority-Better Crops.

[16]





season Average Prices Received by Farmers for Specified Commodities*
Sweet
Cotton Tobacco Potatoes Potatoes Corn Wheat Hay Cottonseed
Cents Cents Cents Cents Cents Cents Dollars Dollars Truck
Crop Year per lb. per lb. per bu. per bu. per bu. per bu. per ton per ton Crops
Aug.-July July-June July-June Oct.-Sept. July-June July-June July-June --
). Aug. 1909-
nly 1914 12.4 10.0 64.7 S7 5 ;4.2 88.4 11.,7 .22.5
12---- 22.9 22.8 65.9 100.4 74.5 96.6 11.64 30.42 -
S ---------- 28.7 19.0 92.5 120.6 82.5 92.6 13.08 41.25 ---
24---- 22.9 19.0 68.6 149.6 106.3 124.7 12.66 33.25
-- 19.6 16.8 170.5 165.1 60.0 143.7 12.77 81.69 --
---------- 12.5 17.9 131.4 117.4 74.. 121.7 1324 22.04 ...
17 ------- 20.2 20.7 101.9 109.0 85.0 119.0 10.29 34.83 --
8 ----_- 18 0 20.0 53.2 113.0 84.0 99.8 11.22 34.17 -
19 ------- 16.8 18.3 131.6 117.1 79.9 103.6 10.90 30.92 ---
0 ------ 9.5 12.8 91.2 108.1 59.8 67.1 11.06 22.04 -- -
------- 5.7 8.2 46.0 72.6 32.1 39.0 S.69 8.97 ---
2--------- 6.5 10.5 38.0 54.2 31.9 38.2 6.20 10.33 ---
....... 10.2 13.0 82.4 69.4 52.2 74.4 8.09 12.88 -
4 ....--- 12.4 21.3 44.6 79.8 81.5 84.8 13.20 33.00 ---
6------- 11.1 18.4 59.3 70.3 65.5 33.2 7.52 30.51 ---
--- --- 12.4 23.6 114.2 92.9 1.4.4 102.5 11.20 38.36 -
7.------- S.4 20.4 52.9 32.0 51.- 96.2 8.74 19.51 --
--- -- 8.6 19.6 55.7 73.0 Y. ; 56.2 6.78 21.79 -
--------- 9.1 15.4 69.7 74.9 56.s 69.1 7.94 21.17 -
0-. 9.9 16.0 54.1 65.5 1.3 68.2 7.58 21.73 ---
L.---- 17.0 26.4 80.7 94.0 75.1 94.5 1.67 47.65 ---
------- 19.0 36.9 117.0 119.0 91.7 109.8 10.80 45.61 -- -
8-.---- 19.9 40.5 131.0 204.0 112., 1.6.0 14.80 52.101
4 -- 20.7 42.0 149.0 192.0 10Q.0 141.0 1G.40 52.70 ---
S22.4 42.6 139.0 200.0 114.0 149.0 15.10 61.80 .

August--- 33.55 48.6 143.0 280.0 180.u 17..0 15.10 59.10 --
ember- 35.30 48.8 128.0 224.0 173.0 179.0 15.40 57.80 .--
ber--. 37.69 63.0 122.0 209.0 171.0 188.0 16.10 66.00 --
Fpember -- 29.23 43.8 123 o 200.0 127.0 189.0 17.20 89.90
mber.- 29.98 43.5 126.0 210.0 122.0 192.0 17.70 91.50

nuary ... 29.74 39.0 129.0 220.0 121.0 191.0 17.50 90.40 -
ebrumry.... 30.66 31.9 131.0 228.0 123.0 199.0 17.50 88.20 ---
-ch..... 31.89 33.6 139.0 235.0 150.0 244.0 17.40 88.00 -
iL---- 32.26 30.1 147.0 233.0 163.0 240.0 17.20 88.00 ...
- 33.60 44.6 153.0 233.0 159.0 239.0 16.80 88.70 ...
ne----- 34.07 46.0 156.0 249.0 1l5.0 218.0 16.00 79.60 ---
5y-- .... 35.88 48.5 169.0 251.0 201.0 214.0 15.10 79.00 ...


----- .. -. 185
-.... 231
------ 185
--------- 150

163
----- 145
135
---- ----- 77
1---------- 40
---------- 52
-.--- 82
----- 100
------ 90
---- 100
S 68
B--------- 69

-- 80
L------- 137

160
167
-- -----.. IGO
-------- 167
-S1

S 287
ptember-- 8286
Letober --- 304
ember --- 236
ember.--- 242

mary---... 246
---- 257
I-- 260
... 270
'e ---.. 275
JIly --------- 289


Index Numbers (Aug. 1909-July 1914=100)
228 95 114 116 109
190 133 137 129 105
190 98 170 166 141
168 245 188 109 163
179 189 134 116 138
207 146 124 132 135
200 76 14 131 113
183 189 133 124 117
128 131 123 93 76
82 66 S3 50 44
105 55 62 50 43
130 118 79 81 4
213 64 91 127 96
184 85 s0 102 94
236 164 106 163 116
204 76 93 81 109
196 80 83 76 64
154 100 85 88 78
160 78 97 96 77
264 116 107 117 107
369 168 136 143 124
405 188 232 174 154
420 214 219 170 160
435 199 228 178 169

486 205 319 280 201
488 184 255 269 202
530 175 238 266 213
488 176 228 198 214
435 181 239 190 217


* Source of Authority-Better Crops.


[17]


08
110
107
108
112
87
95
92
93
73
52
68
111
63
94
74
57
67
64
81
91
125
138
127

127
130
136
145
149

147
147
147
145
142
135
127


135
183
147 143
140 143
98 139
154 127
152 154
137 137
98 129
40 115
46 102
57 91
146 95
135 119
148 104
87 110
17 98
94 91
96 111
211 129
202 168
231 245
234 212
230 224

262 162
256 154
298 161
399 207
406 166

401 238
391 275
390 299
390 295
371 286
353 215
350 189




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