Title Page
 Table of Contents
 Out of the past
 Excerpts from 1870
 Thirty-five years of farm progress,...
 Agricultural influences
 Farm development and expansion
 Florida field crops
 Florida fruit and nut crops
 Green vegetables for the natio...
 All other crop acreage
 Agricultural activity, 1935-19...
 Florida agricultural areas
 Appendix A. Soil explanation
 Appendix B. State and area...

Group Title: Bulletin New Series
Title: A Graphic review of Florida agriculture
Full Citation
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00002879/00001
 Material Information
Title: A Graphic review of Florida agriculture
Series Title: Bulletin New Series
Physical Description: 175 p. : ill., maps (some col.) ; 23 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Florida -- Dept. of Agriculture
Publisher: Florida Dept. of Agriculture
Place of Publication: Tallahassee Fla
Publication Date: 1938
Subject: Agriculture -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Agriculture -- History   ( lcsh )
Agriculture -- Statistics   ( lcsh )
Genre: government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
bibliography   ( marcgt )
statistics   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
Bibliography: Bibliography: p. 175.
General Note: "July, 1938."
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00002879
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 - AAA3159
ltuf - AJL4362
oclc - 15557075
alephbibnum - 001790699
 Related Items
Other version: Alternate version (PALMM)
PALMM Version

Table of Contents
        Cover 1
        Cover 2
    Title Page
        Title Page 1
        Title Page 2
    Table of Contents
        Table of Contents 1
        Table of Contents 2
        Page 1
        Page 2
    Out of the past
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
    Excerpts from 1870
        Page 9
        Page 10
    Thirty-five years of farm progress, 1900-1935
        Page 11
        Page 12
    Agricultural influences
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
        Page 34
        Page 35
        Page 36
    Farm development and expansion
        Page 37
        Page 38
        Page 39
        Page 40
        Page 41
        Page 42
        Page 43
        Page 44
        Page 45
        Page 46
        Page 47
        Page 48
        Page 49
        Page 50
        Page 51
        Page 52
        Page 53
        Page 54
        Page 55
        Page 56
        Page 57
        Page 58
        Page 59
        Page 60
        Page 61
        Page 62
        Page 63
        Page 64
        Page 65
        Page 66
        Page 67
        Page 68
    Florida field crops
        Page 69
        Page 70
        Page 71
        Page 72
        Page 73
        Page 74
        Page 75
        Page 76
        Page 77
        Page 78
        Page 79
        Page 80
        Page 81
        Page 82
        Page 83
        Page 84
        Page 85
        Page 86
        Page 87
        Page 88
        Page 89
        Page 90
        Page 91
        Page 92
    Florida fruit and nut crops
        Page 93
        Page 94
        Page 95
        Page 96
        Page 97
        Page 98
        Page 99
        Page 100
        Page 101
        Page 102
        Page 103
        Page 104
        Page 105
        Page 106
        Page 107
        Page 108
        Page 109
        Page 110
        Page 111
        Page 112
        Page 113
        Page 114
        Page 115
        Page 116
        Page 117
        Page 118
        Page 119
        Page 120
        Page 121
        Page 122
    Green vegetables for the nation
        Page 123
        Page 124
        Page 125
        Page 126
        Page 127
        Page 128
        Page 129
        Page 130
    All other crop acreage
        Page 131
        Page 132
        Page 133
        Page 134
    Agricultural activity, 1935-1937
        Page 135
        Page 136
        Page 137
        Page 138
    Florida agricultural areas
        Page 139
        Page 140
        Page 141
        Page 142
        Page 143
        Page 144
        Page 145
        Page 146
        Page 147
        Page 148
        Page 149
        Page 150
        Page 151
        Page 152
        Page 153
        Page 154
    Appendix A. Soil explanation
        Page 155
        Page 156
        Page 157
    Appendix B. State and area tables
        Page 158
        Page 159
        Page 160
        Page 161
        Page 162
        Page 163
        Page 164
        Page 165
        Page 166
        Page 167
        Page 168
        Page 169
        Page 170
        Page 171
        Page 172
        Page 173
        Page 174
        Page 175
Full Text






I'l u lih 'd by
NATHAN MAYO. (',.:*:,:.:.-CT
TALLH -'Lt l .I-l1 '
JULY, l918

!\.K- * -r4. r-^ ^ '* f. ...-. I..



"Public prosperity is like a tree.
Agriculture is its roots; industry and
commerce are the branches. If the
root suffers, the branches break, the
leaves fall and the tree dies."
-A Chinese Proverb.

The ).Deprtment of Agriculture wi.she to acknowledge with appreciation the coopera-
tion of the Federal Writemi Prooject of Florida in compiling this Review.

Digest. graphs and charts prepared by Chas. E. Harris. Jacksonville.


INTRODUCTION .................................... 1
OUT OF THE PAST ................................. :1
EXCERPTS FROM 1870 ............................... 9

Population Trends ................................. 11
Agricultural Influences
Florida Clim ate ................................ 13
F lorida Soils ................. ............... I )
Drainage and Irrigation ......................... 2:3
Transportation .............. ............... 32
Trained Leadership and Educational Work ........ ::33
Marketing and Shipping News ................... :5

Farm Development and Expansion-19130-1935
Land in Farms .................................. 7
Value of Farm IProperty .......................... 11
Florida Livestock Trends ........................ 15
Apiary Products ............................... .58
Florida Farm Operation ........................ 59
Division Florida Farm Inid ..................... .. 65

Florida Field Crops
Introduction .................... ............... 6)
Annual Icgu mes-Ilay and Forage ............... 71
Peanuts As a Field Crop ......................... 75
Corn Universal Crop ............................ 77
Florida and "King Cotton" ...................... 81
Tobacco Hecomes Farm Crop ..................... 85
Sugar Canle Enters Industry .................... 8!)

Florida Fruit and Nut Crops
Introduction ................................... 93)
Peaches. Pears and Plums ....................... 95
Florida Grape Plantings ......................... 97



Florida Fruit and Nut Crops
Figs Show Varied Trends ........................ 100
Miscellaneous Tropical Fruits .................... 102
Strawberries Two Million Iollar Crop ............. 103
Pecans Principal Nut Crop ............. ....... 105
Tung Tree Plantings ............................ 107
Citrus Fulfils Prophesies ........................ 111
Florida Shipping Season ........................ 121
Green Vegetables for the Nation
Introduction ................................... 123
Relative Acreage Principal Vegetables ............ 124
Spot 1Maps:
Peppers and Cucumbers ...................... 125
Sweet Potatoes and Cabbage .................. 126
Celery and White Potatoes ................... 127
Beans and Tomatoes ......................... 128
W term elons ............................... 129
All Other Crop Acreage
Introduction ................................... 131
Crop Lands Not Harvested ...................... 132
Forest Products from Farms ..................... 134
Introduction ...................................... 135
Revival of Sea Island Cotton ........................ 137
A. A. A. Payments in Florida ...................... 138
Northwest Florida ................................. 139
N north Florida .................................... 143
Central Florida ................................... 147
S;uth Florida ..................................... 151
APPENDIX "A"--Soil Explanation .................... 155
APPENIIX "B"-State and Area Tables ................ 158
BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................... 175


Viewed in the abstract. Florida agriculture is like a four ring
circus-it is a continuous performance. To analyse it is like en-
joying a home-made plum pudding-one never know., what tid-bit
will be discovered next.
Geographically situated within three climatic zones with as
many growing seasons. Florida stands out in contrast with most
sections of the country. Its agricultural ascendency. dating over
a comparatively short span of years, has fallen within an era of
research, scientific develolpenlt and trained leadership that has
accelerated the progress achieved in such manner as to be almost
unbelievable in some of its phases.
As an authentic base for this review. figures tabulated by the
Bureau of the Census (U. S. I)Department of (Commerce) from 185()
to 1935 have been used. supplemented in specific instances by gov-
ernmental and state compilations. Recognition must be given to
the fact that such figures represent an estimated approximation
of conditions that pertain at the time gathered. Personal inter-
pretations by eniumnl rtors of schedules, (det erminati oll of items
belonging in the schedules, as well as changes in the schedules
themselves from time to time. set up differentials that cannot at
all times be completely reconciled. However, the figures do al-
low comparison of agricultural activity of the time covered with
that existing at previous census periods so as to show a compre-
hensive picture of general trends in farm development.
Since 1850 the number of county units in Florida has increased
from 31 to 67 in 1!935. In order to maintain a proper balance be-
tween new counties and the changes in boundaries of old counties
the state has been divided into four agricultural areas-North-
west. North. Central and South. These areas. with but slight ad-
justments. comprise the same proportion of land area in 19:5 as
they did in 1850. countyy units within the areas, in all general re-
spects. are identical as to climatic characteristics, geographic en-
vironment. and agricultural pursuits. Under this plan the prog-
ress analysis of census periods is much nmre equitable and com-
plete then possible upon a county unit basis. Each individual

county, however, is given credit for its part where maps are used,
or tables shown, in connection with any specific crop or other
farm activity.
In the review, progress is expressed in units of acres, trees,
plaints, or vines, etc., rather than in quantities of production or
dollar value. This provides a more constructive presentation of
agricultural advancement than one reflected through the medium
of agricultural prosperity of any given year in yields harvested
and gross market prices received. Crop production and value are
shown in all tabulations, but as previously stated, it must be kept
in mind that in many instances such items are not wholly compar-
able from one census period to the other for a variety of
causes. (1)
The text of the review is prepared in two parts. Part I, cover-
ing the period from 1850 through 1890 is in the form of a resume
of Florida agriculture based upon the state as a whole without
regard to individual county or areas. It is, in fact. a historical
sketch of what might be termed the initial epoch of farm progress
and which was at its high peak when the state suffered its great-
est agricultural setback-the "big freeze" of 1894-95.
Part II of the review has to do with Florida agricultural prog-
ress from 1900 through 1935 with a summary of activity during
the last two years. In addition to the graphic picture of farm
activity the major factors that influence the state's agricultural
background are included, i. e.-climate. soil. drainage, transpor-
The objective of the review is to furnish a basic picture of
Florida agriculture that may be used by those interested at home
and abroad in conjunction with specialized publications issued by
the state and national government bureaus covering the many
actual and potential activities offered.
(I) Sie l;hilnlil llon iof T'inlliw A|ll|m ili|x "11",


Chronologically Florida occupied the oldest area of the West-
ern Hemisphere, yet it was the least developed of all, and when
purchased by the United States was almost in its original wild
The early Indians of Florida were agriculturists in a crude
way. Unfortunately the French and Spanish settlers who were
the first colonists to come to the State took little interest in this
type of activity. When England acquired the entire Florida pe-
ninsula in 1763 many large land grants were made to pioneers
from the British Isles who established prosperous plantations on
the coast of Northeast Florida. During the second Spanish occu-
pation, 1783-1819, many Americans received Spanish grants and
their acreage was principally devoted to sea-island cotton and
sugar cane. Up to this time the most constructive progress along
agricultural lines had been made by the English.
Ownership by the United States (1821) brought a feeling of
stability to those living in Florida; however, fifteen years after
American occupation progress was again retarded by the Semi-
nole Indian Wars (1836-1843), interspersed with a yellow fever
epidemic and a series of "wildcat" bank failures. This is not a
historical treatise on Florida, but a brief outline of the early
stages of agriculture will assist in appreciating the rapid progress
made in this field, especially since the beginning of the Twentieth
Since most of the settlers, replacing the English and Spanish
colonists who left the state, came from the border states of Ala-
bama and Georgia, the natural trend of agriculture was toward
the then prevalent plantation system and its attendant method
of cultivation by slave labor.
When the Americans took possession of the State, cotton be-
came the leading agricultural crop but attention was also given
to rehabilitation of abandoned orange groves as well as to the
growing of sugar cane, indigo and rice. Apalachicola was the
commercial center of the period. In 1837 fifty thousand bales of

180 1 880 1870 1880 1890
see TALC'' /

2 2
20 ____ _______

A4 1

, / /

/ _



7 7L

51 A
1 ^ ^ _

cotton were shipped from this
port and it was the concentra-
tion point for imports and ex-
ports of the state, which was
admitted to the Union in 1845.
In spite of the handicaps ex-
perienced by the transition of
population and the fact that
the progress made by early
Spanish and English settlers
had been lost, the state made
steady progress, with excep-
tion of the decade from 1860
to 1870 when the effects of the
Civil War were reflected in a
decline in farm activity and
In 1850 farm lands occupied
4.5% of the total land area of
the state, the total being 1,-
595,289 acres of which 349,049
acres (21.9%) were classified
as "improved land." In the
forty year period (1850-90)
farms increased rapidly (with-
out any decline) and in 1890
occupied 10.5% of the state
land area, the total acreage in
farms being 3,674,486, a gain
of 2,079,197 acres, while im-
proved land was 1,145,693
acres, an increase of 228%.

Percent Land Area in Farms

? i I I I? I

1871 7 8.Z

190 12.47.

The number of farms advanced from 4,304 (1850) to a total of
34,228 (1890), an increase of 29,92.1. The decade from 1870 to
1880 reflected the greatest increase in farms, advancing 128.9;.
The 40 year period shows: A
gain of 130.3'; in the number
of acres in farms; an increase s
of 228'; in the number of im- VALUE FARM P
proved farm acres; and a gain .--- "o'* "
of 695- in the number of ...-.. .o------ AL LAND & UI.D
farms. The average size of V-
farms decreased over the .10 .__ ^ ",o'.L.
years from 370.7 acres to 107.4 ; -
acres. see r_ -
The value of farm property )
showed continuous gain, ex- -
cept between 1860 and 1870
when the neglect of Civil War I
days brought about a 45 rt de- -
All farm property. including -
the livestock and farm imple-
ments as well as land and-
buildings, increased over the
40 year period more than --
721 c the value in 1850 being
$9,861,962 and in 1890 $81,- ___ -
046,200. At the same time !
land and buildings on Florida -- -
farms increased in value over
1000r, going from $6,323.109__
to $72,745,180. The 1880-90 --
decade showed the greatest Z
gain in all farm property-
190.5 (2)
Average farm values for the ,
same period showed a range /
from $2,291 (all property) to --
82.368 in 1890. The largest
average value was in 1860 -
($3,485) due to the size of
(2) Sem T'1ubkh Alendix "1t".


L'MU l in Ilef(rrins to State


In the early days of Floridan l)eveloHnent thei Divi.
ionHs shown on this 1111 1) wei)r l commonly uis&8l ill
refernce to the nctivitie" hbinig carried on.
It will be note that sections now consider t North
Florida. Central Florida and South Florida were all
caileld East Florida.
In this period the most productive agricultural lands
o(f the Stnte were those in Middle Florida and West
Florida. There woa very little activity of any kind
underwny In the southern Iportion of the State.

average farms at that time compared with
1890. The value of land and buildings in 1890 is

given as $2,125.

The value

per acre (average
-farm) for land
and buildings was .
$3.96 in 1850 an'd $19.80 in
1890. (2)
In 1850 the population of
Florida was 87,445 persons,
47,203 of which were white
and 40,242 colored (mostly
negroes). During the period
from 1850 to 1890 the state
grew in population 349%. This
growth was continuous over
the four decades covered, with
the greatest increase being
noted between 1850 and 1860
when it was 60.51. The total
population in 1890 was 391,-
422, the division between races

(2) See Tables Appendix "B".

1850 1 860 1870 1880 1890

---- rTOAL

S0 rf TAIL /




.o r,'' ^ ^ __ __ __

being 224,949 white and 166,473 colored. The colored population
of Florida was almost entirely negro. Before the Civil War
many of them were slaves on the plantations. (3)
The principal crops raised during the period from 1850 to
1890 were cotton, corn, peanuts and sweet potatoes. However
vegetable production was being pushed upon a commercial basis
on the St. Johns river and along the lines of transportation. Sugar
cane was also being cultivated extensively for sirup. Tobacco had
been raised extensively around the period of the Civil War, but
immediately after had been neglected. Stock raising was of im-
portance as the climate and open ranges favored cattle and hogs.
The citrus industry reached a commercial scale in the state
in 1870 and by 1884 had reached an annual production of 600.000
boxes. At this time the citrus
belt was centered in the upper B- - e- --
northeast coast section with e -sse, 9o1l8 l, es-6 9 -o9
I ,) t7, PUS Q UIT : OCE % I
large groves in most of the IS ur CROPS
counties. I a o o"" Os' oU" t's
Production of citrus brought
a great many new settlers in-
to the state who invested .
heavily in this (then new) un-
dertaking which promised a
great future. The annual cit-
rus crop continued to increase -
until in the 1893-189-1 season
reached a peak of over five mil-
lion boxes. It was in the win-
ter of 1894-1895 that citrus
was practically wiped out in
the state by the unprecedent-
ed cold weather. As a result of
the freeze a large number of
the growers were financially
ruined and left the state. The -
crop dropped from five million
boxes to a little more than a
hundred thousand.
In passing it is to be remem-
bered that this period of pros- _
( -(3) Se T'IabhHI p ag, 8.H

perity and constructive advancement occurring between 1870 and
1890 was responsible for Florida's first "boom", when in the late
1880's and early 90's the first trek to Florida took place. It was
far different from the migration witnessed but a few years ago
with its hectic rush for paper profits and top-heavy speculation.
The first "boom" period was a trend of frontier possession, the
immigration being for the purpose of establishing new home-
steads. This early attention centered upon the State the interest of
such pioneers as Henry M3. Flagler and Henry B. Plant, men with
vision and the money to transform their ideas into actualities.
At the close of the 19th century Florida was not only under-
going a time of temporary adversity, but the same "ill wind"
was attracting wide attention to the State. The railroad opera-
tions of both Flagler and Plant where at their peak-a complete
new era was in the making for Florida.

(1) State Land Area 35,111,040 acres. .ta 1'. ',I, I',,I
~ 1 tPoll.
These tables reflect progress over a 40 .
year period. For the decades previous to 1" 17.2 .2
1890 that ending in 1870 alone showed a l1-, i1..21 :. 77.7'; ,.7s
decrease in values due to the Civil War. 170 1,7.71, 3 7 ,.,.o,7 1 .691
In 1850 the farm acreage was 4.5', of the
total land area, increasing to 10.5'I in l u Sc O 2.",. 1: 13 .5 112, 5 1,.'i i I 52.
1890. Farim property increased in value C : t. 22 I 2 221,s.91! 1i 1 7!
721' while land and
buildings advancedd TABLE "B" ALL LAND IN FARMS-180-1890
over 1000'. A gain T.tal PI t. I mpr,,.., i PI Nunl.,rr P"ct. \A g.
of more than 29,000 YEA It A r-. I Land in Inp'vl F.arm Inc. Farm
farms was made. Farnl. Area Iari. LanUld .\r F.arni Acre.
The average size of 1550) .- i ..,.55,2.. (1. I. 1.0 21.11 1,301. ...... 170.7
farms decreased .. .. :170 --
from 370.7 to 107.4 'S;I" 2"."2.2.5 4 .-'i: --'. ;' 5 -' 's 5 111.6
acres, at an average 7117 2.373.511 6 736.172 31 Ii 11.211 55 231 S
value of $.2,:36. (See
tables). 1 "' 3.2.7.:21 4 *17.;ill 2 7 2 1: 12 110.7
ITsill "C" V3.7 . 10. A ,I 1. 1l5. E3 I' Y1 2 85 220,- .16 1107

T~t V.- ~t. V I'l, nil.--nI
YEA Rt F..rtn Pr..;cer. Inc. I',r andi
13, in StFitr Fin
155 1. S 9. .0; 962 1 65s.715
560.. 22 ,SSO .752 1312. 1 3.485 9001)6692
lso 12. 5312.1 21 _15-3 -1.,22-t -o 11).15 1
27,i-(2. Ill 122 1 .1114,

7. 1s

i a.n. -Farm
S 1 1 031 9 $ .1(1
i, 135 51. 1727 502

72!.715.1,11 2.2

Avx. Acro
S :I .Am
3 35



= --=--


Florida's first official bid for immigration was made in the
form of a booklet published in 1870. soon after the formation of
the .-ureau of Immigration. It contained more than a hundred
pages under the title; "A Manual of Reliable Information Con-
cerning the Resources of the State and Inducements it Offers to
Those Seeking New Homes." The following excerpts are of in-
terest in visualizing Florida in the early days of its development:
Prospective citizens were advised that as Florida was a new
state "the best way in which immigrants may avoid the conse-
quent inconvenience and deprivations is by coming in groups of
five or more. A commanding recommendation for group immigra-
tion is to be found in the fact that much of the most valuable land
is included in large tracts whose owners are disinclined to divide
and sell in smaller portions.
"Few portions of the United States are as well furnished as
Florida with the means of internal navigation. The St. Johns, the
Suwannee and the Apalachicola, are all large streams, navigable
for steamboats for many miles.... .The internal communication
by means of railroads is abundant for a state so comparatively
new in many respects. . .
"It is difficult to give satisfactory replies to the many ques-
tions in reference to land prices. In fact land is from one dollar
and twenty-five cents to one hundred dollars per acre. . Planta-
tions that are partially cleared and having improvements. such
as buildings and fences, are worth from three to ten dollars an
acre. Along the St. Johns river improved lands, especially those
in the vicinity of Jacksonville and Palatka, are much higher.
Lands having orange groves in bearing. while estimated at from
fifty to one hundred and fifty dollars per acre. are scarcely to be
bought at any price.
"In no state of the Union can so extensive a variety of valu-
able productions be successfully cultivated as in Florida. Most
crops grown in the temperate zone will flourish in the northern
portion of the state. Nearly all of the peninsula is adapted to the
cultivation of semi-tropical fruits .

"Heretofore cotton has been the principal staple. Indian corn
is to the mass of the people the 'staff of life'. It is grown in all
parts of the state. On rich bottom lands from fifty to sixty
bushels per acre is raised. Next to corn the most important art-
icle of vegetable food in common use is the sweet potato. The
yield per acre is from 100 to 300 bushels. Irish potatoes do not
produce as well as in the north, but they bring from eight to nine
dollars per barrel on the northern markets and can be shipped
without difficulty."
Among the crops considered future staples for the state were
listed: "Indigo, sisal hemp, coffee, castor beans, ramie, arrow
root. wheat rye, oats and peanuts." Under the head of vegetables
were: "Tomatoes, cucumbers, melons, green peas, beans, cabbage,
turnips, beets, lettuce, squash, radishes, celery, peppers, aspara-
gus, okra, eggplant, parsley, and rhubarb." . .
"Whatever opinion may be formed as to the adaptation of
Florida to the successful cultivation of farm and garden crops,
there can be but one opinion as to its fitness for the growth of
tropical and semi-tropical fruits. In this respect Florida enjoys
a monopoly which when fairly developed, will make her one of
the richest and most important of the United States. Oranges,
lemons, pineapples and various other tropical varieties of fruit
will yield an average profit of at least one thousand dollars per
acre yearly.
"It is the adaptability of the climate to these productions that
makes even the inferior lands of Florida susceptible of producing
more valuable crops than those of the best lands in other parts
of the Union. The culture of fruit in Florida, without doubt
offers greater opportunities for practical and energetic fruit
growers than any other part of the Union. It is the appreciation
of this fact that is awakening such an interest in the business
and bringing to our shores large numbers from nearly every
There is not very much in the expanded agricultural program
of Florida today, including hog production and cattle raising, that
was not being considered or experimented with in 1870. The
Bureau of Immigration was no doubt successful as agricultural
activity picked up, population increased and an era of prosperity
was evidenced.

PRO)G R ESS-190()0-1935

Florida Agriculture has progressed materially over the 35
year period from 1900 to 1935. Through the medium of tables,
graphs and maps a composite picture is drawn of the State's
agricultural background, embracing the principal influences gov-
erning its development, farm expansion. cultivated -crops and
crop transition, as well as general farming activity.
In order to overcome comparisons that might not be equitable
due to the many changes made in county boundaries, through
the creation of new counties and corrections of survey lines be-
tween counties, the state has been divided into four agricultural
areas-Northwest, North, Central and South-that embrace
substantially the same land area in 1935 as in 1900. (1) There
are 15 counties in the Northwest Area, 19 in the North. 15 in
the Central and 18 in the South Area. Each of these areas is
discussed in subsequent pages of the review. (2) The back-
ground and general characteristics of the counties in each area
are identical with but slight exception.
The trend of population in Florida has been toward the urban
community. This, however, is almost entirely due to the heavy

migration from other sections to
the larger cities of the state be-
tween 1920 and 1930.
Florida's population increased
from 528,5.12 in 1900 to 1.606.8-12
in 1935-a gain of 203.9 In
1920 the distribution of population
was ,18.1 ;) urban and 51.8'/; rural.
During the 15 years from 1920 to
1935 this population proportion was
reversed, a boom period effect.
(1) r,' r sna- pia It. Fr nij t o . Area
tllbilm Aplwnldlx "II".
4 ') S. ltllql p''ql q.l", l i A!l' 1 J1 V5.I



-C* 7,


61.6% being urban and only 38,4% rural. The shift in percent-
age of distribution does not mean a loss of rural population as
there was an actual gain of 114,581 or 18.6% over the 15 years.
During the same period (1920-1935) the urban population of the
state increased to 523,293, a gain of 112.2%. (3)
As of January 1, 1935 there were 72,857 farms reported in
the state, 59,726 (or 82%) of which reported a farm population
of 319.658 persons, representing 51.87 of the total rural popula-
tion. This farm population was composed of 234,079 white and
85,579 colored persons living on farms. The total rural population
(1935) numbered 616,651. There were 48,673 white operated
farms and 11,053 colored operated farms reporting occupied
dwellings, 995 farms reporting dwellings unoccupied and 12,136
farms having no dwellings or not reporting. (4)

(8) See Table t (State) Appendix "n."
(4) Sex U. H. Comunu Agrloulturu, 1l)3i (SoueInd Seris) I'nlo 8.


The term climate is broad and somewhat indefinite as it does
not carry a uniform meaning or impression to everyone. To the
average person climate refers to weather conditions at the mo-
ment and is determined by mildness or severity alone.
Florida climate is classified as insular with the chief factors
of control given as, (a), latitude; (b), elevation above sea level;
and (c), proximity to the Gulf of Moxico and the Atlantic Ocean.
These factors plus the element of sunshine, which is found here
to greater degree than other parts of the country, create a solar-
marine influence that applies to animal and plant life, as well as
that of man, and offers many advantages in the pursuit of agri-
culture not found elsewhere.
Situated between latitudes 24 degrees. 32 minutes and 31 de-
grees north, and longitudes 79 degrees. 48 minutes and 87
degrees, 38 minutes west, the state has a geographic range of
nearly 8 degrees in latitude. A difforance of 4 dreeoos in latitude,
Jacksonville to Miami. gives about a 6 degree change in tempera-
tue. (5)
Because of this geographic range and solar-marine influence
of ocean and gulf the state has
the distinction of having three
separate climatic belts, or di-
vsouns-continental, semi- -
tropical and sub-tropical. (6) '
For observation purposes U. ..'
the U. S. Weather Bureau di-
vides Florida into two sections -
-Northern Florida and South--
ern Florida. All of the state ie?^t "lm ihe .
situated north of latitude 28 "lV"""hihl, r J""kinv'"ilI"
and I'ensuela runniner Lurk
degrees, 55 minutes comprises Th*".i**
""*-4. at Tamnes a&M K@7
the Northern section and that ,. w* ba bu-
dred yvw*e bsut meet dota
lying south of the 28 degree. m** r*4 cts for ,,
Ims.t 4 gmars. ..-
(8 oo Wentlher llurou I .u U. M. wonthor tihlrlnl',
(4) MS maIp pe It4.

(;G1-)GR.1\I' I( 1.(OC TIION ,


.\ ( ...

Aia "A" i- ( i.[itiri..i Ar,.a "( u" -t,,1 ______,.
;T ,I .- ,r, ;- .i t.. ,l.... .. 't+-rIfl- ~J In

alId '+^ -^ ^.-



[i Ii" 1 V--, -
',IOi'Ti\\ EST AR IKA. A--


-urn a- ,, .: r ;i,- r. r -
: I : ri ult ual : tl(ti ity anldl
,.I., iron .. f iu lt.
ii'li. nlunl i r of iti -> ei i-
Ii-; I i l th llt i- lpril.ti-
rall che-i iiam in Pill ", il/

c I i-t ,r Fr .'l-.ini ci.-
i ictu it i l"'i*L a 1 rilIt i h-
c lii ,i 1


55 minute line is in the South-
ern division.
Florida has the longest coast
line of any state-1,500 miles.
No point in the central and
southern portions of the state
is more than 60 miles distance
from the waters of either the
Atlantic Ocean or Gulf of
Mexico. This is an important
factor in the equable climate
that prevails. The southern
tip of Florida is nearer the
equator than any other portion
of the mainland of the United
Due to the influence of the
Gulf and the Atlantic Ocean,
the climate is fairly uniform over
ing a difference of only about 3
temperatures. July temperatures

J r U A U J AILS 0



M*; _ON'THL____ _



4 V N A S .

jv *A 0 r

the Northern section, there be-
degrees in the average mean
average about 81 degrees. Oc-

tober 71 degrees, January 55 degrees and April 68 degrees. Tem-
perature averages do not differ much over the Southern section,
the average annual temperature at Miami being only 3 degrees
higher than that of Orlando. Averages for the winter months
show as much as 6 degrees difference. while those of the summer
season show practically none.
The nature of the products grown in either section depends
more largely (from a climate standpoint) upon the frequency
and degree of cold occasionally experienced than it does upon
the average annual temperatures. Therefore agriculture must
he governed by the dates of killing frosts, the number of days

Average Sreaonal Temperatures for Florida

SPRING 70.4"


DEC 1.

DEC. 15


No portion of Florida is immune from
first. except the islands of the Southern
itie two Im llltlHive e t IIV 11vrnu dctie,. lind
bells, of tlhe first and last killing frosts.
Other computations' vary but a few days
from the dates shown.
It is to be noted, however, that radical
departures from normal conditions have
occurred over all sections of the State.
During the winter season, when the fruit
and vegetable crops re most susceptible to
frost, idily bulletll s aire inllled thitn keep
grower nldvised iHs to expected weather
changes. This is a cooperative service main-
tainte by the State. Federal Government
nnl radio stations of the State. Storm
bulletins are also issued.

MAR. 20

JAN. 15

Colmpmlrative table showing tile average nutti.
heo or ili dyl Ierl yeor 111 il]orldll hliavi, teoimpern-
tires below V12 degrees. ('Weather Ilureau
Groups Northern and Southern). The Northern
Group is shown for 16 or below.

NOIRTHIIEIRN: 3I 2 2S 0 I 18-16
Norl.heast Coimst 11.11 .8[I 1 .21 .01
Northenst Interlor 1 13.2 I2.69 I .67 .17
Northwest Coast I 10.75 2.21 .59 .19
Northwest Interior I 15.S5 3.41 I .93 I .2S
West Const i 2.110 .3S I .07 I .03
Interior I .I 08 .061 I .11 .0
East Conlt I .91 I .0) .01 I .00
South Coast I .19 .00 I .001 .00


below certain temperatures.
July and August are the
warmest months with an aver-
age of about 81 degrees; there-
after a steady decline to 50 de-
grees in December and .Tanu-
ary is noted. There is a differ-
ence of only 3 degrees between
the spring and summer aver-
ages. The summers are w;arm-
er in the interior than on the
coast, and the winters are cold-
er; the range between them,
however, being very slight,
The Gulf of Mexico and At-
lantic ocean are the chief
sources of Florida precipita-
tion. The average annual pre-
cipitation in Florida is 52.2!) incl

. t J U A U J JU A S 0 N D
_I IVI k A H I

1 1 RAI N AL I I _

Ies. The seasonal rainfall is dis-

tribute as follows: Winter, 3.00 inches per month: Autumn,
4.39 inches; Summer. 6.9-1 inches: and Spring. 3.12 inches. Florida
is situated geographically as to justify the expectation of gener-
ous rainfall. However, the state is not entirely immune from
drought, but never so severe as to seriously imperil crops. The
state has such longitudinal dimensions that it may experience a
drought over one section, while precipitation may be well dis-
tributed and heavy over the other portions.
April and November are the driest months of the year
with the so-called "rainy season" occur:ng in the summer
months when it effects agriculture the least in Florida. Cold
waves in Florida are usually of short duration and rarely last
longer than three days. The most decided departures from nor-
mal conditions occur during the winter months.
Average Scasonal Rainfall fcr Flor.c.a

AUTUMN 4.39'
WINTER 3.00"

I Dleep Dry Sand. i
1 "N ST indy uL ill..n ..

M r- la tn o ts i ls.
will n furrllnndou nAlmiockx "A" of this Reviw.

I I I .llesnt lone.

G l '.* MSCii Claliuun .' oat Soil..

A broader explanation of the Genrralixnl Soil Map
uill Ix. found in ApiKltwndix "*A'" of thli IReview.
'I'l e lir nldiiilminnl t iii mo il, iof tie Satute t ir (if there
Norfolk. l'or(tniolutli. Illaiden and Orcnrwbllu rl tylir s.
Note soil routnu glven In the Agrlcultural Arel w- e.
tion for mtor detailed distribution. "

This map is taken from the Florida State Geological Survey
Generalized Soil Map in order to show just how the predominating
soil groups of the State are distributed. In order to produce the
groups here two consolidations of types carried on the soil survey
map have been made, viz: Flatwoods are shown as one group in-
stead of two (clay or hardpan sub-soil and calcareous sub-soil) and
Red Loam is shown in a single group instead of two (non-calcare-
ous and calcareous or phosphatic).
Florida soils are "spotty" and all of the predominating groups
shown have spots or strips of other groups in them. The Geolog-
ical Survey makes the following comment regarding the Gener-
alized Soil Map--"The map should not be used as a basis for buy-
ing or selling land without seeing it. Nearly every area mapped as
one type includes patches of the others, some better, some worse
then average.... On a detailed soil map at least 100 varieties of
soil could be shown." (See Appendix "A").


Florida soils have attracted the attention of geologists since
discovery by the Spanish. and have been widely studied by ex-
plorers and settlers since it became a part of the United States,
because they are so different from those in other parts of the
There are still many people who have the impression that
Florida is mostly swampy and low land. The Florida State Geo-
logical Survey gives the following general estimates as to the
typography of the State: "Flatwoods, muck, marl and other level
areas together constitute alout 33,000 square miles, leaving about
22.000 square miles of rolling or hilly uplands. (These figures in-
clude the shallow ponds, but not the thousands of lakes.) The
amount of swamp in the uplands is very small, but the muck, marl,
and other soils perpetually saturated or subject to inundation
probably constitute about one-fifth of the total land area of the
state. About 80'; of the area could be classed roughly as sand.
3r; as red clay, and 12 ; as muck, and the remainder is mostly
marl and limestone."
The Federal Bureau of Soil Surveys has found over 6.000 com-
binations of soils in the United States and Florida is credited
with a hundred of the combinations. Therefore any attempt to
treat each county, or agricultural section, in detail is an impos-
sible task. With few exceptions the soil groups shown on the

generalized soil map of the
state are found in all sec-
tions to some degree. Per-
haps the largest centralized
groups of soil in the State
are those in the muck area
of South Florida lying be-
low Lake Okeechobee to the
East and South, and the
flatwoods in the Western
part of the South Florid'-
Area. The sand ridges,
commonly referred to as

t- .K,
COW'.l .r 4tIs

St~il murvi-y wor~,Ik hum bi-en11
I -1-1 -. 1 11 Ilat F lor id, y r,-
H,-n~rda S t a i.- lLirr


"black-jack" land begin in the lower central part of the State
just North of Lake Okeechobee and run through the Central
Florida Area dividing into two separate branches in the Northern
part of the State, as they continue into lower Georgia. In the ex-
treme Western part of Florida the sandy upland types of soil are
found together with red loam. hammock land and muck spots.
In the lower Florida peninsula the muck and flatwoods lands
are devoted principally to early vegetables, some citrus and trop-
ical fruits. In this section commercial plantings of sugar cane
embracing considerable acreage are being developed on the muck
Through the Central portion of the State the sandy ridges
carry the bulk of the citrus culture with the flatwoods, hammock
and muck spots given over mostly to the production of vegetables
with some staples. In the North and Northwest areas the various
types of land are cultivated to the usual staples of the Southern
States-corn, cotton, peanuts, sugar cane and tobacco. Some late
vegetables are planted and some citrus is raised but these items
are of small proportion and somewhat scattered.
Agronomists have proven that there is but little information
to be derived from a soil analysis that is of benefit to the farmer.
A chemical analysis may indicate a very fertile soil, rich in plant
food, while the fact is that the land from which the soil was taken
for analysis is not productive at all. This is instanced by the very
rich muck lands and river bottoms of the State that are fertile
chemically, but not productive until properly drained and sweet-
ened. By the same token there are some lands where irrigation is
required in extreme dry conditions before production is at a prof-
itable stage. Other soils with less plant food. but on account of
proper physical conditions are exceedingly productive.
In spite of the fact that the average fertility of Florida soils is
less than in most other states the value of its crops, per acre, is

PCrct T I ) 0 3 40 0 7



above the national average. This is of course iirilmarily due to
the fact that through the medium of commercial fertilizer there
exists today a "man-made type of agriculture that allows the
Florida farmer a wide range of crop selection as well as produc-
tion for a definite market period,"
Before the days of commercial fertilizers the red loam lands
extending west from Jefferson County constituted the principal
agricultural soil of the state. As early as 1880 these lands rep-
resented approximately one-third of Florida's cultivated acreage.
There has been little change in the amount of landI farmed in this
section during the past fifty years.
The hammock lands of the state are. as a whole. above the
state average in fertility. The advent of commercial fertilizer
expanded the scope of agricultural activity by making it possible
to cultivate the sandy soils of the state which prior to that time
had been looked upon as practically useless. In still more recent
years additional agricultural expansion has taken place as the
result of drainage activities designed to reclaim the rich muck
land of the Everglades section an'd to improve areas of very low
land in other sections of the state.
The wide distribution of Florida's soil (some of the counties
authentically claiming as many as 16 different types) makes it
possible to grow almost any type of Florida crop in any one of
the four agricultural areas during its growing season. This
"spotty" condition also at times is the cause of trouble through
failure to recognize change of soil type and the need for cul-

tural diversification.
With agricultural prosper-
ity more dependent upon the
human element than ulxn soil
fertility it is very often the
case that the least capblile
farmers occupy the richest
land and fail. where many.
"good" farmers are successful
on extremely poor soil. This
difference in Florida agricul-
tural background is often dis-
counted by new comers with

1,2 1920 1925 1930 193

so /

10 0 I__

the result that they find out "too late" cultural methods and
farming technique used in other sections of the country cannot
be used here. The new comer in the Florida agricultural field will
do well to seek the nearest county agricultural agent and profit
by his advice and leadership.
Wide soil distribution and commercial fertilization make the
selection of crops to be produced in Florida one of practical eco-
nomics rather than one of soil fertility, i. e.:
(a) Staple crops such as corn, cotton, tobacco, etc.,
can with certain restrictions, be produced in South Florida,
but economics decree truck crops, because the out of sea-
son market open to them furnishes a MONEY RETURN
that staple crops could never produce.
(b) In Central Florida citrus culture and truck grow-
ing make the land too valuable for the production of
staples, which require long growth and do not produce
any more return when raised out of season than when
"made" at the normal time.
(c) On the other hand North and Northwest Florida
stick mainly to staple crops because climate does not
allow any advantage as to marketing. Intensive produc-
tion of vegetables in these areas does not offer the same
high return, therefore the added cost of production is not
an economic undertaking. Hence agricultural activity in
these areas centers principally in general farming.
Detailed information concerning Florida soils and their adapt-
ability to given crops may be obtained through the Florida State
Geological Survey. Tallahassee; or the Agricultural Experiment
Station at Gainesville, Florida. (Also note area section of Re-


Drainage of agricultural lands for the purpose of improving
their condition, and the reclamation of potential farm lands by
organized drainage programs, have been important influences
in the expansion of agriculture in Florida since about 1920, esle-
cially in the development of vegetable production.
Over a period of 40 years (1890-1930) $45.487.795 was in-
vested in drainage enterprises embracing a combined area of 5.-
95-1,934 acres of land. At the close of the year 1929 the drainage
works covered by this investment represented 5,113 miles of
ditches, 718 miles of levees and 12 pumping stations completed
and in operation with additional construction of 460 miles of
ditches and 49 miles of levees underway.
The 15th Census of the United States (1930), which was the
last that covered the drainage of agricultural lands in Florida
"There were 128 enterprises, covering 5.780.698 acres.
with an invested capital of $39,297,273, that reported
their works completed; and 18 enterprises covering 174,-
236 acres of land. with an invested capital of $6.190.522.
which estimated that $2.919.7144 would be required to
complete the drainage works under construction."
As a result of this investment in drainage works, land (in
the areas served) unfit to raise any type of crop (prior to drain-
age) was reduced 70 ; : land fit to raise a normal crop (without
further drainage when it had been properly cleared and prepared)
was increased more than 2000; ; while land upon which a partial
crop might be produced was increased more than 10017. When
the first census survey of Florida drainage (of agricultural lands)
was made in 1920 there were 1.637.073 acres of land in drainage
enterprises. At the end of 1929 there were 5.951,934 acres in-
cluded in the program, an increase of 263.8 / in the ten year
period. Land available for settlement (drained land held for
sale) in the entire area was reported as 2.325.423 acres in 1930.
Organized drainage districts, with a legal status under state
laws, have carried on 98.2'; of the work done; commercial de-
velopments were responsible for 0.6%' and 1.2% was accom-

* I


'S -



( onditiin of Land Before and After Drainage
N.j.r -. ] N*"*"
h, to to

.5 to (o 50 to 100
50 to 75 11110 to :100
; to IOu 30 to I.,)
:1,1 to 150 :0"
1:0 to 2#40 704o to .w00
2011 i.nl Over i b 1110i to I M1llln
IReported a Group. It ri'rted (Gra

Same Color I eend. .. 3
-"T--'"7 *

ARA l.rana.. lar .in e ilr e"
lr '..i3 .T*5. ..T- .5 3 .7 I .. ,
r trh l |"t ,1 r -7 1 7 "

C('nlll ra F l,,ril. ... ... I Ill,,1)t 1
Smith Flirida 3.1105.11117 1 115.20)7
Ilther 1 2) 2 1 ..1 '3' 5'2.27(

-317 .1
71) I
-71 .i

1 7l. > I ..7. '** 2.1'i I
.North Ihridla 2 3.1)1o, 11i7.%37 l;i?' I
('Ill ral Il'lridni .,,. 22.3717 2l 7. \l l 21 .5
S. ullh Friih 1.S.710 .11 .5til 7.11: 7
Ith00r. (2) 7.175 II0.-.-27 1.7%1 I
itl I .24 ..Lal 2.l.i;.7."l! liP, .
N ,rth f'l..rls 31 0.- 13 l. l.l I
'r, tril l' 'lh riln 13l,f,'ll 'hiiU t.' II 7
Suith ioril 1 .I, 12.715 2. Il.2115 IIlI
Othrr. (2' 57.2:;. '1 .'2 II ;2
I 1 -Ilenote, decrea.e.
1l: Inrlude entlrrli in Alachua. Hardne.
Lake. Marion. Okrechober. Orange. Pinellas. and
Sumter Counties. Divided among other areas.



.j .-. -% ,
S 'I ..

-.' '**

polished by individually owned projects. The purpose for which
the drainage was carried on was 95.7'; for reclamation of swamp
land not previously in farms: 2.7'; for the improvement of land
already in farms and 1.6'; as a medium of protection from over-
flow waters.

Relation to Agricultural Areas
The distribution of drainage work as it relates to the four
ag'riculturni I i'was (use(l II this Review) is in the follow\ g pro-
portion: Northwest area. none reported: North area. 265.0.19
acres: Central area. 3-19...11 acres: and the South area. 5.067.092
acres; with 273.3-19 acres of work being done in eight counties.
included in all areas, talulnted as a single group. The relation of
the percentage of land included in drainage enterprises to the
total acres comprising each agricultural area amounts to -1-1.-.1
in the South area: 3.9'; in the Central area and 3.5'; in the
North area, with none reported for the Northwest portion of
the State. The combindcl nea ol' dlnmiuige lad equals 17'o of
the total state land area.
The North Florida area enterprises center principally in
Flagler. Putnam and St. Johns counties where the operations are
for the purpose of improving the potato and vegetable lands in
what is known as the "llastings P'otato Belt." Other enterprises
are located in l)uval. Nassau and Alachua counties. The work
undertaken in this area was reported as completed in 1930 with
the investment in construction being $1,982.879. the average
cost, per ai re varying from $7.03 to ,$8.16. The work included
only drainage ditches.
In Central Florida area drainage activity embraced enter-

prises in Brevard. Hills-
borough, Polk, Seminole,
Volusia. Marion. Lake,
Orange. Pinellas. and
Sumter counties mostly
for the improvement of
inI(d already ill ft'ims,
The work in this area
was all completed with
the exception of 62

AREA 0" 10" 20" 30: 40"
5---------- --i-'-I--

.Cfi-.TAL C3 :

d-' '\,-- -r



Relation to State Drainage and I2~I
South Florida Area
Arm Acrsna Pet I Jw
With Enterprias, [trainago A rea IuI

0th.,r Arm.. Mll. 1.177~.11 IL'

Relation to.South Florida (2)
-m th Mlrida ...............04'.oq: 11e.0 4
livrtlZladep District Ill.. 4.47.P118 94.3 -
Oaitalaeo flixtrict (4),,.. 0NMa,2MI! 5a.7 /

aLE 1b

1-armit Reporting D~rainage

irwa.&AW wNwo dra
J t Shan :1 farm&.
:S to -s farm* rvrnrtinic.
S 75a In, I formaw raliaartin.
Jw to 1:.o farm. raartinc.

U :* to :uste r fm. riparlai.
atoi to 304. (arms restoatanx.
1 'rruivil h Ittm l a Lth- umbr lby cunty not
()ivnila blo 0).I)...B.

411 All .aaterri-ain.. *"to. ou8tsid
*Zl Aivr.Iuturai Arme u" in It--
t31 Inelud.. etfltprafs~ uthin the
(4) only antvrprlsoo in South Florlala
(.I Sa


miles of ditches in Brevard county and approximately 3 miles of
ditches in Seminole county. The investment cost amounted to
$6.362.719 in finished work with an additional $522.944 invest-
ment necessary for completion. The work in this area included
one pumping station located in Marion county. The general pro-
gram was predominantly of the ditch type. The average cost
per acre in the Central area (completed work) ranged from
$13.10 to $26.32.
South Florida contained more than three-fourths of all drain-
age activity carried on in the State with the reclamation of land
not previously in farms as the main objective. The Everglades
Drainage District takes in 4.177.810 of the 5.067.092 acres locat-
ed in this area. The remaining 589.282 acres in drainage enter-
prises are located principally in Sarasota, Manatee, Charlotte,
Indian River and Lee counties. The total investment of this area.
as of January 1. 1930. was $33.814.019 with an estimated addi-
tional -1.086.7411 needed to bring the work provided for to com-
pletion. This area embraces the larger enterprises, as well as
the more elaborate drainage works such as levees, pumping sta-
tions, and ditch net-works (including the central canals of the
Everglades area). In this area the completed average cost per
acre spread from $3.21 to $33.91.

The Everglades District
The Everglades Drainage District is the main area of drainage
activity. As previously stated it contains approximately three-
fourths of the drainage being (lone in the state. The works of the
district proper are confined chiefly to main canals extending
from Lake Okeechobee to the coast, with the more complete
drainage of the lands being accomplished through the functions
of 35 sub-districts (wholly, or partly within the main district).
The purpose of the work is reclamation of this great area of peat
and muck soil which offers a potential expansion in agriculture
which in this day of scientific work in the agricultural field cannot
be forecast.
The magnitude of the undertaking to reclaim the Everglades
may be partially understood by the fact that when all the work
now provided for in the Everglades area alone has been com-
pleted there will still remain 3,100.000 acres of unreclaimed land.
Drainage work in the Everglades Drainage District does not em-
brace the activities of the Okeechobee Flood Control District as

this project was organized primarily for the protection of lives
and property around the lake from floods due to storms. The
capital invested in the district proper averaged $5.69 per acre,
but this would be practically double if the unreclaimed portion
were eliminated.
Cost Fluctuation
The fluctuations in the cost of the average acre in the various
portions of the state drainage area is not only due to the differ-
ence in type of work carried on, but also to the organization of
sub-districts within enterprises for the purpose of perfecting
more adequate drainage. Where sub-districts have been formed
there occurs an overlap in the acres embraced in the enterprises
(land being taxed both by sub-district and main project). This
overlap amounts to 1.418.693 acres for the entire state.
While the overlapping of acres in drainage enterprises has
no bearing upon their cultivation it is reflected in land values
through the medium of taxes assessed by the district and sub-
districts for bonds, as well as maintenance which is not included
in the investment cost of an enterprise.
As of January 1, 1930, systematic maintenance was being
carried out by enterprises covering 5,200,674 acres-87.3,% of
the total acres in drainage. At the same period 93 of the 146 en-
terprises, representing 61% of the invested capital and 79% of
the land in organized districts, reported no arrearage on bonds or
other obligations.

Farms Reporting Drainage
The usual purpose of an organized drainage district, or en-
terprise, is to provide adequate outlets into which the farms of
the district may be drained, and to afford relief from overflow
for the district as a whole. Therefore the degree of relief re-
ceived by the individual farm depends largely upon the owner's
supplemental drainage connections with the district outlets.
Many farms have drainage systems that are independent of any
organized district. In 1930 there were 2,964 farms reporting in-
dividual works that provided drainage for 108.35.1 acres of land
distributed in all four of the agricultural areas used in the Re-
view as follows: Northwest 136 farms; North 406 farms; Cen-
tral area, 715 farms and South 1,527 farms with a group of 179
farms reported as a single unit.

The financial standing of enterprises, such as tax delinquency
or arrearage on bonded debt. does not in any way detract from
the fact that the land has become an agricultural asset when
once drainage works have been provided. Immediate diticulties
of this nature should not be allowed to overshadow the actual
farm improvement accomplished and the potential value of the
future expansion made possible because of drainage facilities
already provided and in operation.

Irrigation On Farms
Irrigation on Florida farms is unique in that the source (of
a great portion of the irrigation) is the extensive artesian
water belt that underlies a considerable portion of the state in-
stead of from waters impounded in reservoirs or by the darning


The Di)viin to( lly.ir.ioltwy or thi unito, 5titc'q
!!1v 14'.1-11IN "Jim -lan wel l'o imil "l1 111..wiliv N-11":)"
*An art('imi %,-11 i im h .,-11 reatthuiniz t,, mtil
tattinti stratum n, *sin. suct-h sntqr: ta .
in&: 'rii i iAn *ari.-ian ut5..' ii at e..- a h t-.
&t%. Atr to 1n I~nt.ur-. za joi, vrt- .z..d
the %ater to, rit~e in th, N-rinln %Hhc tal.1-J.'"

.,a4\~~' ''

I- I Nonee. 'o i 'fi 1
i i I 1-00loo A.
S100 to 1.000 acres. 1935
S1.000 to 5.000 ncres. /a *'
5.000 to 10.000 acres. / '

This acreage reflects all types of irrigation carried
oil by individual operators.
It represents the use of flowing wells and flood- ,
ing of land. as well as water piped into the fields
and groves for irrigation purposes.
This phase of crop production in Florida is closely
allied in great part with farm drainage-on ninny
farms the same equipment furnishes both drainage i ol
and irrigation.


of streams. This agricultural influence furnishes a paradox inas-
much as irrigation in Florida is closely interlocked with the gen-
eral drainage program and the largest users of irrigation are
located in the principal drainage districts of the state.
Through a method of "tiling" land for drainage purposes and
the use of flowing artesian wells (which may be turned on and
off at convenience) some of the most intensive farming sections
have developed a system of moisture control that is highly effici-
ent and operates to a high degree of success, except when depar-
tures from normal conditions occur over extended periods.
The flowing wells are a part of the underground water system
of the State, which has three principal areas of flow-the At-
lantic Coast; Southern Gulf and Western Gulf Coast areas.
(1) The Atlantic Coast flowing well area extends from Nassau
county down the entire length of the East Coast, with a branch
(1) See Map Page 29.

following the general course of the St. Johns river and another
arm extending down through the Kissimmee river valley. The
Southern Gulf Coast area follows the coast line south from the
Tampa section down to the lower end of Sarasota and DeSoto
counties where it spreads out to meet the Atlantic Coast area-
the two covering the lower portion of the peninsula. A branch of
the Southern Gulf Coast area extends northward through DeSoto
and Hardee counties into Polk county. The Western area extends
along the Gulf of Mexico from Escambia Bay to the mouth of
the Apalachicola river. All of these areas run back into the in-
terior for short distances along numerous water courses and
wells are often found in the adjacent higher sections.
The Florida State Geological Survey points out the fact that
artesian water depends primarily upon the structure of the un-
derlying formation and these are subject to variations of which
there may be no surface indication. Flowing wells are sometimes
affected by salt water-in such instances the wells may have to
be abandoned.
The term "artesian" has been variously used. Flowing wells
first became known in the province of Artios. France. and hence
were called "artesian wells", and their water "artesian water".
The first meaning of "artesian well" was therefore a flowing well;
and of "artesian water" water under sufficient pressure to cause
a flow. In artesian water areas there are usually elevations
where the water rises almost to the surface but does not flow-
this has led to the term "artesian well" being used where this
condition prevails.
As of January 1, 193:0. there were 2.751 Florida farms that
reported the use of irrigation in the production of crops on 65.832
acres of land. Most of this irrigation was carried on in the vege-
table and citrus producing sections of the state. The irrigated
acreage was distributed in the agricultural areas as follows:
Northwest Florida. 60 acres: North Florida. 3.589 acres: Central
Florida. 26.630 acres and South Florida. 35.553 acres. (2) More
than 99'; of this acreage was located in sections where intensive
farming in vegetables is carried on. Broward County reported
the largest individual unit of irrigated land-9.1:33 acres a)ppor-
tioned to 112 farms. Irrigation is another item in the background
of Florida agriculture that is reflected in land value through
facilities and equipment.
(2) See Mbip el I'O 30.


Transportation was probably the greatest obstacle early
Florida agriculturists had to face. Now, it is the least of the
farmer's worries. This transition is not to be credited to agricul-
ture, however, but to the traveling public for whose convenience
transportation has been so rapidly developed.
The rail transportation era in Florida was begun in the early
part of the 1880's and continued through to the turn of the cen-
tury under the leadership of Plant, Flagler and later Warfield.
Their visions are reflected in the Atlantic Coast Line, Florida
East Coast and Seaboard Air Line Railroads, which opened up
peninsular Florida. In 1880 when the pioneer railroad developers
first became interested in Florida, the state had 518 miles of
roadbed and somewhat antique equipment. Fifty years later
(1930) there were approximately 8,000 miles of track connecting
all parts of the state with the principal gateways and markets
of the country by fast operating schedules.
The modern era of highway transportation began in the early
1920's and is too new to be classed as history. Again, as in the
case of the railroads it was the demand of the traveling public
that brought about the statewide highway program and the sub-
sequent development of highway transportation.
During the early part of the present century Florida improved
highway mileage was almost nil. In 1918 there were approxi-
mately 4,721 miles of improved highways, of which 8 miles was
high type paving. Today 30% of the State's 32,000 miles of pub-
licly used rural roads are improved or surfaced, as compared to a
10% average throughout the United States. This fact plays a
significant part in the marketing of Florida agricultural and
general farm products.
Coupled with the railroads and highways Florida ports join
in furnishing additional transport facilities to agriculture by
coastwise and trans-Atlantic steamers, and it is logical to antici-
pate air lines to be added in time.


One of the most tangible influences upon the agricultural prog-
ress in Florida has been the trained leadership furnished
through the medium of the Agricultural Extension Service, with
headquarters at the Agricultural College of the University of
Florida (in Gainesville) and the Florida State College for Women
(in Tallahassee). This service established in 1914 under the pro-
visions of the Smith-Lever Act is represented today by county
agricultural agents in 55 counties of the State, home demonstra-
tion agents in 38 counties and 32 state, district and special agents
working out of the headquarters offices.

-* *, a, --, o / ,,
,-,r '.- .0. . . . .
AND / "-@--
.- _i -9 ..





The work of this trained group of county and home demon-
stration agents (both white and negro) has been directly respon-
sible for a better understanding of the farm problems peculiar
to Florida, the establishment of improved cultural methods, the
improved breeding of the livestock in the state, profitable diversi-
fication of field and vegetable crops, and the launching of the or-
ganized effort to bring about a higher standard of rural home
environment through their work in the field of adult advice and
instruction among the rural boys and girls.
The program of the Extension Service is not only carried
directly to the farmer and into the farm home by the county and
home demonstration agents but is also made available through
the medium of correspondence courses, short courses at the Uni-
versity of Florida, and Florida State College for Women and
State A. & M. College (negro). radio and regular press service.
While the county agricultural agents deal with the farm prob-
lems of production, planting programs, and Future Farmers of
America Clubs the home demonstration agents carry the work
of teaching proper use of foods, gardening and garden products
conservation, health activities, cooking and home making into the
homes and through the medium of group gatherings of both
adults and farm girls.
In addition to the Agricultural Extension Service 47 counties
of the State participate in agricultural education by maintaining
agricultural teachers under the provisions of the Smith-Hughes
Act. (1) This program is supervised by 69 white and 29 negro
teachers who conduct practical as well as class room studies in
designated public schools. This work prepares the future farm-
ers in the fundamentals of agricultural pursuits of the State as
well as furnishing a background for future college work.
These services (Extension Division and Smith-Hughes
Schools) are supplemented by the established courses in agricul-
ture taught at the University of Florida and Florida A. & M3. Col-
lege (negro); and the home economics work at the Florida State
College for Women. They cover the State in such manner as to
give every opportunity possible to those interested to utilize them
and are a daily help in the building of an improved agricultural
background through the use of modern farm methods, and assist-
ing the individual farmers in solving the many problems present-
ed by the varied farm activities carried on in Florida.
1) St. Explanation Aplindix "A".


The highly specialized nature of Florida's principal agricul-
tural pursuits-citrus growing and fresh vegetable production.
together with poultry, eggs and livestock-requires constant
touch with leading markets of the country during the harvesting
and shipping seasons.
The nerve center of marketing information in Florida is the
State Marketing Bureau (a division of the State Agricultural
Department) with headquarters at Jacksonville.
Formed in 1917 the ]Bureau has boon a pioneer in thl field of
market news service to producers. In its 20 years of activity the
Bureau has expanded from a personnel of one (the market com-
missioner) to a staff of six persons, including the commissioner.
assistant commissioner, ind four market specialists supplement-
ed by an ollice force of nine handling the mass of reports and

L'' SEVICE ^ -
"_ ^ b T --I -- 1 ......-
1-4 U l V" -t -, f "" 1 j I T

. ,. ......

STATE M.\RKiETI.ING at-.l- m .
I. "" ,

111.-o1l) forUAH .SNIItraIdl1. 111i IIrr l.e i ,.IIIV |l, r
(;i'iLI.: QLUAII.\l < S- t Fi:. ttini.n : fir at -
I' l~.n n o. InSl (;ladcl. Hr t,,n d anol an .- ,

I *.ACK I)OT Ta mpb and JI ck.'n'r. ae d1y re- I
p iin (L;IatonIl lit lanetinl ar ts At inli -
OlRANI;A ; ., AI: Fi!d .,:tzi,., nt a 'l-.t City \l t L '
Iea-nr.al) for traurtmm<-e.
I'IRII'I.E SQLAIIE i'Il-l statlimn for uaternul- /, .
,,,im (mcnllona it Lw-I burtg. \ .
1,ACK .SQUA lt lllnrl rH ni Kimlerti of Fe al-Shiil i- .- .
I tl."rCion Skrvlre. Orlndlo. I i
Ill- %K DOT Tamlp, and Jar".n ille dilr r I
1.rting fIttion cn kr.cral rnark-t.. At Miami
dail) quotation on Ioullry and r.-.. Ocala in-
rlidln in Jarkponvlle report.
85 "

news received and distributed over the state daily. The Bureau
works in close cooperation with government agencies in the agri-
cultural field.
More than 2,000 Florida shippers receive daily the Bureau's
bulletin carrying the latest information on shipments, passing,
market prices, and conditions of Florida products on all the
larger northern and central markets, as well as poultry and egg
quotations for Jacksonville, Tampa and Miami. During the sev-
eral shipping periods of Florida crops the Bureau maintains spe-
cial field sub-stations (1) which give the producers and buyers
the very latest information possible.
In addition to this service the Marketing Bureau issues a
semi-weekly bulletin quoting the market on hogs, cattle, etc.,
based on the important southeastern and Chicago markets. The
State Marketing Bureau egg and live poultry report which has
appeared in the daily press since 1919 has long been established
as a sales basis for these commodities in Florida.
An important service of the State Marketing Bureau is the
Federal-State Inspection (a cooperative function between the
Marketing Bureau and U. S. Department of Agriculture) of fruits
and vegetables, with headquarters in Orlando. This work has
proven of great value to the growers and producers of the State
in assuring grade and condition of products shipped. The per-
sonnel carrying on the inspection work also make demonstra-
tions of better methods of sorting, packing, handling and load-
ing to the end that marketing may be facilitated.
The specialists of the Bureau staff devote their time to fur-
thering the interests of livestock, field crops, poultry, dairy
products and other allied activities of the farm by direct con-
tact with those engaged in the various lines. Cooperative work
with county agents, agricultural teachers, as well as community
groups is carried on continuously. The Bureau personnel assists
with livestock shows and educational programs in all sections of
the State.
The work of the Bureau is best attested by its expansion in
the 20 years of its service (1917-1937). The shipping point in-
spection increased from 162 cars in 1923 to 60,000 cars by 1934;
the growth of the Market News Service rose from a single quo-
tation point (1919) to nine reporting stations in the field during
the respective growing seasons.
(1) Se l Malp, Paue i5.


Florida entered the 20th Century just recovering from an
agricultural set-back that had threatened the entire economic
structure of the State. Confidence in its agricultural advancement
was still wavering and still viewed as doubtful by many prospec-
tive rural settlers, and those who had suffered financial loss by
the destruction of citrus plantings in the freeze of 1895 were
"going easy" on new expansion and development.
At this time approximately 75', of all farms in the State were
located in the North and Northwest Florida areas. (1) Cultiva-
tion of Central Florida was in the beginning and the planting of
its high sandy ridge land was looked upon as somewhat of a risky
venture. South Florida was, in most part, still "undiscovered"
from the standpoint of agriculture, the entire area comprising
155,440 acres, being less than 5'; in farms and representing only
3.67- of the farming area of the State. Of the 40,814 farms in
Florida 11,104 (27.21' ) were in the Northwest, 17,039 (41.77 )
in North Florida. 11,052 (27.1'; ) in Central Floridal and 1.619
(4'") in South Florida. (2) This was the general agricultural
picture as it pertained to farms and farm land in 1900.
Since the basic figures upon which this Graphic Review is
made have been taken from the U. S. Census enumerations the
definition of what constitutes a farm, according to the Bureau of
the Census, is of pertinent in- rcnt t in arms
. 1Percent State .Xra in I arms

terest when considering the
agricultural progress made as
reflected from one census per-
iod to the next. The following
instructions applied to enum-
eration of farms prior to 1925:
"Any tract of three or more
acres used for agricultural
purposes, and also any tract
containing less than three

19 12.4Z
19 172Z
192 18.71
19 1727

(I) S Maps. l'R !; ::* ;:!. I-3) 7(e Mip. Plie (;I.

PERCENT OF LAND) ...... !.

ess tha n 5% of Arcn. o o."" 's
1F 1'55; to 10W of Arr.
10, to 20-, of Are.. "
I 20% to 30% of Area.

Area Acres-1900 Acres-1935 ,
Northwet ............. 6.947.840 6.947.3 10
North .................. 7.528.320 7.612.800
Central ................ 10.392,960 9.14S.S00
South .................. 10.241.920 11.401.600
See Table No. 2 (State and Area).
See Appendix "B".

S. X 4

Same Legend as
S above /

State Area 1900-1.363.891
Areas Acres Pet.
North ................. 1,908.217 43.7
Northwest ............. 1.334.909 30.6
Central ................ 965.325 22.1
South ................. 1. 5.1440 3:.6

State Area 1933-6.048.406 '...J.1 s c, 1
Arena Acres Pet.
North ............... ... 1,9g55.6i 9 32.6
Central .................... 1.596.700 26.4 -
Northwest ................. 1.393.609 23.0 .L .
South ..................... 1.102.408 18.0

Gain in Farm Acres 1900-1935 co..
Entire State .............. 1.684,515 39.0%
South Area ............... 946.,96 609.2%, !
Central Area .............. 6:11,375 i65.14%
Northwest Area ........... 58.700 4.3%
North Area ................ 47.472 2.5%

38 .,

acres which produced at least $250
worth of farm products ... or which
required for its agricultural opera-
tions the continuous services of at
least one person."
In 1925, and subsequent census
years, the definition was changed
so as to eliminate the provision re-
quiring the continuous service of
one person. This change had the
tendency to increase the number of
farms, according to the Census
Florida farm expansion and de-
velopment during the period from
1900 to 1935 was marked by defi-
nite trends of improvement in spite
of boom and depression effects
upon general agriculture.
Farm acres increased 39 % in the
state being distributed over the
agricultural areas as follows: South
Area an increase of 609.2%; Cen-
tral, 65.4%; Northwest, 4.3%;
North, 2.5%. (1) Twenty-two new
counties were formed which stim-
ulated increases in the percent of
farm lands in the county units (2).
Land in farms showed a steady
advancement from 1900 through
1920 when the affects of boom
period began to be felt due to the
manipulation of farm acreage
upon a sub-division basis for lot
sale near the larger communities,
and farms being taken out of cul-
tivation while their owners engag-
ed in real estate activities. Between
1920 and 1930 a recession from 6,-
046,691 to 5,026,617 acres in farms
(16.8%) reflected the fact that
while boom conditions speeded up
urban real estate activities it pro-
vided the only period in the history
(1) See map page 38. (2) See map page 63.

of Florida showing a decrease in the number of cultivated farms
enumerated by the Census Bureau.
Over the thirty-five year period. (1900-1935) the increase in
farms was 78.5%; the number of farm acres showed a net gain
of 38.6%, advancing from 4,363,891 to 6,048,406 acres with im-
proved farm lands totaling 2,468,639 acres in 1935 as against

1,511,653 acres in 1900.
The greatest gain in farm

9 00 0 1920 1 925 1930 1935

I ^E

:_ ii


/ I

I \
.-- ---- 'I w V\L\LON bOLARS,

"' T- "'u" L" N D al

acres occurred in the South Florida
area where due to the drainage
work done and the introduction of
"winter vegetable" production
the increase in farm acres was
609.2%. Central Florida followed
with a gain of 65.4%y reflected in
the widespread citrus plantings
and diversified production of veg-
etables. North and Northwest
Florida having been the backbone
of the agricultural activity of the
State for many years was not sub-
ject to this new development of
farm lands and therefore the ga'n
in these sections were not in such
large proportions (1). The in-
crease in the number of farms
was stimulated to some extent by
the reduction in the size of the
average farm, which has been
marked by a more intensive type
of farming (1). During the past
thirty-five years the center of
farming activity (in respect to
the number of farms) shifted
from North to Central Florida
(1). In 1900 North Florida con-
tained 41.7% of all farms; in 1935
Central Florida held the highest
percent (37.6%) of the State's
farms (2).
There still remains a potential
amount of land that will show in
years to come a still greater in-
crease in farms.
(1) See map page 3S. (2) See map page 64.


It is just as difficult today as it was in 1870 to make any state-
ment as to the value of Florida farm land upon a general basis
that would be acceptable. The variety and type of soil. the class
of improvements made upon individual tracts of land, kind of
crops being cultivated, as well as location, all combine to make
any blanket area or statewide estimate impractical.
For the purpose of this Review the average value of farm
property (land and buildings) as determined by the United
States Census is used. Valuation of land and buildings is deter-
mined by adding the stated sale value upon the open market at
the time of enumeration (according to owners) of all farms re-
porting and taking the average of the sum total. This method is
not always the most desirable but it is the most practical for the
purpose of reflecting a composite picture of progress of a given
area as a whole as the number of farms reporting represents a
majority of the farm properties that are active and which are
typical of conditions existing.
"All farm property" as classified by the Census Bureau in-
cludes the physical assets of the farm unit such as implements
and machinery together with livestock. The valuation of tools
and equipment is established at the time of enumeration while
that of livestock is estimated by the U. S. Bureau of Agricultural
Economics upon a unit basis arrived at from average values per-
taining at the time of the enumeration.
Florida farm values showed a continuous increase from 1900
to 1925, the increase for the 25 year period being $438,142,130 (1,-
073.997) while that of farm property (implements and livestock)
was $34,942,154 (166.1 ; ). The value of the average farm (land
and buildings) in 1900 was $1,000 and in 1925 $8.088; including
implements and livestock the 1900 valuation was $1,321 and in
1925, $8,678-showing an increase of $269 in the value of farm
property (as represented by livestock and machinery) on the
average farm.
In 1925 the high peak of the Florida boom was in full swing
and its effect upon agriculture was shown by high values which
broke immediately when the abnormal conditions ceased. As a


I Le n than $10.00.
$--- 10.00 to $ 25.00.
$ 25.00 to S 50.00.
$ 50.00 to $ 75.00.
S75.00 to $100,00.
$100.00 to $160.00.
3 $150.00 to $200.00.
- $200.00 to $300.00.
$300.00 and Over.
Values liwed uplon aLvcrlge io' rin.
Legend nalove applies to ol)th mnill on this lnuie.
See Table No. 6. Appendix "I".

*,n '


Average farm value per acre (land and build.
ings) in 1900. for the state was !9.35. During
the 3S yenrs covered by the review there was
n steady climb In values up to 1930. when n peki
of $8.1.22 per i cre was reuiuched, du( la'irgly to
thel "boom" prlod. In 11155 the lier necre uline
wrs $53.08. i decline of :17%. Fluctuations in the
value of hind and buildings nnd all farm prop-
erty will be found in Table 2. Appendix "n".
The same information for areas is shown in
Arca Tables No. 2. Appendix "II."


BK 5

42 .-
^^ *"" -

vv/ -

result in 1930 and 1935 a recession in the value of farm property
is shown as land prices dropped back toward their normal level.
The decrease between the high peak of 1925 and low of 1935
amounted to $157,485.897 (36; ). almost entirely due to the
depressed values of land and buildings, as in 1930 livestock as
well as farm machinery and equipment increased approximately
121- (1).
All indications point to farm values having reached a low level
in 1935 with an upward trend in evidence following that period,
slow but definite.
The following average acre values for 1900-1935. by agricul-
tural area. are given as being indicative of the general farm im-
provement and development of a permanent nature that has
taken place during the past 35 years: (1).

A .\. Acre Value 'ct.
Area 1900 19.13 Gain
Northwc-t ........... $ -1.93 IS.72 279.7
N north .................. 5.9 19.50 22(.!
central l ............... ... 17.!! 1I 1 .22 559.0
South .................. :. : .::7 7(.01 1 1.9

These average values are reflected in the comparative maps
shown on page 42 by county in the several agricultural
areas. It is to be kept in mind that both the number of farms
and the number of improved farm acres materially increased
during the time covered. There must also be considered the tang-
ible improvements represented by orchards, groves, installation
of drainage works and irrigation systems that have made greater
and more intensive production possible, thereby increasing the
value of the actual land: and last but not least there has been a
trend toward a more substantial type of farm home and farm
buildings since the beginning of the century.
The greatest increase in farm property due to equipment took
place in the South and Central areas: the percent of advance for
all areas being as follows: South. 1.575.5'; : central 931.9' :
North, 3-16.6'; ; Northwest, 203'; (1).
(1) S<. Tnblh 6. Aipp'indix "I".


SIess thnn 1.000 head.
1.000 to 5.000 head. *
MI-j 5.000 to 15.000 head. ***.
15.000 to 25.000 head.
25,000 to 35,000 head.
35.000 to 50.000 head.
I I 50.000 to 60.000 head.
60.000 to 75.000 head. i.
Comparison 1910-1935. --'
I.eocnd applies to both maps.
See Table No. 4I. Appendix "l".


-**- fi5,c._ C,-


1910 A'
Number Pet.
Area Cattle Total /
State .................. 8.15188 100.0
Central ................ 313.160 37.2
North ................ 260.334 30.7
South .................. 148.003 17.5
No. West .............. 123.691 14.6
1 935

State ................. 713.001 100.0
Central ............... 22S.461 32.0
North ................. 197.796 27.7 / -
South ................. 144.376 20.3 /*
No. West .............. 142.368 20.0

44 ....


One of the coIntructive lI'ttu're of Florida Iagriculturdn prog-
ress is found in the improved livestock conditions. The change
from .emi-wild animals to an increasingly better bred type has
been punctuated by a rapid transition. (1923-33).
Livestock cannot Ibe easily compared at stated times in the
same manner its farm crops produced upon a gi 'ven numbtlher of
acres. The number of animals is subject to rapid increase (or
decrease) under influences that reflect a general trend over census
periods rather than direct comparison between census years, due
to difference in time of cnmitineration and vnriaiince in classification
of the animals themselves.
The raising of cattle and swine has been identified with Flor-
ida since its earliest history. The following excerpt from a state
immigration pamphlet in 1870 gives a glimpse of the early view-
point upon this farm activity, looked upon as one of the
potential opportunities offered the newcomer.
"Hogs may be raised ad libitum. They are found every-
where. Cattle maintain themselves in good condition
without care."
In the early days of state development Cuba furnished the
most accessible market for cattle. As quoted above the animals
practically maintained themselves, the vast undeveloped lands
furnished unlimited pasturage without cost-so cattle raising
flourished, and with it the many evils of the open range.
During the Civil War Florida was one of the principal sources
of meat supply for the (onfederate army. The war put an end
to Cuban shipments, and since that time this phase of the State's
agriculture activity has undergone many changes, both as to
range practices and the standard of stock being raised. The re-
suit of this transition is noticeable in the fact that the old tim"
"range" cow and the "razor-back" hog are becoming legendary
in many parts of the State.

Control of the cattle tick marked the first constructive step
toward improved conditions and the opening of markets for
Florida grown cattle. Efforts to carry out eradication voluntarily
failed and it was not until legislative action was taken (1923)

~_- L


02, (IT



* i3

I i. i


<4 6


that progress was made. To-1
day. according to the State
Livestock Sanitary Board
"all counties and portions of
counties, are now tick free
. . with the exception of|
some small private and
State game preserves. The
area known as the 'Big Cy-
press' swamp remains tick-
infested and under both
state and Federal quaran-
tine." Once the eradication
of the cattle tick was assur-
ed, cattle raising in Florida
took new life and a new place
in the farm background, as
well as a specialized endeav-
or. The result of the eradi-
cation campaign is shown
in the fact that from a steady
decline between 1910 and
1930 cattle raising is now
regaining its importance.
When the short time in
which the transformation
has taken place is consid-
ered, it is no wonder that the
outsider marvels at the
progress made.
Cattle raising in Florida
today, however, is a far dif-
ferent type from that of the
early part of the century.
Importation of pure bred
bulls, the development of
cultivated pasture lands,
careful attention to herds
and systematic feeding, as
well as the elimination of
scrub stock are contribut-
ing to the success attained.
There still remain some re-
actionaries in the cattle busi-

I LL L ~ _

ness, but these are fast becoming the minority in molding the
future of this phase of state activity. Florida is now producing
choice beef and has found that its product, under the practices
being followed, has a definite place on the livestock markets of
the Southeast. The butcher's classification of "Florida Beef" is
not the same today as it was a few years ago, when it was looked
upon as "very inferior" to that of Western meats.
Agricultural development
reacted to some extent against 1 1910 1920 1 ,2 30 1935
"free range" cattle raising, as 23 PRINCIPL KNDO
farms were fenced and local LIESTOCK
laws set up against roaming -,,o ....... .
stock. However, the most de- ...---... 1,,/
cided drop in the number of .... '_ "..... OU
cattle in Florida followed the .
establishment of enforced tick -
eradication by the State, with -
its stringent dipping regula- -"' /
tions. This was the beginning -
of the transition from scrub to '-
improved stock (statewide) -
along constructive lines as "-
many of the "free range" op- -o
erators disposed of their herds --
entirely. A -
Under the influence of state- -
wide campaigning for improv- / \ ^.
ed breeding methods, better .M
range practice, the effective-
ness of the "clean up" pro-
gram, plus a cooperative spirit _
among those engaged in the
business, as well as individual farmers, a substantial advance
in cattle took place between 1930 and 1935. The five years
showed an increase from 431,448 to 713,001 head (65.2%) being
but 15.5% lower than the high level of 1900 in "quantity," but
many times greater in "quality."
The Northwest area is the only part of the State showing a
greater number of cattle in 1935 than in 1910-the number being
142,368 and 123,691 head (for the respective years), a gain of
15.1%. The statewide fluctuations over the 25 years were felt
in the area by a decline of 33,686 head (27.2%) between 1910
and 1930, the smallest shown for the four agricultural divisions.

The five years from 1930 to 1935 recorded an increase in cattle
from 90,005 to 142,368 head (58.1%), more than offsetting the
loss of previous years. (1) Although the Northwest area had
18,677 more cattle in 1935 than it did in 1900 (a State high point)
the area proportion of the 713,001 cattle in the State (1935) was
only 20%C. The advance shown within the area (15.1%) repre-
sented an approximate increase of only 5% in its relation to the
number of cattle in the entire State. (1) Distribution is very
equally divided among counties.
In the Central area a paradox in cattle fluctuation was reflected
over the 25 year span (1910-1935). Between 1910 and 1930
cattle dropped from 313,160 to
3- 124,349 head (60.2 %), the lar-
as DISTRIBUTION gest area decline. In the fol-
0 lowing five years (1930-1935)
SDAIRY-COWS cattle increased from 124,349
.5 1910- 1935 to 228,461 head (82.1%), the
70 IN THOUSAND HEAD greatest area gain. Over the
I 5 entire 25 years the area shows
a net decline of 84,699 head of
0 1935 cattle (27.4%), but still re-
55 mains the leading cattle area,
having 32.0% of State total
(713,001) at the 1935 census
5 period.
4 The North area witnessed
a recession in number of cat-
5 tle from 260,334 head to 122,-
30 407 between the census years
-25 of 1910 and 1930, a drop of
2 52.9%. The subsequent five
20 years (1930-1935) show an
approximate parallel uptrend,
Cattle increasing from 122,407
to 197,796 head (61.5%). Over
the 25 years (1910-1935) the
o area net reduction in cattle
FLA. NQ N.W. CEN. SO. amounted to 62,538 head
(24.7 %), while the relation of
the area to the state changed very little. In 1910 area cattle
represented 30.8% of the state total and in 1935 the proportion
was 27.7%. Cattle raising in the area is almost uniformly dis-
tributed over the several counties, (2) without centralization of
(1) See Table No. 4, Appendix "B". 48
(2) See Map.

large herds, although there is comparatively little restriction as
to range.
Contrary to the popular thought of many the South area.
embracing the vast Everglades district, has never been a domi-
nant factor in cattle raising. In 1910 the area contained 17.5';
cf all cattle in the State and in 1935 showed an advance to 20.2 '
-the number of cattle being 1-18.003 and 1-11.376 head at
the respective census periods. The years of recession in cattle
raising (1910-1930) showed a decline from 148,003 to 9-1,687 head
(34.7'; ), followed by an increase from the low of 1930 to 144.376
head (52.4'; ) by 1935. (ountv divisions made in South Florida
in 1925 had little effect upon the cattle raising section. located
in the North Central portion of the area.


Valuation of cattle taken from census figures for entire State
will be found in Table No. 5, Appendix "B", for State and agri-
cultural areas. The 1935 value is estimated on a unit basis
for the four agricultural areas.


Dairy cows, as a group, reflected a corresponding decline to
cattle in general. except that the low level was in 1925, five years
prior to that of all cattle. The ease with which animals may be
transferred from dairy herds to beef herds makes comparable
figures difficult to set up. The 1935 Agricultural Census listed all
cows milked during the year 1934 as 86,360, an increase of 19.7'/4
over the number classified as "Dairy Cows" in 1910. and 113.9'
more than the same classification in 1925.
Distribution of "Dairy Cows" in 1910 and "All Cows Milked"
in 193-1, in relation to agricultural area was as follows:

Il! 1 13; 1910-:5
Area Dair)y ,. ct. 'os Pet. 3-Year
Cow Total Milked Total Pet. Inc.
Stn rt ............ 2. '. '.* I9. ;.:i6 I0 .l 1>.7
North .............. ::I.'224, 12.m 21.19.7 -S.A. 1is.9
N irthwl ,t ......... .2 :i s 3 .0 I. :111 2i .1 ".I
Celltrnl ........... 13.75 2 27.1 7 -
Sutlh ........... 2. 1::.:41 l ..t :|;::.
l> -noli> t-. l rn.-ri .

The trend in distribution of dairy cows has also been marked
by a decidedly higher type of animal both on the farm and in


Less than 1.000 head.

1.000 to 5.000 head.
5.000 to 10.000 head.

10,000 to 15.000 head.
15,000 to 20.000 head.
20.000 to 30.000 head.

30.000 to 40.000 head.
40.000 to 50.000 head.

Over 50,000 head.
Comparison 1910 and 1935.
Color Legend applies to both maps.
See Table No. 4. Appendix "B".


State .................
N. W est ..............
North ................
Central ...............
South .................




State .................
N. W est ..............
North ................
Central ................
South .................

.1.17, 1:15

[ I






the ldairy lherdls. Tlhe value of mIilk 'cows, however, lias showed
a decrease from .$51 per head in 1925 to $32 inll 1935.

Improvement in cattle raising hIrs been accompanied by a
corresponding change in its kindred farm activity-hog raising.
As agricultural development has advanced it has consistently cur-
tailed the )practice of raising hogs under the olen range method
and a;s Ia consequence the famous "Florida Razor-hack" hog ilas
been (otlawed and1 regulated almost out of' existence.
The first ten years of the century were marked by a sharp in-
crease in the numnler of hogs in the State. the high point Ibini
shown at the census year of 1910--81Oi.69 head. During the
following 15 years n steady decline took place in the number of
hogs and by 1925 the state total was back to the I90( level
(497.780 head) a decrease of :;S.5',.
This recession took place principally in the North Area. where
hogs declined 10'; (1910-1925), and in the centrall Area with a
:15'; drop. The Northwest and South Areas showed decreases
of 16'; and 3'; respectively. While there were sev\'ral contrib-
uting causes for the decline, the main factor was an increased
agricultural activity of a type that made restriction against th.,
"roaming workers necessary, automatically causing a reduction
in that class of hog. A slight up)trend in hogs took place between
1925 and 193 1 (:13.9!' ) only to show a further decline in the next
five years of 19'. bringing the numln'r of hogs in the State to
-1-17.135 (1935).
It is significant that thl ('enitral and South AreaCs show contin-
uous declines from 1910 to 1935 in the number of hogs. In the
Northwest area the pericwo from 19.25 to 19:10 showed an in-
crease of 20.:30S head ( 13.9', ). however the subsequent five years
(19310-1935) reflected a drop of' 22,690() head (12.0'/; ) which
(ofset the previous gain. North Florida had an increase of 46.976
head (22.-'; ) between 1925 and 1930. which was followed (193:0-
1933) by a decline of 21'. These tluctu nations left Florida hog
raising at the 1:935 census period with 362,9!3- less hogs than at
the beginning oI' the century. The 'at that, upol its face, hog
raising has remained at a stantdtill for :35 years is offset by the
progress made in establishing Florida as a Ixprk producing area.
The widespread program launched to put pure bred livestock on
the farms is writing history in hog production equal to that of
the cattle improvement. The Agricultural Adjustmen, t Admin-


H (1)1 ..T.

1 .** 1t.11 I.01., h,1 .l.

50,0100 (11 0 76,000 ,(} h l.,

m I ni.. tw I Iv. i,.I h 1ait.

( ni a.l.rin lll 1t l (1*- 1 ] t2
('(4lor lT,'ulb l ln l dlp,>t It, hl. h nllll i j" .
S. Tubil. No. 4. Ai'.i'n.ll\ "II".


3 9 I *
NumIlier I'd.
Area Chilrkei, Total
...... .. . \.3 2 f.1 7 Io .O
>l 741.0:; :7.41
..-* l ~t

I II 3


\ x

fI 'm


'1hL4 _-


istration program was not a
large contributor to the de- 0oo DISTRIBUTION
cline of swine at the time cov- POULTRY BY
ered by the Review. only 5.600 -2 AREA
head having been purchased( in 700 (IN THOUSANDS)
1933. and but 50 head in 193 1. 11910

l'oultry has shown the most 550
consistent advance of all 500
classes of livestock. there be-
ing but one period of decline 450
between 1900 and 1935. 400
In 1910 there were 1.326.271
head of chickens in the State. 35
At the 1920 census period 300
there were 1,622.519, an ad-
vance of 22.3%', continuing the 250
upward trend over the follow-
ing five years (1920-1925) to
reach 2,130.297 head. the in- 150
crease heing 507,778 head
(23.8' ). Between 1925 and -
1930 the one and only reces- so
sion during 25 years (1910- CEN. NO. NW. SO.
1935) was recorded, the drop
being 180,674 head, represent-
ing a decline of 8..1';. and a low point for poultry. The decline
proved to be but temporary as in the succeeding live year period
poultry not only recovered the peak of 1925 but added an addi-
tional 4'.3; to reach a new high. The increase between 1930 and
1935 was 2812.10 head (14l.4 ; ).
Under the guidance of poultry specialists working through
several official sources rapid strides were made in bringing
about an exceptional high standard of poultry stock. The great-
est interest in commercial poultry raising has been centered near
the larger points of population.
In 1910 the distribution of the state's total poultry (1.326.271
head) was distributed in the agricultural areas as follows: North
Area, 517,17' head (39.1';); Central Area, 3641,077 head

(27.1 ) ; Northwest Area, 358,798 head (27.0' ); and the South
Area, 86,219 head (6.5 ).
The general decrease in poultry between 1925 and 1930 took
place in extreme portions of the State with the Northwest Area
showing a 32.1' decline, and the South Area 21.2 /;. The North
and Central Areas have never shown any recession in their
poultry raising activities.
A 245.4% gain was shown for poultry in the South Area over
the 25 years from 1910 to 1935, the number of birds increasing
from 86,219 to 297,845. The Central Area recorded the next
highest area advance as shown by an increase in poultry from
364,077 to 745,107 head, a gain of 104.7c (1910-1935). The
North Area reflected an increase of 37.6; and the Northwest
Area 32.6% for the 25 years. (1) The estimated value of poul-
try in Florida by census years for both State and agricultural
areas show that the high peak in price was in 1925 with a decided
downtrend after that time. (2)

The minority group of livestock on Florida farms is represent-
ed by sheep, goats, horses and mules. All of these classes showed
increases in the early part of the 1900's, followed by declines that
brought their number in 1935 back to, or below, the 1900 level.
The largest number of sheep in the state was recorded in 1910
when 113,701 head were enumerated by the Census Bureau.
Over the period between 1910 and 1935 sheep consistently drop-
ped to a low of 39,942 head. The Northwest Area has always
been the leading section in the number of sheep, and through
1925 the Central Area was second in number.
At the 1935 Census period sheep were distributed in the Agri-
cultural Areas in the following proportion: Northwest, 31,432
head (78.5%); North, 5,053 head. (12.7%); Central, 2,772
head (7.09) and South, 675 head (1.8%). Florida sheep raising
is upon the individual farm flock basis rather than upon that of
range flocks. Wool produced in Florida in 1935 was 106,972

100 1910 1920 1o92S 1930 1 3s
._. N
-- ----- -* --- -- -- M U IA(
."^.l^ ____^---.-- ^

pounds, valued at $24,604.
Goats have changed little
over the 25 years from 1910
to 1935. A gradual decrease
between 1920 and 1925 was
(I ) .44, % Mnp I'Atv 5:,..
(12I S- Tnhlf N.,. *,. Ain.nl ix "11."

partially regained by 1935 to make the net loss in number between
1910 and 1935, 5,045 (10.7,; ). Very little attention is paid to
the clipping of goats in Florida. At the Census period of 1935
there were only 209 pounds of mohair clipped.
Horses and mules have shown (as a combined group) a loss of
10,090 head between 1910 and 1935, or 14.6'; The fluctuations in
each class have been very definite, horses decreasing in number
27,66.1 (60.6; ), while mules increased from 23,333 to 40,946 head
(75.49; ), the change being almost equal in 25 years. The small-
est percent of decrease in farm workstock (horses and mules) was
evidenced in the Northwest Area and the greatest in the North
Area, the decrease being 4.4'; and 30.7%; respectively. Cen-
tral Florida reflects a decrease in workstock of 15.8%, (1910-
1935) while South Florida shows an increase of 38.1%. All
areas, except the Central, where the number is approximately
equal, show a decrease in horses and an increase in mules being
used on farms. This is, in part, due to the automobile displacing
driving animals and their replacement by workstock.
The value of horses and mules on Florida farms in 1934 was
$1,449,266 and $4,784,445 respectively, the horses averaging
about $81 a head and the mules approximately $116.

All livestock on farms
at the 1910 Census pe-
riod was valued at $20,-
591,187. In 1935 all live-
stock was listed at a val-
uation of $19,874,096.
The highest valuation of
all livestock over the 35
year period was shown in
1920. the total amount
being $35,300,540.
All principal classes of
livestock reflected down-
trends between 1910-1935,
except chickens and cat-


1935 U--
rff7" ,0000 GAL.LONS
C= 100.000 GAILON.S
STATC 29,306525 CALLONS S .*

Chickens raised, eggs produced and dairy products (but-
ter, cream and whole milk) reflected a combined increase in
value of over 3009' (with but slight fluctuations) for the state
as a whole from 1910 to 1935. (1).
(I) S T Table No. 13. Al.,ndix "II."

The Census period of 1930 recorded a high peak for chickens
(3.421.394 head) and eggs (14.424.168 dozen) followed by a de-
cline in the five subsequent years (1930-1935) of 18.8'; in eggs
produced and 5.3:; in the number of chickens raised. Milk pro-
duction (except for a very slight falling off between 1910-1920)
steadily climbed until at the Census period of 1935 the increase
amounted to 134.4'; or 16.854.097 gallons over production in
1910. Butter made on farms increased from 1,705.274 pounds in
1910 to 2,172,099 pounds in 1935 (27.3'; ) valued at $564,746.
Agricultural areas reflected the same general trends (1910-
1935) as those shown for the State. However, area changes were
quite different in the several sections. The South Area showed
the greatest changes with an increase in milk production from
413,856 gallons to 6,769,145 gallons (1,535.77 ); eggs went up

from 404,635 to 1.608,05.1 dozen
from 125,700 to 446,742 head

(297.4; ); and chickens raised
(255.4';). The Central Area
showed increases (1910-1935)
of 399.3;,, 91.9';, and 13.2 '
respectively for milk, eggs and
chickens. The North Area re-
flected increases of 43'; in
eggs, 13.419 in chickens, and
244.7% for milk. Northwest
Florida recorded gains (1910-
1935) of 94.1'; in milk, 32.4;
in eggs and 7.59; in chickens
raised. (1).
Chickens and eggs together
with dairy products (butter.
cream and whole milk) for the
State were valued at $3,250,-
283 in 1910. The same class-
es in 1930 were estimated at
$14.220,868. In 1935 chickens,
eggs and butter (milk ex-
cluded) were valued at $4,-
972.183. (1). At the 1930
Census period (last general
census) general livestock pro-
ducts, (including milk, cream,
(I Si',. Table No. 1:1. Aliawndlix "II".

hunter. butterfal. meat. )poultry, eggs, honey, wool, mohair and
miscellaneous sold or traded l)y operators of :2.296 farms were
valued at .k1::.S I>.774. dit ihvlt as tr type of farm in the following
prol l tio n:

('la siictl Ion Numiliher Vulile of
of Farm- (1) IReporting Iroducts
Iar :.*: $S .7: 2.:'7'2
l' ultIv .I .;I5 2.~ 7.4 5

A dlllin l Spc)( inlty I 1,4120 I *13i1,1247
Sti ck ranch 217 1:l,(0
All 2,th.r "e.:n 2.1t .I.'11 .
1 I 1'Ia...

During the 19:34 ])perio(l Floridln shipped and killed locally land
put on local nuarkets 52.'1000 head of battlee (2.1.700.000 pounds) :
also :31.004i h:ad of calves (3..561).)> this year theI State shipled
1,0(00 head of sticker and feed- -
er cattle representing (il,0(0 3000 CHICKENS
IjNunds. The number of head RAIS
of cattle and calves killed fr 27 RA
farm slaughter (193.1) we.re 0 1910-1935
18,000. The met product ion
from these animals amounted 5 (THOUSAND HEAD)
to 1.750.04om pounnds of Ix'tf (00ADD 000).
and !)20.04()1 poundIs of \real.
IFlorida lproIducers 1an11t con- 1750
j -1910
sinners are protected i y tlie 1910
State's Egg and Poultry Iw. 100 1935
the Milk and Milk Predlucts i50
I.aw and a Frozen Desserts
lanw (ice cre'l'(i and other 000
frozen products). These laws 750
arte administered by the In-
spiction I)i\ ision of the State
Department of Agriculture. _'
The improvements in thle
cattle. swinte and poultry ac- 0
tivities of the' state are re- o
electedd in the higher standLard 4 z 0 Z 6
of livestock products lbing T 1 z au
placed on the market.


Bees and honey being classified as "livestock" and "livestock
products" under the Census procedure, are often lost in the pre-
ponderance of other classes of livestock. Florida honey falls
into three distinct classes-the well known orange blossom type,
tupelo (a white honey used extensively in diabetic treatment)
and a high grade of clear honey produced from the wide variety
of flowers and other blossoms available to bees in the State.
As of 1910 there were 2,587 farms reporting 747,832 pounds
of honey valued at $56,050, and 18,635 pounds of wax worth
$4,856. The 1920 Census reported 2,928 farms producing 962.488
pounds of honey with a valuation of $259,873 together with
22.994 pounds of wax at $7.821.
The 1930 Census period reflected a State total of 1,333,463
pounds of honey, valued at $151,355, produced on 4,087 farms
(6.9; of all farms) from 44.1.168 colonies of bees. During this
period the Northwest Area produced 637,377 pounds (47; of
the State total). This was mostly of the tupelo variety as 386,-
637 pounds (60.6'/r of the area total) was produced in the Apa-
lachicola River Valley where the tupelo gum tree is prolific.

0 oveM Kooo Las
OVi 00.000 L

"C., 24 AREA
-*90 1 r 230

Central Florida (princi-
pal citrus belt) was sec-
ond in quantity of honey
produced, the amount be-
ing 323,234 pounds (24r,
of the State output). The
South Area was credited
with 244,214 pounds
(215), while North
Florida produced the re-
maining 8; (128.638
pounds). The amount and
value of wax produced
during the period from
1920 to 1930 was not tab-


Although Florida inherited the plantation type of farm opera-
tion at the time of its acquisition by the United States govern-
ment It hats consistently remalntd (as a whole) fre of the share-
crop system that followed the freeing of the slaves throughout
the ,u4t h. and particularly the
mncr: objltettionable features ,of
that system. This has been FARM TENANCY
primarily due to (the fact that 80
a large part of Florida has SP IFI
been d<\eloped agriculturally 70 0 STATES
during the past 33 years, dur. 66 4 1935
ing which time thl share- 60 62
cropping method has been
growing in d-isrepute. and also 50
because the type of develop- 46
ment does not leend itself to
the lusic principles generally 40
utilized under the share-crop
system. 30
Florida farm tenant y since
1900 hilts remaille(d lit State 0
average of 25'; (1900-1935).
In 1935 the rate of 2S': w; 1
the lowest among Southern
States, except Maryland
(27';). and West Virginia < .. < (26' ). During the 15 years i j ..
from 19201 to 193I3 the num. q 2 .
ber of farms in Florida in-
creased t35li, but contrary to t(he expected Influence uiipon the ol)-
eration of farms the rate of tenancy only increased 3';. In this
same period (1920.-1r:3) there. was a change in the class of oper-
ation in farms. the most imirnrtant feature of which was a de-
crease of 28'/ ill shll'e-crop tenants, with a corresponding in-
crease in cash and oIther non-share classes of farm operators.
In 1920 tenant farmers %working uipon a share-crop basis
compri.-ed .51: of tenant operators. and other classes but 49'..
while in 1!935 croppelrs represented but 23', and cash tenants anti
other noIi-share teItii ls reIprsntd'CIII's t( 779'; (o' all teniil t )Ct o rators.
This trend would seem to indicate improved operation of farms.

as well as a more substantial agricultural background. The
1920-1935 period reflected the following changes in the general
operation of farms:
Owner operations decreased 55.
Manager operation increased 2'i.
Tenant operation (as a whole) increased 3; .
Tenant croppers decreased 28';.
Non-share Tenants increased 28;.
The 20,399 tenant operated farms in Florida at the 1935 Census
period were distributed over the several agricultural areas as
follows: Northwest, 7.223 (35.4%): North, 5.504 (27', ); Cen-
tral, 4,039 (19.75); South, 3,633 (17.9%). The percentage of
tenancy in the respective areas based upon the total number of
farms in each was: Northwest, 40.9r ; North, 33.1% ; Central,
14.4% ; and South. 32.1%.
Farm operation as it pertains to size of unit shows a contrast-
ing picture in the four Agricultural Areas. On the fact of the
1935 Agricultural Census the 30 to 49 acre farm group predomi-
nates in the State and would naturally set this size farm as being
the popular individual farm acreage for cultivation, which is
not the case.

1920- 1935
CLASS OF 20 40 60 80 100




NOTI ( Cn. wr. include all farmn o-kedl mn shar,.. Othrr* inrl,-d all other tyl. of

The Central and South Areas in
which intensive and specialized
farming is carried on extensively
show small units, while the
Northwest and North Areas, in
which general farming leads. re-
flect larger farm groups.
Farms of less than three acres
and from three to nine acres rep-
resent 28.8'' of the Central Area
total (27.337) and 33'; of the
South Area (11.292) farms. These
areas (Central and South) pre-
sent a parallel standing in size of
farms, the 10 to 19 acre unit be-
ing second largest in number and
the 30 to :9 acre farm third.
The North Area has a major-
ity farm group of over 100 acres
per unit. this size occupying 28.8';
of the total area farms. Farms
from :30 to -19 acres are second in
nunimer, being 21 '. of the area
total (16.507). Northwest Flor-
ida is the only area in which the
30 to -19 acre unit leads in number.
being 29.2'; of the total, (5,166
farms). The area reflects a fur-
ther variance in size of farms with
the 20 to 29 acre tract being
second in the number farms.
Of the 2,163 farms in the state
under three acres 60'; are located
in the Central Area. together with
52'; (6.574) of farms from three
to nine acres. South Florida is
next with 25'1, (3.147) of the
three to nine acre group and
26.7'; (579) less than three acres.
The North Area contains .11.9';
of the total farms of 100 acres or
more, representing the larger
farm units. The Northwest Area
contains 5.166 (:6.2';) of the
14,252 farms comprising the lead-

ing state group of 30 to 39
TYPES BY AREA At the 1930 Census pe-
12 1930 riod farms were classified
LGEND as to type under 12 divisions
rRUIT (1). In nine divisions the
= COTTON classification was determin-
-SE Lr-sur ed on the basis of 40% or
more of the total farm reve-
A iCROP-SPEC nue coming from one
GENERAL source. Where no one item
S.POULTRY furnished 40- of the total
SAsNORMAL the farm was classified
u TRUCK "general". Cases where val-
ue of farm products used
SALL OTHER by operator's family was
OTIMRS: 50%, or more, of total the
CASH GRAIN farm was classified "self-
2 ANIMALSPEC HUfficing". Institution-
STOC*RANC farms, estates. part-time
and other unusual operation
ABNORMAL: were classed as "abnormal".
PART-TIME In 1930 87.9% of all
ETC G Florida farms (58.966)
came under seven classifica-
tions in the following order:
o B Fruit, 23.1%7; general,
c. NO. W s 14.4r; ; truck, 11.3 ; self-
sOT:: A.dI 0- to at.r, .r. sufficing. 10.4c : cotton,
9.5' ; abnormal, 8.4'; ; dairy, 1.6%. Unclassified added 8, to
account for 95.5% of all farms in the State.
The three leading Area types were: North-general, 22%;
self-sufficing. 14.8; ; cotton. 11.3;.
Northwest--Cotton. 24.2' ; general. 22.4 ;; self-sufficing.
17.4 .
Central-Fruit, 48.1% ; truck, 12.2%; abnormal, 9.3,.
South-Truck. 39.2, : fruit, 33.2 ; abnormal. 7.1';.
These leading types recorded by the last general census
(1930) reflect the distinctiveness of agricultural pursuits in the
four Agricultural Areas. Part-time operation accounts for 94.4,1,
of all abnormal farms in State.
'Il. N",: f n i-.a It -



t to 10,' of Aren.

101, to 5c; of A rea.

'C to aO of A rest.

0'0, to 5'i" of Aien.

lwrinz the :1; year,, n A b. y thi r.s ass 22
county urnitl s %%re creatcel. rlhree is al he N.-rthIa
foutr itt the Noarth. two) ia Calat ral, anal I: in

>- I .L.-. '



If.r 4./


EVW I'NITS Sanme ILegend ia s
SINCE 1900 above

905 St. L.urie.
909- P'al Ilciach.
911 Pinclliia.
1: Ilty I a In S e inilole.
915-I-lrowvard aln OkathloauJt.
917 'l.-d r iand Okcee<'ll a,.,
921-- Iixia. Union. Sarn t,,a.. Charljo.te. Hard-la .
G;lA- an:l Hii.hl.and..
9-.1 Hrnildr- annd Collier.
925, (ilchrir. Indiin RI.vr. .Martin and G(;ulf.

The formantionl of th l e I oulllltil re(uir(l 'Il the
hnlig ing of hIurlnri 'ere als'o iIInumerllou county line amljultmelliic't. 'ihii-
i thre principal rrean for rnaakin! the rsaview
pon an aru a rather than oy.ir.ty ba*ii.

F ~ -1,' ..~ ** --.
H: j-~ 'il



Less than 100 Farms.

1 100 to 500 Farms.
500 to 1.000 Farms.
1,000 to 2,000 Farms.
2,000 to 3,000 Farms.

3.000 to 4.000 Farms.
4.000 to 5.000 Farms.

Farms increased steadily from 1950 to 1925. The
five year period from 1925 to 1930 recorded n de-
cline of 42.5%. The upward trend was renewed
in the five years from 1930 to 1935 by a 23.6%
increase. (See Table 2. Appendix "B".)




Number Pet. of
Area Farms State
State ............... 40. 14 100.0
N. West ............ 11.104 27.2
North .............. 17.039 41.7
Central ............. 11.052 27.1
South ............... 1.619 4.0
Number IPt. of
Area Farms State
State .................. 72857 100.0
N. West ............... 17,631 24.1
North ................. 16597 22.9
Central ................ 27,337 37.6
South .................. 11,292 15.4

The size of the average farm in the state in
1900 was 106.9 acres. As the number of farms
increased, the size of average farms in all areas
has decreased, the state being 83 acres in 1935.
Area average farms in 1935 were: Northwest,
79.1; North. 117.2; Central. 58.7: South. 85.7. For
other years see state and area Table 2, Appendix

, "'"






Farm land basically falls into two general classes-implrove' :
and unimproved. The first embraces all land available for culti-
vation (orchards, groves. pasture. field and other crops); the
second is made up of woodland, swampy ground, or other land
on the farm not adaptable for cultivation.
Prior to 1925 the Census classitied land under the two general
divisions of "improved" and "unimproved". Subsequent to 1925
the classification was changed to one-"Farm Land According
to Use"-with eight subdivisions. Four of these (generally) are
equivalent to "improved land," the remaining four "unimproved"
land. A differential is set up due to the fact that the old "im-
proved" classification included farm buildings, roads. etc.: which
are now carried under "other land in farms". However, items of
crop land harvested, failure. idle, fallow and plowable pasture.

are roughly comparable to
Improved land in 1900
1935 Census period
"all land available for
crops" was 2,163.639
acres. an approximate
increase in improved
land of 956,786 acres
(63.2% ). In the same
period (1900-1935) all
land in farms advanced
38.5';, which shows
the advance in im-
proved acres was al-
most 75"C greater than
that of all land in
farms. A recession in
all land in farms be-
tween the 1920 and
1930 Census years
amounted to 16.8,;
while improved land
was affected only
1.1 ;. The downtrend

"improved land" of the earlier Census

amounted to 1.511.653 acres. At the

FARM LAND 1900-1935
1900 Eil
1500 -



"Farm *"Total Veeta- Miscel-
Area Acre Acres Acre" Pet. Field Orchard ble lancos
Harcsted lHarvestrd Oserlap D.C. Crops Crops i Crops Crops
.'Iti r .. .. ........I l,.579,4 I ..'l I !.'276 6.3 I 1.00. 170 377.," i 30...47 34.'72;
Northwest ... .. | 417.307 I 5i36,26 I :I,HI64 I 7.S I 4O9,3.loo 12.117 I8.169i i3,995
North ......... I 15G.716 i .79.91 2 I 2 r.203: 5.3 I :1 ,4.413 I 2!.:330 I 51,782 I -1.361
Central ..........I 4l2.343 I 439.504 I 27.161 6.6 I 123.41 I 254.76 54.006 6.210
southh ...........23.53 22.641 '..O4 4.2 11.215 0LSo02 110.621 2*..703
:Acrrt shown harv-stl.d in Census (19.3)-single crop only.
*'Total Hcreage from which cruips were reported harvested (one or morel.


in farm lands reversed itself between 1930 and 1935 to regain
the lost (1920-1930) plus an additional 8-; over the high point
in farms shown at the 1920 Census period. The greatest advance
in all lands in farms, as well as in improved land was witnessed
in the Central and South Areas.
In this Graphic Review Florida agricultural crops are placed
under four general groups for simple identification and com-
parison as to acreage and importance in the several Agricultural
Areasa as well as the State. The groups are as follows:
(a) Field Crops-Corn. peanuts, tobacco, cotton, leg-
umes (hay and forage), sugarcane.
(b) Orchard Crops-Groves, orchards, vineyards,
small fruits, including strawberries.
(c) Vegetable Crops-White potatoes. sweet pota-
toes. all vegetable plantings.
(d) Miscellaneous-Unclassified crops. In the South
Area an undivided acreage of sugarcane is carried under
this head.
In 1934 (1935 Census) the relative standard (in acreage) of
the four groups in the State were: Field crops. 61.3c; ; orchard
crops, 22.6/ ; vegetable
crops. 14.1 ; : miscellan-
plied to the Agricultural
areas the crop groups C"1 IMPROVED FARM LANDS
reflect a great variance PER CENT HARVESTED
in farm pursuits. as in cars (ADD 000)
the farm types.
In dollar value the
groups have a different :
standing. Of a total '
(round figures) of $90.- 0':
000.000 the group t
standing is: Orchard
crops, 47% ; vegetables, 1000
37' ; field crops, 14, ,:
and miscellaneous.
2.0';. So
The relative standing
of the groups are shown
on Page 66. values iln rE*A 1910 1920 1925 1930 a9
Tables in Appendix "B".











1910 -1935

I 1910
I 1935

NOT'IE.- Scale 0 to 50 in 10,000; 50 aln over
in 100,000 acres.
Corn for grain only. Peanuts grown alone.

0 16 ION 0^ 0 0 0 0 0Flo 1Pou
o_o L o [o lo po lgo Jo ]lo_ o8 6Jo_[o




The background of Florida agriculture has been founded upon
the usual field crops of the South that have been cultivated since
the earliest days of the State's history.
Although recent years have centered public attention upon
the specialized farming activity of the State the field crop group
continues to represent the largest number of farms under culti-
vation and the largest number of operators whose livelihood
comes from the soil.


Aciaoge shown embraices cotton, corn. S o
l igmelnS, tobacco. smlgirciane. hay nild s
forage. together with strawberries.
r IAss than 1.00 acres. o a

F 5.000 to 15,00l 0 icres. Y' S "
t--- ',(00 o .2i0 .r. \ A r -

.--- .o to .-0.000 .r. : :.

75,000 to 100.000 nres (over) J

Includes acreage from which more than onIe crop was harvest-
ed during crol year of 193t: i. e. Corn and peanuts. or white
I|otatoes followed by velvet beans peas. etc.

Without the allied industrial activity attendant upon fruit
growing and vegetable raising, field crops have not brought the
producers the high money return in a short period of time. The
growing of corn, cotton, peanuts, hay and tobacco have been
the stand-bys, so to speak, of the State's oldest agricultural sec-
tions. As crops, they have not created seasonal labor situations,
nor the need for intensive cultural methods.
With the renewed interest in cattle and hog raising, also pos-
sible re-establishment of Sea Island cotton production, the farms
of the "staple crop" belt have a more optimistic future.
Field crop acreage for the Census period of 1910 as compared
with the same crops at 1935 Census period show the following
changes in crops:

Comparative Acreage Pct.
Crop 1910 1935 Gain
Corn (1) 605,771 685,211 13.1
Peanuts (2) 126,150 106,799 -15.3
Hay-Forage __ 54,729 101,556 85.5
Cotton 263,454 91,629 -65.2
Sugarcane 12,928 32,436 15.0
Tobacco 3,987 6,114 61.1
(1) For grain only. .2) (rown alone. -Denote decrease.

Field crops represent 93.5% of the agricultural activity of the
Northwest Area and 82.2% of that in the North Area, while in
the Central and South Area this class of farm crop comprises
only 28.2% and 5.0% of the areas respectively.
In the general farming districts of the Northwest and North
the self-sufficing type of farm (50% of the total value of farm
production being used on the farm) is found among the five
leading classifications of farm type.
The general farming sections of the State show an increase
in livestock on the farms since the pure-bred type of animal has
replaced "scrub stock," due to general production of feedstuffs.
as a part of the individual farm program.
In spite of the setbacks met by agriculture during the past
two decades all classes of field crops, with the exception of pea-
nuts and cotton, have shown increases in acreage. During the
past several years control programs have affected the size of acre-
age planted to the principal crops, or still greater advances would
be shown. A study of the comparative (color) maps used in
connection with the Review will show the increase or decrease of
the several crops.

In Florida the production of hay and forage is closely related
to that of annual legumes grown. Peanuts, cowpeo\s, velvet
beans. Soy beans (principal legumes) supplemented by a small
acreage of vetches and other varieties of field peas. represent
approximately 75'; of all hay and forage crops harvested with
tame and wild grasses together with some small grains furnish-
ing the remaining 25'' of the crops.
Prevalent customs of interplanting annual legumes with other
crops and "hogging-off" and grazing the combined crops make
comparable relation of acres and tons between Census years cov-

ering hay and forage somewhat I
Prior to 1925 that part of the
legume crops interplanted was
separated from the total by
arbitrary estimation (or assign-
ment) made by enumerators in
the field. Since 1925 legumes
have been shown separately as
to kind, whether interplanted
or grown alone, and the quan-
tity of peas, beans or nuts har-
In 1910 (under a classifica-
tion "Hay and Forage") 53,000
tons of hay and forage crops
were shown as harvested from
54.729 acres of land with an
estimated value of $8-17.181.
Ten years later (in 1920) under
the same classification produc-
tion of hay and forage crops
increased 155'; in acreage and
79,; in tonnage, there being
139,516 acres and 99,432 tons
having an estimated value of
$2.510.772. The schedule for
hay and forage in 1925 (Cen-
sus Year) having been changed
and limited in application the
figures used in this Review

broad and elastic.



Ut I )n
IW I U) hiz I
Ui~ W I
W:) 0ul ow
0. z co (eo


In 19l10 rcl,,narian inclul.I I nil arrears
iine.l r cl.a f.f tf ,n ,,f "litr y 1 ,rtd x :
t'* I. "'All I1. r.. .hu r 'rt'r .-~.

SNfr. rl r.rtnl
IAn.] Ithin 1.40 I no .
( | 1.11110 to :1.111111 lIrIr".

S 0 .lO.0* O to ,.i',0i rne0.

I 10,000 to 3,0Ill,0 li'n'm.
1Iw'tnd tappll. to tloth ntllnl.

S***{* r^L//^Jf/1

% s v\- -~- .

^ ^-




t' ntral
.4suh h

Stat . . . . . .


ASauh .

I Arrri
. .... I. rll,7 '

1 .411
11. 1
4*.1 '


1: *.44
i.ltt l

P 10(.0





t.:> m.'


i. ;).

'/ w l

*S*,i T'hi, I (Stt stttiiil Artmit) ApIpendix "II".



were made to conform as nearly as possible with the crops in-
cluded in the earlier classification by including with the total hay
crops the acreage of corn cut for silage. fodder and hogged-off.
This allows a fairly comparable picture with previous years.
IProduction of hay and forage crops showed a recession of
41.5'; in the five year period from 1920 to 1925. which was in
keeping with all general farm crops. except tobacco, which in-
creased. A continued decrease of :32.1' from 1925 to 1930 may
be partially attributed to changes in the Census schedules for
hay and forage, however, the adverse effects of "boom condi-
tions" upon farm activity (1923-1930) was a contributing factor
insofar as Florida was concerned.
The 1935 Census reflects an upward trend in the plantings
of annual legumes with an accompanying increase in the pro-

... ,' ...

Acr,,::, .h..n ijclr ,, t ::n ". I ,
ANN AL.,' I .E(;l ,,3 -n-'iI .... \EGUNE -' //

row inn, oy beans int u nvuiitis ( M ro-s n V
wilth ithr croit uintuil iutill mtcreave of III` a o sOO
rip. firlM beanI ni inlI II of the Navy '''
E i ni l IJr.n unrit t r. -

I I ,, I1I,, lll'ft nrr', < litl'!-. \+ .' +-
.is t ton A cr..000- --

1000 to"'" (,00 n" r...' I

S~ char I'n.- "1 fr r1 -latl\ narl-a* ain Sa-
rirti- of c iunl~r .'



(See Graph Page 76) "'

None reported. a' l*.
1-I00 to 1.000 acres.

SI .OOO to 1.o000 acres. ..'
-- .1,000 to 15.000 acres. '

This is it conlInrison on |l)llnut acrentg i
1910-1935. The color legend applies to both


Area Acres I Pe. I Farms
1910 Peanuts Crop Rept'
State .......... 126.150 10 19.21
6 - -- --.
North ......... 69.3.72 5. 0 i. ) ***
-orthwest ..... 41.564 32.9 1 I 1
Central10 ....... I 15.10 1 12.0 (1)
Sollthl ........... 0I 0 (1) _____ "' 4".
Area Acres I Pet. Farms
1935 Peanuts Crop Rept'g '
tate .......... 106.799 100 12.' 24
Northwest ..... 62.330 .5.4 7.505 "
North ........ .7.1 47 :Io. 0. iSo, .
Central ....... I 11.2 6 1 10,5 I 1.,469
South ......... I 1:16 0.2 I 50
(1) Not avaiible. L .L I"_".
The total number of farms reporting lennuls all pur- ..,. .
poses). ,193. was 24.659. (33..7c total farms in state ,ih -
.124.222 ncres, being an additional acrcre:e of :117.123 acres
that were grown with other crops (probably with corn -
mistly). This additional acreage is an overlap in total ncres
in cultivation. See graph. p:ge T7. and Tabln e ,. Aplpendix "I'".


auction of hay and forage. All legumes (except peanuts grown
alone) aggregated 564.037 acres. Out of this total acreage only
70.172 acres (13:') were harvested: the remaining 49:1.565
acres (87'; ) being grazed or hogged-off. Grazing and hogging-
off of legume crops leaves an undetermined factor in the esti-
mates of hay and forage crops, both as to tonnage and value, that
can only be obtained by a complicated method of estimating
proJbable tonnage as against its value when consumed by animals
in the field.
The total acreage of annual legumes in 1935 (except peanuts
grown alone) numerically was the second largest acreage of the
farm year (564.037 acres). However. more than 94'; of this
acreage was an overlap in cultivated land. The 70.472 acres of
legumes saved for hay produced 38,858 tons, slightly more than
70'; of the total hay and forage crops, and 57.4',1 of the ton-
nage. The estimated value of these crops in 1935 was $59.506.
In addition to the legumes saved for hay. those grazed or hogged-
off. there were harvested from the total acreage (except peanuts)
peas and beans valued at $273,432 and 4167,319 bushels of velvet
beans valued at (estimated) $700.975 ($1.50 per bushel).
As a crop the annual legumes were divided among the agri-
cultural areas as follows: Northwest. 48.299 acres. (47.6; );
North, 26,147 acres, (25.8';) ; Central, 23,966 acres, (23.61; ) and
South. 3.1.1 acres (3' ).

Peanuts have a dual relationship in Florida agriculture-they
represent the largest acreage of annual legumes grown and fur-
nish the background for a sizeable industrial activity through the
harvesting of nuts in the Northwest Area.
The growing of this legume for nuts. its use as hay. and as
a forage crop in the field are so closely interlocked as to make
absolute division of its uses impossible. Prior to 1925 only the
acreage harvested for nuts was classified by the Census Bureau
(the remainder being lumped with all legumes). Subsequent to
1925 the Census schedule was changed to show the acreage in its
entirety under the same headings as other legumes.
In 1910 there were 126.150 acres of peanuts harvested on
19.219 farms with a yield of 2.315.089 bushels, valued at $2.-
146.862. Peanuts reflected a downtrend during the period from
1900 through 1925 (for nuts). Just how much the general acre-
age declined is "hidden" as it was grouped with other hay and
forage crops.

For the year 1935 there were 106,799 acres of peanuts grown
alone, and 317.423 acres interplanted-giving a total acreage of
424.222 acres. According to the acreage and production figures
of 1910, 1920 and 1925 the average yield per acre was approxi-
mately 15 bushels of nuts. In making the comparison of pea-
nuts as a crop the figures from 1910 to 1925 show only the acre-
age actually harvested for nuts while that from 1930 to 1935 is
for the acreage grown alone (which represents land solely planted
to peanuts) therefore the following adjustment is necessary to
bring them to a comparable basis:
As an allowance for changes in cultural methods the arbitrary
figure of 20 bushels of nuts per acre is used as a basis for esti-
mating the number of acres harvested in 1930 and 1935 which
gives the following proportions-62,155 acres (48%) in 1930 and
97,891 acres (91.7%) in 1935. As a crop cultivated alone peanuts
showed a decline of 15.39; between 1910 and 1935 with an up-
trend in total acreage for 1930 and 1935 as shown in graph below.
in which the division marked 1, represents that part of the crop
grown alone. Peanuts has been one of Florida's standard staple
____ crops since the earliest days
110 1 P92o |I 1P2 1 w 1 92 1 \9 MI of agricultural pursuits but
CN coAND PoEANUT has been replaced to some
.. co extent since 1900 by other
.. ---- "ANO NUTS crops and the development
SWITN Ot"I4 C4050
....L ...t...*..-. of the citrus groves and
SA commercial vegetable grow-
/ \- - ing. In 1900 peanuts was a
S2 - -/ leading crop, there being
__-- /- -- 183,186 acres with a yield
S- -of 1,219.223 bushels of nuts.
The handling of peanuts
Harvested furnishes the
00.T,,.. CROW --~7- background for an indus-
o T ....I.o f- trial activity of some im-
portance in the Northwest
S, / Area of the state during the
-. -' seasonal operation. This is
/:- represented in machinery
and equipment used in
| cleaning, grading and sack-

ing the nuts for market. Jackson County, in Northwest Florida,
has the distinction of growing .15.9'; of peanuts grown alone
in the State in 1935. and has been the leading producer of pea-
nuts in Florida for many years.

Corn is the universal crop of the State. It can be grown suc-
cessfully in all sections of the State and has been the backbone
of general agriculture since the earliest days of Florida occupa-
tion-being found growing here as Indian Maize when the white
man landed upon its shores.
In the older sections of the State corn was the predominant
crop prior to the Civil War and has retained that position. Mid-
dle and West Florida of early days were known as the "granary"
of the State. Following the war in 1861-65 and through 1900
corn plantings fluctuated between 150,000 and 500.000 acres with
a farm value of from $2.000.000 to $.1.000.000 annually.
The high point in corn acreage was reached in the crop years
of 1916 and 1923 when it was 820,000 acres. The value in 1916
being estimated at $11.070.000 and in 1923 at $10.250.000. The
low point in corn plantings in the State subsequent to 1900 was
recorded in the Census period of 1925. when the acreage was
581,166 acres, a decline of 26.4'-; from the 1920 Census report,
and 29%" below the high of the 1923 crop year.
Between the Census periods of 1925, 1930 and 1935 corn re-
flected successive advances in plantings to reach 685.211 acres.
an advance over the ten years (1925-1935) of 17.7';. Fluctua-
tions in corn plantings in Florida between Census periods since
1900 have recorded but one sharp decline (1920-1925); however,
successive crop years have varied. From 1902 to 1913 the annual
corn acreage fell within the 600.000 acre bracket. During the
crop years from 191.1 through 1923 acreage ranged from 700,000
to as high as 820,000 with the ten year average being 785,300
acres. The 192.1 crop year (1925 Census) was 600,000 acres and
that of 193.1 (1935 Census) 685.211 acres. The yield per acre
of corn has consistently remained between 10 and 15 bushels.
while the value has spread from 50 cents to $1.12 per bushel.
The cycles of change in corn acreage have been approximately
ten years without abrupt increases or decreases. The 12 years
from 1902 to 1913 showed an annual average acreage of 629.750.
while that of the subsequent ten years (191-1-923), as previous-
ly stated was 785,300. Since the crop year of 1921 corn acreage
has averaged 638,272 acres.

Less thnn 100 acres.

i 1.000 to 5.000 ner.
5.000 to 15.000 art-.

15,000 to 30.000 acre..

:1,0.00 to 50.000 nere,.
50,000 to 75.000 neres.
75.000 to 100.000 acres.
None reported.
This is a companion of corn acreave Iwt.een
thile yenrs 1910o nd 1935. The stainitP color(0101 legend
should he used for both of the 1aps showii.
tihloti~l IH* u|Hc<1 for Iboth ofI the iiiiitiit tilIOwn.

Area Acres IPt. I Farmn

South 6.6SS I 1.1 (li
Area Acres Pet. Farm1
19135 In Corn Crop I IRept'
Stnle 6ts,.--, I I 100 I :i.0 7-1 l 6.
North\we-t 31i.93. 45.4 13.4 17
North 2-6.4.T6 41.r 12.23 "
Central '1.031 11.' 7.,46
South 6.i06 1.0 1.316
(1) Not4 ivlialble.

In 1910 921.4"'r of the State'.s 40.%14 farm reiiorled corn.
In 1933 only 50", of the 72.'37 farms re.;.rted corn f.,r
Train. In addition to corn for rain there '.re 32.1'*
acres of corn raised for silag.e and other Ipurli-'.. .urh
;. blinir "hoiircl-off." The difTerence in the I)rcnt of
farms I)rodiigiiti cornl in 1910 lnil1 1113f Indlclitt.s thlit in
recent years aniilly new firnms Ure devoted to other crops.


I. '

The Central and South Areas reflect increases between 1910
and 1935 in corn acreage, with but slight fluctuations at interven-
ing Census periods, the highest point for both areas being the
1920 enumeration.
In the Central Area the 1925 Census year showed a sharp
decrease in corn with a subsequent uptrend at the 1930 period.
also in the 1935 period. In the South Area. however, corn show-
ed a consistent decline from enumeration in 1920 through
1935. (1).
The North and Northwest Areas, which have always repre-
sented the "corn belt" of Florida. changed relative positions as
to corn acreage during the 25 years from 1910 to 1935. At the
1910 period North Florida with 293,893 acres in corn was the
leading area with 48.5'%;. of the total state acreage. Northwest
Florida followed closely with 227.777 acres (37.61; of total).
At the 1935 Census period variations in production and shift-
ing of crops in the North Area reflected an area decrease of
7,457 acres in corn (2.55; ) ; while the Northwest Area showed
an increase of 83,161 acres
in its corn plantings
(36.5 ). and giving the 3 CORN
area 45.- '; of the total 1910-1935
State acreage as against
411.8"; in the North Area. 25
11.8'; in the Central Area 1910
and 1% in the South Area. 1935
The Florida corn crop is 200
usually interplanted to cow- 1000 ACRES
peas, or other type of leg-
ume. and represents the lar-
gest acreage which is dou- 150
ble-cropped, or from which
more than one crop is har-
vested. _00
In 1931 (1935 Census)
the acreage of corn raised
for grain represented the 5
largest of any single crop
produced. In addition to
corn harvested for grain
there were 32,188 acres -
(1) See Table N,,. 7 (I.Sat nin Awen).
Apln lndix "II."

used for other purposes, such as silage, green feed and for "hog-
ging-off". In the North Florida potato belt corn is generally used
to follow the early harvested tubers, and where this "follow-up"
crop is interplanted to cowpeas, peanuts or other legumes there
is the equivalent of three crops produced upon a single acreage.
This type of farming, which is more prevalent in Florida than
any other section because of long growing season accounts for
the apparent large production often looked upon as "overstate-
ment" by those not acquainted with such practice.
The Agricultural Adjustment Administration influence on
corn production in Florida is represented in the withdrawal of
17.000 acres in 1934. the final crop year covered by this Review.
In 1935 (crop year) the acreage shifted from corn production
under the A. A. A. was 14,553. A portion of this diverted acre-
age participated in the soil conservation program of the govern-
ment, which appears elsewhere in the Review. (1).

FIELD CROPS Florida produces a scat-
NOT SHOWN tering acreage of what
ELSEWHERE might be termed "inciden-
IN THOUSAND ACRES tal field crops" as the total
acreage is of small conse-
quence in comparison to
general farm activity. These
crops include 7,450 acres of
oats; 281 acres of rye; 358
,2,4 acres of rice and 317 acres
o of grain sorghums. The oats
is mostly cut and fed to
74 O stock unthreshed. These
miscellaneous crops are
mostly grown in small acre-
ages on the farms located in
_o B B1 the North and Northwest
SJ Areas of the State and are
x V ox >- part of the balanced general
(I u A. A. A. r em. Pa
i (II Sw A. A. A. l'rrr-ams. PaI,' 1S.

farming program followed on large farm units. The 32.188
acres of corn produced in the crop year of 1931 for purposes
other than grain. was well distributed to the four agricultural

Cotton was "King" in the early development of Florida. the
annual acreage running over 200.000 acres in the early 70's
through 1910, and the crop valuation aggregating as high as
$4.441.,581 (1910).
Florida cotton production differed from that of the so-called
"Cotton States" in general (except a small portion of Georgia
and a few islands off the coast of the Carolinas and Georgia) in
that approximately 70%< of the annual acreage was given over
to the production of "Sea Island" (derived from its island origin)
the highest type and grade of cotton produced in the world. The
extreme long staple of Sea Island cotton and its unusual line
texture made it particularly adaptable for the manufacture of
thread, fine goods and laces, thereby commanding a Iprice that
averaged about three times that paid for the ordinary (or up-
land) grades of cotton. S-'a Island cotton was in special demand
on world markets, the British Empire being one of the largest
In 1900 Florida produced 34.404 bales of upland cotton (500-
pound) and 36.321 bags of Sea Island (1) on 251.292 acres, valued
at $2,284.322.
The production of Sea Island cotton was as highly specialized
in its hey-day as that of citrus
and vegetables today. It was
handled, so to speak. with "kid -
gloves" from planting until
baled. Its origin was a process
full of tradition handed down roaa
through families of the pioneers s^ ISLAon
responsible for the breeding of cortc -
seed-types and the leading vari- BELT
eties were closely guarded $.... 01. .... DA -.
against the possibility of cross
strains being introduced. In the
interior of Florida and Georgia
(I) S'r Ir l ilt tl (CIottln I IIs. ti l I trii bit ggi|sg Is III .1 Il il l wI K'iit l 1irt 1 it r |r\ ln it: ly -tI IiI.indI..
Inl ten'kil of (he rtimiltrlrt|n i 0-i i u0 til cottonl hille.

0 *


Ic I I l 1010 n're'.

SI lo lto tiwo l

l.v~i to I.
S.o000 to 10.000
- 10,1100 to 15,00

15.000 to 25.00

S15.0 to 5.r00

No acrt-.ru rw



0 Bt-rrA.

0 acrm.

. orlr,.



* ltratl
-.ut I

C( tral

I sl Inn
I 211:1. .1
I t.i.'


S 111ll.0


I Acrr
' l1.6to l
I (ll.I i



I 2.0.677

I Pet.
I Crup



r.', 7
T 8

(SNon.) (Nofner) INim.)

( I ) Not ulvillhlie.

S"-.. ,- ---;.
i- Ji:!ig

- .. ; \'-

.,. i ...... /;

/ -- +__ :A



i oiln arl In lH1910-1.9.15.
Color l'mA'llnl liiiillr" Iilith inill"g.
S., Ta*ble No. N. Ai.-ndi.I' "11."


the practice was to renew the seed at periods of from three to
four years as a guard against shortening of the staple by re-
Ipated plantings from locally produced seed. It was a character-
istic of Sea Island cotton to show a snortening of staple if plant-
ed more than three or 1'our years without seed change.
('otton planting in Florida received two body blows between
the (ensus years of 191(1 and 1920 that brought about a drop in
acreage, which in this agricultural sphere were as disastrous to
those engaged in cotton planting as that suffered by citrus grow-
ers at an earlier period. In 1915 the pink boll weevil infested the
cotton belt of the South. a calamity that was keenly felt almost
immediately by planters in Florida because the late maturity
of Sea Island cotton made it a special prey of the weevil and it
was but a short time until it was destroyed-in fact, this crop
was lost to the State entire-
ly. The other set-back to 1 -
o 0 1920l 1692 1930 I)5
cotton in general was thel
effects of the World War Wa 2" -
upIon export trade and alt a1
later date (1917) the par- \ COTTON
ticipation in the conflict by 2- 1ooo ACRS
the United States. The
weevil and the war comn-
bined to practically stop
cotton production.
As a result acreage plant- Ic _
ed in cotton in Florida drop-
ped from 263,4'541 acres in
1910 to 110.562 acres in I
1920 (58';). with produc-
tion reduced from 65.056
bales to 19,538 bales (69',; ). 0
This was followed by a fur-
ther decrease of 11'; in
acreage and 20'; in produc-
tion during the period from
1920 to 1925, marking a
low level for cotton n Flor- -
This recession in the
growing of cotton was borne -( -
by the counties located in -- -

the North and Northwest sections of the State where it was
the "money crop" of the farm and furnished work for thou-
sands of field hands throughout the year.
A partial revival of activity in cotton production was shown
by the Census of 1930, the acreage increasing 40/,. However, the
corresponding increase in number of bales was only 12';. which
was discouraging, as well as an indication that the boll weevil
was still prevalent to the extent that cotton growing was not
profitable until an effective method for combating weevil depre-
dations could be perfected, and the application of which could
he carried out economically.
The five-year period from 1930 to 1935 reflected a drop back
in cotton acreage of approximately 26'L with only 91,629 acres
in cultivation with a production of 28,332 bales, This recession
was about 72'" due to the diversion of land from cotton under
the Agricultural Adjustment Administration program, there be-
ing 22.784 acres diverted in 1933. with 43.280 acres taken out
of production in 1934. The remainder of the loss may be attrib-
uted to normal fluctuation in acreage and partly to discourage-
ment over the control results in the fight against the boll weevil.
Over the period covered by the Review (1910-1935) the net
reduction in cotton production was slightly more than 61'; in
acreage and 56.A. in the number of bales, with a reduction in
crop value between the Census year of 1910 and that of 1935 of
$3.126.645. While other crops have been found to partly fill the
gap caused by the loss in cotton, the loss of the Sea Island cotton
area as a permanent part of the State's agricultural background
lus never been replaced. (1).
Reflection of the Sea Island acreage loss is also shown in the
shift from North to Northwest Florida of the production between
the Census years of 1910 and 1935. In 1910 (when Sea Island
was grown) the North Area grew 67.79; of the total crop. With
the advent of the boll weevil cotton acreage dropped in North
Florida and in 1935 the Northwest Area grew 70%' of the crop.
and still remains the leading production section of the State.
The Central Area's greatest participation in cotton produc-
tion took place immediately after the World War, when reduced
acreage in the cotton belt and high prices seemed attractive.
Farmers in 12 of the 15 counties (in Central Florida area). ac-
cording to the 1920 Census year. produced 401 bales-this mark-
ed the high peak for production in the area. Vegetables and
citrus offered a more lucrative return. In 1910 Levy and Marion
1 I .-:- P .V,-r I I:

counties were the leading producers of cotton ll the Centirnl lsec-
tion. and in 1!9:5 Levy alone. South Florida has never been a
factor in cotton production. In 11211 .Mhanatee a;lld IeSoto counties
raised 24- bales, which was the only timn any of the South Florida
counties showed any production,


The production of tobacco in Florida goes back to early agricul-
tural development. tlhe cr)o;) -_-., .0 .,o-,
having been considered exten- -..- o ,. .I' I.
sive prior to 1860. lHowever. u '._-,o,,n
immediately following the '"" ;
general recession of' 1861-65 -- "'. -- /
-- Iwlfu PUtatOlt
tobacco was practically drop- -....... '
ped as a farm crop and little
attention was paid to its cul-
ture for i nIilumber of year.
At the 1910 Census period i
there were 3.987 acres of to- ,
bacco harvested. 96.2'. of ,,
the crop being raised in the ,. \ .
Northwest Ar'ea (pri'inplly _
Gadsden countyy with :1.700 \
acres). In the next ten years -
(1910-1920) the growing of -
dark cigar wrapper leaf under _._ __ I '
shade expanded into Madison ,I '
County and at the 1920 Census
acreage had increased to 4.- ; ,
291 acres, with 82.7'; in the --
Northwest Area; 11.5';,. in /
the North Area: and the re-
maining 5.8'; being in experi-
mental plantings distributed
in the Central and South
A areas.
It was not until the early -L-
part of the 1920-19:10 decade. -
in which the "bright-leaf'" ,
(cigarette) tobacco belt was -
shifted southward, that the
8 N0'E untl I'lltt5iM*e !ht ll Ib whosr ar*
ar'l.Il ur.d-r \~e t>l*,I ..

I to

1t to

100 t
fiU t


r ....** .


10 c ; .,
rt0 crl.. [,'

1O acres.

o t1,000 ners.
o l.00( iicrr.i. *.\ ses' s' / -
to 3.000 acres.
to S.AuM arrr*. I
Amounts no acreagr hItl.

Smrnll acre li lit various thlln,.
Colorr IAt'vrIIl initplle to Isth iniiti .
Fur other years see Table No. T.. i Ap|dlix "It.'



Arin Acrs I 'el. -Friis t_ *
1910 Tobacco I'rup Rept' /
State 3.97 I*)..0 14 /
Nurth-ast _1s ;. I(1
North ._-4 ..l 11
(Central 6: I.6 Ili
.ouih 3 1 0.l (1)
Arena Acre IPEtl'. Iiarimi
1933 Tobacco ('rop I Rpl'
Stiat 6.11t l Kp.U- 1.1:I
North 4.4o :3.4 I.1 :
NrnhIest 1.611 ;1.4- -*"
Central .2
South I __ Nml
(1) Not ivnilithle.

Tobacco production w. rconed to the dark crarper and
shade grown tyiTl until a ntmlaratively few )-ars ar
ten the iprsdurtion of bright-lef was successfully tried.
This accounts for the production center shiftinti from the
Northwert to North Aren. IlicIomnic in itervnlqi(t wIIn rapidly
until the AAA control iprogrnin took effect. Suwannee
County is the center of narkertink the Florida crop.

'I I



EC-_ I





I i


crop uis a part of the general farm progr'am1 began to awakenI
active interest on the part of Florida farm operators. Success-
ful test plantings. the less expensive cultural methods employed
(as compared to the growing of wrapper leaf) and the need for
replacement of lost cotton acreage furnished sufficient stimulus
for the launching of the new crop in a number of counties.
The Census period of 1925 found Florida producing three types
of tobacco-flue-cured (bright-leaf), cigar filler (dark sun-cured).
and the Sumatra wrapper leaf (dark air-cured grown under
shade). Flue-cured cigarette tobacco represents the new addition
to Florida agricultural pursuits, the filler and wrapper types
representing the older and highly specialized production.
Enumeration of tobacco at the 1925 Census year recorded a
State total of 5,336 acres with a yield of .4,495,405 pounds, valued
at $1.739.638. This crop was 43.1; flue-cured; 17.2% cigar
filler: and 39.7'; cigar wrapper types. The Northwest Area
cultivated 75'; of the acreage and the North Area 25'; .
Between the Census years of 1925 and 1930 tobacco acreage
showed annual fluctuations, the low being 6,000 acres in 192(
and the high 11.000 acres in 1928. The crop year of 1929 (1930
Census) reflected 10.302 acres and a production of 9.248.190
pounds, with an estimated value of $2,920.078. Crop division
(as to type) wias: 6(3.6(, flue-cured, 291; wrapper and 7.4 %, cigar
filler. Area distribution of
TOBACCO TYPES-PCT.OFCROP acreage showed that the
(Is TOUSAND ACRES) North Area harvested 6.329
MALL I-- acres (61.4; ) of the total
TOBACCO FLUE CIGAR CIGAR crop nd the Northwest
m CE Area 3.945 acres. (38.1"; )
Sz29 with a small amount in
CMQo the north end of the Cen-
YEAR trial Area (0.51; ).
SCRP 'The five years (1925-
a00 _1930) marked the transition
,0 1924 of the tobacco producing
400 CROP area from the Northwest
YEAR to the North Area, with
2=o ISuwannee County becom-
I ing the center of the bright-
leaf marketing belt.
o _The Census of 1935 re-

corded a 410.6'; reduction in tobacco from that of the 1930
enumeration. A slight downtrend in 1931 was followed by an
abnormal drop in the flue-cured type of tobacco in 1932. (the
total state acreage for all kinds being only .1,200 acres), to reflect
a recovery in the crop year of 1933 that continued through 1934
(1935 Census year) to bring the tobacco back to the 6.000 acre
level, the increase between 1933 and 1934 being 36.3 The 1935
Census division of the 6.114 acre crop showed an increase in
flue-cured leaf and cigar filler, with a slight decline in the shade
grown wrapper type. The production was 4.654,000 pounds and
the value estimated at $1.284.614-. In the crop year of 1933 the
"bright-leaf belt" took high place with 80.6,; of production, with
wrapper representing 17.8 and filler type 1.6';. The type divi-
sion of the 1934 (crop year) production was 71.2% flue-cured,
24..2': wrapper and 4.6'; cigar tiller.
The growing of bright-leaf cigarette tobacco continues to show
an increase in the number of acres cultivated and has consistently
represented approximately 601; of the State's tobacco produc-
tion over a period of 12 years. The shade and Illler tobacco belt
continues to center in Gadsden and Madison counties with but
little change in area cultivated.
Columbia County anticipates the establishment of an additional
tobacco mart in Lake City for handling the crop produced in the
eastern section of the bright-leaf belt.
The following table shows Florida tobacco production from
1924 through 1935. These figures represent the revised figures
upmn the crop as prepared and released by the Bureau of Agricul-
tural Economics, U. S. Department of Agriculture. These figures
show a slight difference in both acreage and production from
Census figures used in the Review discussion.

Florida Tobacco Production
I T ital Arren I Pet. I A re. I 'd. Acres I PIt. Arres
Year Acrems lr of Dark of Shade of Shift
lHarested (ared Tetal Filler Tetal Wrap'er Tetal AAA

1 *:6 . &.. ..lo -l.t 1.iO It.7 1.** 31. . ...
,1 27 ........... %.%. ( 6 ,4( 1 6 1.4 ,1.1 0 I 1| .? 2.i 1 261,1 I ......
1192i ........... I 1 11(1. 0 7, 1111 I (41.5 I 111)11 n S. I 1.1011 1 7.3 ...
1I 921,. ........ .. ...' 1l. l,97 1) 4.9 :i. i 1. :ll 7. .li .
I" 1 "4 0 -. 4 .. .
| ;' 0 G liO ,t I. 11(I I .
V-13 fi.. l.ll'< ......
I1 34 . ....... .. ..C...' ( I 4.7111 I 71.4 I lli(l 1 4.1 1 1 lll 1 i 2.1. I 1.77S
I :1i5 ........... I 1.H0O 1 7.1111 I 71.A I 7111 1 I 7 1 I i. 111 1 I 21.. I :1


Sugar cane growing is one of the oldest agricultural activities
associated with Florida. In the days when farms were self-
sufficing from necessity rather than choice, sugar cane-furnish-
ing the sugar supply as well as syrup for the family table-was
an essential item in the crop program. The "cane patch" oc-
cupied ample acreage on the small as well as large farm unit.
Today, while still of importance as a syrup producing crop in
the general farming sections of North and Northwest Florida,
sugar cane (after several efforts marked by failure) has become
of importance in South Florida for commercial sugar production.
The success of this new Florida industrial field has already foster-
ed substantial expansion in sugar cane acreage.
During the 35 years of agricultural development from 1900 to
1935 sugar cane as a farm crop reflected but one decline. In the
1910-1920 decade an increase of 51.8'; in acreage (7.485 acres)
took place, bringing the total plantings at the 1920 Census period
up to 20,113 acres, a high level for Florida at that time. The
sharp uptrend was marked by a 145.9'; increase in the South
area where plantings rose from 642 acres in 1910 to 1.579 acres
in 1920 (a forerunner of later activity). At the same time the
Central Area showed an increase in cane of 76.2; over 1910,
while the North and Northwest Area recorded respective in-
creases of 30.4'; and 6.1.8'; The crop produced 179.573 tons
of cane, with an estimated value of S4.134..158.
The underlying causes for the sudden increase in cane acreage
did not hold, with the result that the subsequent five years (1920-
25) witnessed a recession that brought the acreage down to the

1910 level-12.000 acres. This
decrease was reflected in the
several areas by some significant
variations. In the South Area
where interest in commercial
sugar productions was being de-
veloped an additional increase of
107.9; over the 1920 Census
year was recorded. The Central
Area in which an increase of
76.21; took place in the 1910-
1920 decade recorded (1925) a
decrease of 76.7%, the expansion

-. . -- -.

Cimt- \vt it uttiver-
trin rs,ji...t Ithi..
t n. th. hr.,. i"
ducutihn s~ u..ir u
K. ... w
trny i~iIhu itunapi.)1..

1910-1935 _**'" '
(T .*I 10 to 100 acres. *
100 to 500 acres. *
500 to 1.000 acres. .
[-I I' 1.000 to 1.500 acres.
1,500 to 2.000 acres.,
ot Soto
SCommercial I'lantings.
Sugar Cane has always held a place in the
Florida agricultural background. principally for
home use. In 1900 9.209 acres yielded 66.064 bar-
rels of syrup ($546,913) and 325.262 pounds of .lc. -- --
sugar ($14.067).
Color Legend applies to both maps. **




Area Acres Pet. I Farnnms .''
1910 S-Cane I Crop IRept'g
State I 12.928 I 100.0 (I)
North I 4.961 I 38. I (1)
Northwest I 1.812 :17.2 (1) 37.
Central 2.510 I 19.4 (11
'u 6h I 642 5.0 (I)
Area Acres Pet. Farms -
1935 S-Cane I Crop Rept'g **, .;
State I 32.436 I 100.0 16.32.S
South (2) 19.694 I 60.7 487 "
Northwest 7.792 24.0 8.821
North 3.782 I 11.7 5.503
Central 1.168 3.6 I 1.517
(1) Not available. /
(2) In 1936 the commercial sugar cane activity covered
19,000 acres (sugar and seed) which produced 671,000 tons o.o
of cane from which was manufactured 54,000 tons of sugar
and 4.082,000 gallons of molasses.
For other years, see Table No. 7, Appendix "B." Black
area on lower map indicates approximate location com-
mercial plantings. .
90 .- *"

being lost entirely. The North Area dropped back 56.5%/, (3,665
acres) and the Northwest Area 34'; (2.697 acres).
The total plantings of 12.349 acres for the State at the 1925
Census year marked the turning point in sugar cane production.
From 1925 through the 19:5 Census periods the South Area, due
to commercial plantings. was responsible for acreage in sugar
cane showing an increase between 1925 and 1930 of 8,894 acres
(72'; ). followed in the next five years (1930-35) by a continued
advance of 1,193 acres (5.6'; ).
The division of sugar cane acreage at the 1930 Census period in
relation to Agricultural Area was as follows: South Area, 11.016
acres (51.8; ): Northwest. 5.944 acres (281); North. 3.261
acres (15.-r; ). and Central. 1.022 acres (4.8;). At the 1935
Census period the total vwas distributed to the areas in following
proportion: South. 19.69.1 acres (60.7' ) ; Northwest. 7.792 acres
(21'; ) : North. 3.782 acres (11.7'; ). and Central. 1.168 (3.6f ).
In the five years (1930-35) the South Area gained 9'; of the
State total while the oth-
er areas (in relation to SUGAR CANE
the State as a whole) SU R NE
decreased as follows: AC R EAG E
Northwest. 1'; : North. 1910-1935
3.8':; and Central 1.2'; .
The addition of com- (IN THOUSANDS)
mercial plantings to the
Florida sugar cane acre- ) 1910
age has not detracted 193
from the individual farm 1935
operation for syrup pro- *I' DOMESTIC
duction. Between the SUGAR
Census years of 1925 and PROD
1935 (when sugar pro-
duction became a sepa- I"
rate consideration) the
Northwest Area increas-
ed its sugar cane plant-
ings 48.8/; ; in the North
Area in increase of
:34.9; was shown, and
the Central Area reflect- m
ed an increase of 13.6'; STATE SO N.W. NO. CEN.
This same period (1925-

I1935) showed that cane tonnage in the Northwest Area increased
21.197 tons (40..4' ): while in the North Area it dropped off
7.310 tons (26.1' decrease) and in the Central Area there was a
decrease of 4.066 tons (30.7'" ).
Over a period of 11 crop years (192.1-193.1 included), covering
the ('ensus years of 1925. 1930 and 1935. syrup productionn in
Florida fluctuated from 1.350.000 gallons (1921) to 2.145.000
gallons in 1934. with an average for the entire period of 1.670.000
gallons. (1)
The esti mated value of .the Suguir a(ne crop (farm production)
at the Census year of 1925 was $636.431: 1930. $655.551: 1935.
$7013.157 (includes Northwest. North and Central Areas). C(la.i-
fying the South Area as commercial plantings the 1925. 1930. and
1935 Census show the difference between the value of cane pro-
duced for syrup and estimated value of total crop to be: 1925,
$23:0.166: 1930. $706.5-5: 1935. $2.706.704. The percent of in-
crease in value (between the Census year of 1925 and that of
1935) of cane for syrup was 10.4'; while the advance in value
of icne for sugir production was 1,07,1.4 r/.
The success of the production of Sugar in Florida is largely
due to scientific research that has made possible the use of vast
acres of "glades" land that hitherto had been more or less con-
sidered useless. The extensive drainage program affecting the
Everglades territory also played a part in the launching of this
agricultural-industrial activity. A research laboratory is main-
tained by the sugar producing corporation which carries on con-
tinuous work to further cultural practices and new species of cane
(120.000 varieties having been experimentally planted) with a
view to a prolonged harvest season.
It is estimated that there are over 2,000.000 acres in the Flor-
ida Everglades suitable ito sugar ca(iei culture. The fact that the
Florida sugar quota is restricted by government regulations pre-
vents rapid expansion in this phase f the State's present agri-
cultural background.

Itl lHsvl Il lkruri. II. S. II. A. IlirIInu Air.riultl lril lr:c ini lron hi (I(l:in ).


The second major division in the agricultural background of
Florida is that of orchards, groves. vineyards, and planted nut
trees, representing 22.6 C (377.805 acres) of the State's 2.468.639
acres of improved land, or the acres available for crops. This
division of Florida agricultural activity produces 417/; of the
dollar value of all crops raised.
The general group is composed of three separate sub-groups-
citrus groves (oranges, tangerines and grapefruit), orchards.
vineyards and small fruits (including peaches, pears, plums,
grapes and strawberries), and planted nut trees (pecans and tung
nuts principally)-each having distinctive features as to general

-- ***

I'LANT. r NVT T. El S.l .

_______I_ m l'II i 511i a lrr,.

- is .r. r.iI l I, Il rlr aI r. l 7 -

I o I.
f<1r 1i 10 I,rr t- -

T--- I'. c g. a. J- h.. .cr-l.rtf m *r m *^!-"' *.- *t'

environment, cultural requirements, and seasonal production. In
round figures the three sub-groups (in order of importance) rep-
resent the following proportion of all lands planted to orchards.
vineyards, small fruit and nut trees: Citrus, 8!)'; planted nut
trees, 89'i and all other fruits, 3 including a scattered amount
of tropical plantings. As planting practices allow wide variance
as to the number of trees, vines and plants per acre in some of
these classes the acreage estimates do not always prove com-
parable with those of other compilations. Citrus (62 trees per
acre) occupies 336,706 acres; orchard fruits (peaches, plums.
pears). strawberries. grapes and nuts representing 41.099 acres.
In the agricultural areas this major division represents the
following percentage of farm activity: Central Area, 58; ; South
Area, 36.27 ; North Area, 6.1r;, ; Northwest Area, 2.47 -indi-
cating plantings practically the reverse of field crops. Citrus
plantings occupy (1935 Census period) 251.115 acres in the Cen-
tral Area: 73.698 acres in South Area; 9,013 acres in the North
Area and 2,850 acres in the Northwest. Grapes are concentrated
mostly in three centers divided between the Northwest. Central
and North Areas: the greater portion of the strawberry plantings
are in the Central Area. Planted nut trees are predominant in
the orchard activity of the North and Northwest Areas.
Activity in orchards, grove and nut plantings as applied to
individual farms (1935) reflected the following: In the Central
Area 16.593 farms (60.6' of all area farms) engage in this
type of farm pursuit. In the South Area there were 4,921 farms
(.3.5'; ) reporting orchard and grove plantings; in the North
Area 4,826 of the area farms (25.9V' ) include orchards in the
general program: and in the Northwest Area 3.224 farms (18.2';
of area total) have plantings under this classification.
This general group (orchards, groves and other fruits) em-
bracing, as it does, the vast citrus plantings of the State, has an
allied industrial and manufacturing background that makes it the
most important division in the Florida agricultural scheme from
the standpoint of labor employed, materials used. and in point
of individual community prosperity. Each of the sub-groups in
the general division are discussed in the subsequent pages of this
Review. While some of them are. more or less. localized in scope.
all of them contribute to the general welfare of Florida agricul-

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