• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Cover
 Board of control and station...
 Table of Contents
 Introduction
 The Jacksonville area
 Part-time farm operators
 The home and farm
 Fifty part-time farmers and their...
 Interrelationships between part-time...
 Summary and conclusions
 Statement of sponsor














Group Title: Bulletin / University of Florida. Agricultural Experiment Station ;
Title: Agricultural activities of industrial workers and retirees
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00026738/00001
 Material Information
Title: Agricultural activities of industrial workers and retirees a survey of small agricultural holdings in an industrial area of Florida
Series Title: Bulletin / University of Florida. Agricultural Experiment Station ;
Physical Description: 43 p. : ill., maps ; 23 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Alleger, Daniel E
Publisher: University of Florida Agricultural Experiment Station
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla
Publication Date: 1953
Copyright Date: 1953
 Subjects
Subject: Labor -- Recreation -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Older people -- Recreation -- Florida.   ( lcsh )
Part-time farming -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Genre: government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Statement of Responsibility: Daniel E. Alleger.
General Note: Cover title.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00026738
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: ltuf - AEN6706
oclc - 18272330
alephbibnum - 000926047

Table of Contents
    Cover
        Page 1
    Board of control and station staff
        Page 2
        Page 3
    Table of Contents
        Page 4
    Introduction
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
    The Jacksonville area
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
    Part-time farm operators
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
    The home and farm
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
    Fifty part-time farmers and their farms
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
        Page 34
        Page 35
        Page 36
        Page 37
    Interrelationships between part-time farming and industrial development
        Page 38
        Page 39
        Page 40
    Summary and conclusions
        Page 41
        Page 42
    Statement of sponsor
        Page 43
Full Text
DEC 4 1953

Bulletin 528 October 1953

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATIONS
WILLARD M. FIFIELD, Director
GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA




Agricultural Activities of

Industrial Workers and Retirees

A Survey of Small Agricultural Holdings in an
Industrial Area of Florida

DANIEL E. ALLEGER

Fig. 1.-The industrial worker seeks supplemental income or recreation
in gardening.











BOARD OF CONTROL EDITORIAL
J. Francis Cooper, M.S.A., Editor 3
Hollis Rinehart, Chairman, Miami Clyde Beale, A.B.J., Associate Editor3
J. Lee Ballard, St. Petersburg J. N. Joiner, B.S.A., Assistant Editor 3
Fred H. Kent, Jacksonville William G. Mitchell, A.B.J., Assistant Editor
Wm. H. Dial, Orlando Samuel L. Burgess, A.B.J., Assistant Editor i
Mrs. Alfred I. duPont, Jacksonville
George W. English, Jr., Ft. Lauderdale ENTOMOLOGY
W. Glenn Miller, Monticello
W. F. Powers, Secretary, Tallahassee A. N. Tissot, Ph.D., Entomologist 1
L. C. Kuitert, Ph.D., Associate
EXECUTIVE STAFF H. E. Bratley, M.S.A., Assistant
F. A. Robinson, M.S., Asst. Apiculturist
J. Hillis Miller, Ph.D., President R. E. Waites, Ph.D., Asst. Entomologist
J. Wayne Reitz, Ph.D., Provost for Agr.3
Willard M. Fifield, M.S., Director HOME ECONOMICS
J. R. Beckenbach, Ph.D., Asso. Director
L. 0. Gratz, Ph.D., Assistant Director Ouida D. Abbott, Ph.D., Home Econ.'
Rogers L. Bartley, B.S., Admin. Mgr.3 R. B. French, Ph.D., Biochemist
Geo. R. Freeman, B.S., Farm Superintendent HORTICULTURE

G. H. Blackmon, M.S.A., Horticulturist1
MAIN STATION, GAINESVILLE F. S. Jamison, Ph.D., Horticulturist 3
Albert P. Lorz, Ph.D., Horticulturist
R. K. Showalter, M.S., Asso. Hort.
AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS R. A. Dennison, Ph.D., Asso. Hort.
H. G. Hamilton, Ph.D., Agr. Economist 1 : R. H. Sharpe, M.S., Asso. Horticulturist
R. E. L. Greene, Ph.D., Agr. Economist V. F. Nettles, Ph.D., Asso. Horticulturist
M. A. Brooker, Ph.D., Agr. Economists F. S. Lagasse, Ph.D., Horticulturist
Zach Savage, M.S.A., Associate R. D. Dickey, M.S.A., Asso. Hort.
A. H. Spurlock, M.S.A., Agr. Economist L. H. Halsey, M.S.A., Asst. Hort.
D. E. Alleger, M.S., Associate C. B. Hall, Ph.D., Asst. Horticulturist
D. L. Brooke, M.S.A., Associate Austin Griffiths, Jr., B.S., Asst. Hort.
M. R. Godwin, Ph.D., Associate S. E. McFadden, Jr., Ph.D., Asst. Hort.
W. K. McPherson, M.S., Economist C. H. VanMiddelem, Ph.D., Asst. Biochemist
Eric Thor, M.S., Asso. Agr. Economist Buford D. Thompson. M.S.A., Asst. Hort.
Cecil N. Smith, M.A., Asso. Agr. Economist M. W. Hoover, M.S.A., Asst. Hort.
Levi A. Powell, Sr., M.S.A., AssistantIBRARY
Orlando, Florida (Cooperative USDA) LI A
G. Norman Rose, B.S., Asso. Agri. Economist Ida Keeling Cresap, Librarian
J. C. Townsend, Jr., B.S.A., Agricultural
Statistician PLANT PATHOLOGY
J. B. Owens, B.S.A., Agr. Statistician. Tdale Ph.D., Plant Pathologist
AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING Phares Decker, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist
Erdman West, M.S., Botanist & Mycologist
Frazier Rogers, M.S.A., Agr. Engineer 3 Robert W. Earhart, Ph.D., Plant Path.s
J. M. Myers, M.S.A., Asso. Agr. Engineer Howard N. Miller, Ph.D., Asso. Plant Path.
J. S. Norton, M.S., Asst. Agr. Engineer Lillian E. Arnold, M.S., Asso. Botanist
C. W. Anderson, Ph.D., Asst. Plant Path.
AGRONOMY
POULTRY HUSBANDRY
Fred H. Hull, Ph.D., Agronomist POULTRY HUSBANDRY
G. B. Killinger, Ph.D., Agronomist N. R. Mehrhof, M.Agr., Poultry Husb.13
H. C. Harris, Ph.D., Agronomist J. C. Driggers, Ph.D., Asso. Poultry Husb.3
R. W. Bledsoe, Ph.D., Agronomist
W. A. Carver, Ph.D., Agronomist SOILS
Fred A. Clark, M.S., Associate 2
E. S. Horner, Ph.D., Assistant F. B. Smith, Ph.D., Microbiologist3
A. T. Wallace, Ph.D., Assistant3 Gaylord M. Volk, Ph.D., Soils Chemist
D. E. McCloud, Ph.D., Assistant J. R. Neller, Ph.D., Soils Chemist
G. C. Nutter, Ph.D., Asst. Agronomist Nathan Gammon, Jr., Ph.D., Soils Chemist
Ralph G. Leighty, B.S., Asst. Soil Surveyor 2
ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND NUTRITION G. D. Thornton, Ph.D., Microbiologist a
C. F. Eno, Ph.D., Asst. Soils Microbiologist
T. J. Cunha, Ph.D., Animal Husbandman 1 H. W. Winsor, B.S.A., Assistant Chemist
G. K. Davis, Ph.D., Animal Nutritionist3 R. E. Caldwell, M.S.A., Asst. Chemist 3
It. L. Shirley, Ph.D., Biochemist V. W. Carlisle, B.S., Asst. Soil Surveyor
A. M. Pearson, Ph.D., Asso. An. Husb.3 J. H. Walker, M.S.A., Asst. Soil Surveyor
John P. Feaster, Ph.D., Asst. An. Nutri. William K. Robertson, Ph.D., Asst. Chemist
H. D. Wallace, Ph.D., Asst. An. Husb.3 0. E. Cruz, B.S.A., Asst. Soil Surveyor
M. Koger, Ph.D., An. Husbandman 3 W. G. Blue, Ph.D., Asst. Biochemist
J. F. Hentges, Jr., Ph.D., Asst. An. Hush. 3 J. G. A. Fiskel, Ph.D., Asst. Biochemist 3
L. R. Arrington, Ph.D., Asst. An. Husb. L. C. Hammond, Ph.D., Asst. Soil Physicist
H. L. Breland, Ph.D., Asst. Soils Chem.
DAIRY SCIENCE
E. L. Fouts, Ph.D., Dairy Technologist 1 VETERINARY SCIENCE
R. B. Becker, Ph.D., Dairy Husbandman 3 D. A. Sanders, D.V.M., Veterinarian 13
S. P. Marshall, Ph.D., Asso. Dairy Husb.3 M. W. Emmel, D.V.M., Veterinarian 3
W. A. Krienke, M.S., Asso. Dairy Tech.3 C. F. Simpson, D.V.M., Asso. Veterinarian
P. T. Dix Arnold, M.S.A., Asso. Dairy Hush. 3 L. E. Swanson, D.V.M., Parasitologist
Leon Mull, Ph.D., Asso. Dairy Tech.3 W. R. Dennis, D.V.M., Asst. Parasitologist
H. H. Wilkowske, Ph.D., Asst. Dairy Tech.3 E. W. Swarthout, D.V.M., Asso. Poultry
James M. Wing, Ph.D., Asst. Dairy Hush. Pathologist (Dade City)











BRANCH STATIONS F. T. Boyd, Ph.D., Asso. Agronomist
M. G. Hamilton, Ph.D., Asst. Horticulturist
NORTH FLORIDA STATION, QUINCY J. N. Simons, Ph.D., Asst. Viroloist
D. N. Beardsley, M.S., Asst. Animal Husb.
W. C. Rhoades, Jr., M.S., Entomologist in
Charge SUB-TROPICAL STATION, HOMESTEAD
R. R. Kincaid, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist
L. G. Thompson, Jr., Ph.D., Soils Chemist Geo. D. Ruehle, Ph.D., Vice-Dir. in Charge
W. H. Chapman, M.S., Agronomist D. 0. Wolfenbarger, Ph.D., Entomologist
Frank S. Baker, Jr., B.S., Asst. An. Hush. Francis B. Lincoln, Ph.D., Horticulturist
Frank E. Guthrie, Ph.D., Asst. Entomologist Robert A. Conover, Ph.D., Plant Path.
John L. Malcolm, Ph.D., Asso. Soils Chemist
Mobile Unit, Monticello R. W. Harkness, Ph.U., Asst. Chemist
R. W. Wallace, B.S., Associate Agronomist R. Bruce Ledin, Ph.D., Asst. Hort.
J. C. Noonan, M.S., Asst. Hort.
Mobile Unit, Marianna M. H. Gallatin, B.S., Soil Conservationist 2
R. W. Lipscomb, M.S., Associate Agronomist
WEST CENTRAL FLORIDA STATION,
Mobile Unit, Pensacola BROOKSVILLE
R. L. Smith, M.S., Associate Agronomist
Mobile Unt, C y Marian W. Hazen, M.S., Animal Husband-
Mobile Unit, Chipley man in Charge 2
J. B. White, B.S.A., Associate Agronomist
RANGE CATTLE STATION, ONA
CITRUS STATION, LAKE ALFRED W. G. Kirk, Ph.D., Vice-Director in Charge
A. F. Camp, Ph.D., Vice-Director in Charge E. M. Hodges, Ph.D., Agronomist
W. L. Thompson, B.S., Entomologist D. W. Jones, M.S., Asst. Soil Technologist
R. F. Suit, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist
E. P; Ducharme, Ph.I., Asso. Plant Path. CENTRAL FLORIDA STATION, SANFORD
C. R. Steamrns, Jr., B.S.A., Asso. Chemist
J. W. Sites, Ph.D., Horticulturist R. W. Ruprecht, Ph.D., Vice-Dir. in Charge
H. O. Sterling, B.S., Asst. Horticulturist J W. Wilson, ScD., Entomologist
H. J. Reitz, Ph.D., Horticulturist P. J. Westgate, Ph.D., Asso. Hort.
Francine Fisher, M.S., Asst. Plant Path. Ben F. Whitner, Jr., B.S.A., Asst. Hort.
I. W. Wander, Ph.D., Soils Chemist Geoe. Swank, Jr., Ph.D., Asst. Plant Path.
J. W. Kesterson, M.S., Asso. Chemist WEST FLORIDA STATION, JAY
R. Hendrickson, B.S., Asst. Chemist WEST FLORIDA STATION, JAY
Ivan Stewart, Ph.D., Asst. Biochemist C. E. Hutton, Ph.D., Vice-Director in Charge
I. S. Prosser, Jr., B.S., Asst. Engineer H. W. Lundy, B.S.A., Associate Agronomist
R. W. Olsen, B.S., Biochemist
F. W .Wenzel, Jr., Ph.D., Chemist SUWANNEE VALLEY STATION,
Alvin H. Rouse, M.S., Asso. Chemist
H. W. Ford, Ph.D., Asst. Horticulturist LIVE OAK
L. C. Knorr, Ph.D., Asso. Histologist4 G. E. Ritchey, M.S., Agronomist in Charge
R. M. Pratt, Ph.D., Asso. Ent.-Pathologist
W. A. Simanton, Ph.D., Entomologist GULF COAST STATION, BRADENTON
E. J. Deszyck, Ph.D., Asso. Horticulturist
C. IY. Leonard, Ph.D., Asso. Horticulturist E. L. Spencer, Ph.D., Soils Chemist in Charge
W. T. Long, M.S., Asst. Horticulturist E. G. Kelsheimer, Ph.D., Entomologist
M. H. Muma, Ph.D., Asso. Entomologist David G. A. Kelbert, Asso. Horticulturist
F. J. Reynolds, Ph.D., Asso. Hort. Robert O. Magie, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist
W. F. Spencer, Ph.D., Asst. Chem. J. M. Walter, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist
R. B. Johnson, Ph.D., Asst. Entomologist S. S. Woltz, Ph.D., Asst. Horticulturist
W. F. Newhall, Ph.D., Asst. Entomologist Donald S. Burgis, M.S.A., Asst. Hort.
W. F. Grierson-Jackson, Ph.D., Asst. Chem. C. M. Geraldson, Ph.D., Asst. Horticulturist
Roger Patrick, Ph.D., Bacteriologist
Marion F. Oberbacher, Ph.D., Asst. Plant
"Physiologist FIELD LABORATORIES
Evert J. Elvin, B.S., Asst. Horticulturist
R. C. J. Koo, Ph.D., Asst. Biochemist Watermelon, Grape, Pasture-Leesburg
J. R. Kuykendall, Ph.D., Asst. Horticulturist J. M. Crall, Ph.D., Associate Plant Path-
ologist Acting in Charge
EVERGLADES STATION, BELLE GLADE C. C. Helms, Jr., B.S., Asst. Agronomist
L. H. Stover, Assistant in Horticulture
W. T. Forsee, Jr., Ph.D., Chemist in Charge Ster ita
R. V. Allison, Ph.D., Fiber Technologist Strawberry-Plant City
Thomas Bregger, Ph.D., Physiologist A. N. Brooks, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist
J. W. Randolph, M.S., Agricultural Engr.
R. W. Kidder, M.S., Asso. Animal Hush. Vegetables-Hastings
C. C. Seale, Associate Agronomist A. H. Eddins, Ph.D., Plant Path. in Charge
N. C. Hayslip, B.S.A. Asso. Entomologist E. N. McCubbin, Ph.D., Horticulturist
E. A. Wolf, M.S., Asst. Horticulturist T. M. Dobrovsky, Ph.D., Asst. Entomologist
W: H. Thames, M.S., Asst. Entomologist
W. G. Genung, M.S., Asst. Entomologist Pecans-Monticello
Frank V. Stevenson, M.S., Asso. Plant Path. A. M. Phillips, B.S., Asso. Entomologist
Robert J. Allen, Ph.D., Asst. Agronomist John R. Large, M.S., Asso. Plant Path.
V. E. Green, Ph.D., Asst. Agronomist
J. F. Darby, Ph.D., Asst. Plant Path. Frost Forecasting-Lakeland
V. L. Guzman, Ph.D., Asst. Hort. Warren O. Johnson, B.S., Meteorologist in
J. C. Stephens, B.S., Drainage Engineer 2 Charge
A. E. Kretschmer, Jr., Ph.D., Asst. Soils
Chem. 1 Head of Department
Charles T. Ozaki, Ph.D., Asst. Chemist 2In cooperation with U. S.
Thomas L. Meade, Ph.D., Asst. An. Nutri. 3 Cooperative, other divisions, U. of F.
1. S. Harrison, M.S., Asst. Agri. Engr. On leave










CONTENTS
PAGE

INTRODUCTION ........ .... .. .. ... ...... 5
Objectives -- -------- -- ------------.............. .. -... .-........- ... 7
The Sam ple ..-...-------- ...... ---------.......-- --- -.....- -..... ........ 7
THE JACKSONVILLE AREA ................... ....- .....-.- ......-. .... 9
The Population ......... ..----------- ..-- ..- .. -------- ....-- ........ 9
Industrial Activity .....--...-----.. ..--- ..-- .....--- --....--......----..... 10
A agriculture ........-.......---..- ...... ... ........ ...... .. 11
PART-TIME FARM OPERATORS ............... ... ............--- ......................... 12
Occupational Status Classifications .....-...--....--... .....---.--.......... 12
Part-Tim e Farm ers ......................... ................... 13
Retirement Farmers .---..........--.......--. ------- ---.. -............ 14
Reasons for Establishing Rural Homes .-..-.... ...........---...........---.... 17
Tenure ................-----.---..----...- ...-------.. ..... ---.....-- 18
THE HOME AND FARM ........----------......... -- .-............. 19
Size of Rural Home Units ... .............. -.. .... .. ...... .......... 19
Size of Cultivations .... -. ....... ........------------ --..................... 20
Livestock Owned ........----........ --------... .- --- ....-- ........---.. 20
Machinery, Equipment and Supplies ..-.....--..---... ... --.-.......-...... -- 20
Types of Farming ........-------.........-- -........... --------22
Farm Contributions to Family Living ......---- ............------........ .... 23
Farm Contributions of Whites and Nonwhites Compared ..............-..... 25
Production Problems .......--------.... -------..-------......----........ 25
FIFTY PART-TIME FARMERS AND THEIR FARMS ...---.........---.........----- .......-. 26
Family Characteristics ..... .. ............. ... ... ....... .... ........ 27
Employment of Family Labor ....---....-..-....... ......--. -..- -- ...-- ...-- 27
Investments in Real Estate and Farming .........--- ...- ........---........... 29
Home Maintenance and Transportation Expenses ......................... 30
Econom ic Analyses ..................................... ................ ........ 32
Type of Farming Comparison -..-......--------...---.-.................-.. 37
Cash and Farm Income Summary ...........---- ....------ ...........---........... 37
INTERRELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN PART-TIME FARMING AND
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT --.........- ... ----------.---............. 38
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ........------...--- --. --....-- ...------ .......... 41
Summary ----.......---.-- ......- ---..----..--- -------------................. 41
Conclusions ----------- -------...- .......................------ ------ 42
STATEMENT OF SPONSOR .---------....----------...........- .....-. ....... -.....- 43


This publication is No. 10 in the series of the Southeast Re-
gional Land Tenure Committee.










Agricultural Activities of

Industrial Workers and Retirees

A Survey of Small Agricultural Holdings in an
Industrial Area of Florida

DANIEL E. ALLEGER 1

INTRODUCTION
This report deals with the agricultural enterprises of gain-
fully employed non-agricultural workers and retirees who did
some farming (Fig. 1),-however limited their undertakings-
in an industrial area of Florida in 1951. On the following pages
they are referred to as part-time and retirement farmers.
Their farms were maintained primarily as places to live or
means of supplemental income rather than for commercial farm-
ing as defined by the U. S. Census.2
Part-time and retirement farms vary in size; they are some-
times called "part-time farms," "subsistence homesteads,"
"rural homesteads," or "subsidiary farms," among other terms.
Very frequently part-time farming is described purely by quan-
titative criteria.3 But for the purposes of this study both part-
time and retirement farming were defined as ways of life in
which the participating families lived on small farms, but de-
rived their incomes from two or more sources, the less impor-
tant of which was from the land they occupied.
This definition permitted the inclusion of all types of agri-
cultural enterprises of non-farmers, regardless of the size of
their farm operations. In Florida, Agricultural Extension work-
ers, individuals active in gerontological (old age) research, state
1 Acknowledgments.-The author takes this opportunity to thank the part-
time and retirement farmers in Duval County, Florida, for their coopera-
tion; also the Jacksonville Chamber of Commerce for data on Duval County;
Dr. H. G. Hamilton, his Department Head, his colleagues and members of
the Southeast Regional Land Tenure Committee, and others, who aided in
many ways.
SIn the 1950 U. S. Census, commercial farms were in general classified
as "all farms with a value of sales of farm products amounting to $1,200
or more." Non-commercial farms were "other farms," in which part-time
farms were included.
SAccording to the U. S. Census, "Farms with a value of sales of farm
products of $250 to $1,199 were classified as part-time provided the farm
operator reported (1) 100 or more days of work off the farm in 1949, or
(2) the non-farm income received by him and members of his family was
greater than the value of farm products sold."








6 Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations

welfare officials and others are interested in the types and
scale of agricultural enterprises on agricultural holdings be-
low the commercial farm level. For this reason definitions of
part-time and retirement farming based upon farm income or
days worked off the farm were considered too limiting. The
very large numbers of non-commercial farms in the state give
implications of their importance to the economy of the state.


221
"2 837K i I jt1,473



74> ^ NI I ft'i "9
60 669 9290!
101 8_ 2 4213

Sr22 ,--!u 1,032 i a





289-i 1,648 ._ 1 \


"2. 348 454 53_ ,



.-.--- .... .... \ "

.--' -42
1 109 454


S. i -- l i 359 3 i 500



Fi. 2.-Number of non-commercial farms by counties--- Florida 1950.
11 7m 8ri








Activities of Industrial Workers and Retirees 7

Many factors contribute to interest in retirement farming in
Florida, one of which is based upon political economy. For
several years the Retirement Research Division of the Florida
State Improvement Commission gathered and disseminated in-
formation about retired people. In 1950 Governor Fuller War-
ren through proclamation created the Citizens Committee on
Retirement in Florida, whose members served without compen-
sation. The Committee reported in 1952, "If we are to know
under what conditions a retired person may expect to be happy
and an asset to Florida, we must have reliable information
about all the factors that have a bearing upon retirement."
In 1950, according to the Census, nearly 27,000 farms in the
state, or 47 percent, were part-time or residential farms, that
is, farms which were not operated mainly as commercial units
(Fig. 2). Total investments in the state's non-commercial
farms reach into millions of dollars, according to U. S. Census
reports. However, it is doubtful if their operation offers serious
agricultural competition to commercial farmers because part-
time farm earnings are usually low, and often only in products
rather than in cash, according to previous part-time farming
research in other states.

OBJECTIVES
Objectives of the study were to determine (1) whether part-
time farming provides an effective utilization of labor, (2)
what economic benefits participating families derive from part-
time farming, and (3) what the interelationship is between
part-time farming and industrial development. As a conse-
quence of the widespread interest in Florida in the welfare of
older people, the study was broadened to determine the ex-
tent to which limited farming activities contributed to the
support of retired or disabled persons. This group is broadly
defined as retirement farmers.

THE SAMPLE
The area of study was Duval County, Florida, of which Jack-
sonville, a city of over 200,000 inhabitants and the industrial
gateway to Florida, is the county seat. The agricultural areas
were divided, using maps showing the cultural cartography of
the county, into square-mile segments or blocks which were
subsequently numbered in a serpentine manner, totaling 239
in all. About one-third of these, or 80, were chosen from a








8 Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations

systematic sample with a random starting point to represent
Duval County (Fig. 3). The terms Duval County and Jack-
sonville area, as used in this report, are synonymous.
























OITY OF JACKSONVILLE
Fig. 3.-Location of square-mile areas included in this study,
Duval County, Florida.

The study was conducted in two phases. First, a short
schedule was taken from all families engaged in agriculture,
other than full-scale farmers. This schedule was used to es-
tablish classifications for part-time and retirement farmers
and to determine the types of farming followed. A total of
307 individuals were interviewed, of whom only 82 cultivated
an acre or more of garden or field crops in 1951. In addition
to other data, farm records relating to cost and returns and
other pertinent data were obtained from 50 of these 82 persons
at the close of the year. The limitation of acreage was used
in this instance in order to eliminate small home-garden enter-
prises. In addition the 50 part-time farmers selected were
employed by others for salary or wages and produced their
farm products largely with unpaid family labor.








Activities of Industrial Workers and Retirees 9

Of the eligibles in the sample areas fitting the definition
followed, it is estimated about 10 percent were not interviewed
for one or a number of reasons. Since 80 of the 239 segments
in the sample were included in the survey, the part-time farm-
ers interviewed theoretically represented one-third of the total.
Thus, possibly about 1,000 families were engaged in non-com-
mercial farming in 1951 in those sections of the county classi-
fied as agricultural.
In the 80 square miles surveyed, approximately 6,200 dwelling
houses were occupied at the time of the survey but many others
were being constructed, some of which were in large housing
developments. The 307 families included in the study were
therefore about 5 percent of the total number of families re-
siding in the sample area for the dates of the survey.

THE JACKSONVILLE AREA
Jacksonville is situated in the extreme northeastern part of
the state on the St. Johns River (Fig. 2). The growth of in-
dustry around Jacksonville has resulted in competition for land
previously devoted to agriculture for use as factory locations,
housing developments or small home sites. Modern transpor-
tation has made it possible for industrial workers to live in the
country. Home gardening, part-time and retirement farming
flourish with the greatest intensity in rural urban fringes where
rural and urban land use merges. Many city services also have
been extended to the fringe areas.

THE POPULATION
The 1950 Duval County population consisted of approximately
304,000 inhabitants, according to the U. S. Census, of whom
100,000 lived outside the city of Jacksonville in towns, villages,
crossroads settlements and the open country.
In 1950 over 67 percent of the Duval County population was
from 15 to 64 years of age, which is the age group comprising
the bulk of the country's labor force. The urban ratio was
higher than the rural, or 69 to 63 percent (Table 1). The county
ratio was about 2 percent larger than either the state or the
nation generally. The number of people of retirement age-65
years of age or over-was proportionately less than for the
state as a whole, or for the United States. It was lower outside
Jacksonville than in the city, or 4.5 as compared to 6.6 percent.









10 Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations

TABLE 1.-AGE COMPOSITION OF THE DUVAL COUNTY, FLORIDA, POPULATION
COMPARED TO THE STATE AND THE UNITED STATES, 1950.

Duval County I
SOutside Florida United
Age Total Jackson- Jackson- States
ville ville

Distribution by Percent

Under 5 years ........ 11.6 10.4 13.9 10.5 10.8
5 to 14 years ...... 15.4 14.0 18.5 15.7 16.3
15 to 24 years ........ 14.4 14.5 14.4 14.3 14.6
25 to 44 years ...... 34.2 34.3 33.8 30.8 29.9
45 to 64 years ........ 18.5 20.2 14.9 20.2 20.2
65 years and over 5.9 6.6 4.5 8.5 8.2


Total --... ....------ -0.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Source: 1950 U. S. Census, Preliminary.

INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITY
Jacksonville claims for its trading area all of Florida and 73
counties in southern Georgia. In this area an agricultural econ-
omy generally prevails, and from this area Jacksonville recruits
much of its needed labor. Between August 1950 and August
1951 the labor force in the Jacksonville area rose by 7,300
as a result of in-migration, according to Chamber of Commerce
estimates.

TABLE 2.-ESTIMATES OF EMPLOYMENT IN NON-AGRICULTURAL
ESTABLISHMENTS, FOR SELECTED MONTHS, DUVAL COUNTY, FLORIDA, 1951.

Major Industry Group Month
January IDecember

Total .................-.........- .....---...... ... --------. .. 101,950 106,850
Retail trade .............-- ....-- .- ............. .... .... ..... 19,700 21,750
Manufacturing .....-....-..--.....----- ------ ..... -. -.... 16,300 17,400
Transportation, communications and utilities ....... 15,300 15,450
Government .--..--.. ........------ .... ----------------..... 13,350 14,600
Service ....- ---.....-.....-.. ....--- ...--- ... ..... -.... .. 11,050 11,150
W wholesale trade .................---------.. -.. .... ..- .. 10,750 10,500
Construction ............................................ .....- ..- .. .. 9,100 9,650
Finance, insurance and real estate .....................--... 5,950 5,800
Other manufacturing --..-...... ----.........-.... ...... ...-. 450 550

Manufacturing industries are classified in accordance with Standard Industrial Classifi-
cation Manual of the Bureau of the Budget. Non-manufacturing industries are classified in
accordance with the Social Security Board Industrial Classification Code, except that all govern-
ment employment is classified under Government regardless of the type of activity.
Source: Bimonthly Review of the Jacksonville Labor Market, Feb. 1952,
pp. 7-8. Florida Industrial Commission.








Activities of Industrial Workers and Retirees 11

On the average, over 100,000 non-agricultural workers were
employed in Duval County in 1951 (Table 2). According to
available statistics, 96 percent of the employed workers were
native-born Americans, 69 percent of whom were white and 31
percent nonwhite.
AGRICULTURE
Types of agriculture in Duval County are such that peak
seasonal labor requirements are unnecessary (Table 3). The
number of family and hired agricultural workers in the Jack-
sonville area is restricted to 1,500 at all times, as estimated
by the Florida Industrial Commission. Thus there are approxi-
mately 70 non-agricultural workers (Table 2) for every agricul-
tural worker in the area.

TABLE 3.-PERCENTAGE OF FARM INCOME BY SOURCE, DUVAL COUNTY,
FLORIDA, 1949.

Item Value

All farm products sold -....-.- ............... ..-- ..... ... ...- $6,212,949
Percent
Source: ----.......... ......... --- -----------................ Total 100.0
Dairy products sold ....---------- ...... ---- ----........------- 59.9
Poultry and poultry products sold ..--.......................... ..... .. 18.3
Horticultural specialties sold ..............................-.............. 8.8
Livestock and livestock products, other than dairy
and poultry sold ...............---- -----............. ......... 8.5
Vegetables sold--------- .....------------------ ---.............-- 2.3
Forest products sold ...... ..................... .....-------- ..-- ....----- .. 1.5
Field crops, other than vegetables and fruits
and nuts sold .-.................. ......... ... ...-....--. ..... ... ...... 0.4
Fruits and nuts sold ............................... ....-- ....- ....-- .3

Source: 1950 U. S. Census.

Use of land in residential areas for part-time farming or
other agricultural purposes was restricted by zoning regulations.
Zoning of Duval County is mandatory by an act of the Florida
Legislature (Fla. Laws, 1943, c. 22101). The county engineer
is designated as zoning director to enforce provisions of the law.
The general purpose of the act is to promote the health, safety,
convenience and the general welfare of the public.
In residential zone "A," on subdivided lots having an area
of 20,000 square feet or more, commercial horticulture, fruit
groves and truck gardening are allowed. Also allowed is the
keeping of one cow, one or two horses, or poultry flocks of under
200 mature birds for domestic use if they are kept 100 feet or








12 Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations

more from the nearest neighborhood residence. On subdivided
lots of one acre or more, the following uses are permitted 200
feet or more from the nearest neighborhood residence: the
commercial breeding and raising of poultry, bees, two cows
for domestic use only, goats for domestic use only, and two
hogs for domestic use only.
In non-residential areas no restrictions apply to agriculture
except for those which may be ruled as offensive or obnoxious.

PART-TIME FARM OPERATORS
During the past century new land suitable for agricultural
development became progressively scarce but the economic effi-
ciency of agriculture consistently improved. Over the years
proportionately fewer and fewer farmers have been needed,
although the number of farmers has risen, according to the
U. S. Census. Consequently, today the majority of Florida's
oncoming rural youth must look beyond agriculture for em-
ployment. Likewise the individually-operated industrial or
manufacturing business has been largely supplanted by the cor-
porate enterprise. Corporations have long drawn much of their
labor force from surplus farm populations and still continue to
do so, but many of these labor recruits have continued to live
in rural areas or have subsequently returned to them. These
circumstances-together with the automobile, good roads, ex-
tension of city facilities and services, and the 40-hour work
week-have helped to foster part-time farming such as was
found around Jacksonville.

OCCUPATIONAL STATUS CLASSIFICATIONS
The 307 part-time and retirement farmers interviewed were
classified into three categories according to their sources of
non-farm income, (1) gainfully employed, (2) self-employed,
and (3) retired or disabled. The first two categories are hence-
forth referred to as part-time farmers, and the third classifica-
tion as retirement farmers (Table 4).
The gainfully employed were those who worked for others for
salaries or wages; the self-employed operated individual busi-
nesses or did custom or contract work for a living; and the
retirement farmers received some form of retirement benefits
or disability allowances or lived on their accumulated resources.








Activities of Industrial Workers and Retirees 13

TABLE 4.-DISTRIBUTION OF PART-TIME AND RETIREMENT FARMERS BY
OCCUPATIONAL STATUS AND BY RACE, DUVAL COUNTY, FLORIDA, 1951.

Employment Status Total Race
I White Nonwhite
AIl Classes ........................... ...... 307 245 62
Gainfully employed ............................ 203 158 45
Self-em played ............... ....................... 26 23 3
Retirement farmers ............................ 78 64 14


Of the family heads included in the study, 97 percent were
males, and 3 percent females. Approximately 66 percent of all
the family heads were gainfully employed, 9 percent self-em-
ployed, and 25 percent retired, or disabled (Table 5).

TABLE 5.-EMPLOYMENT STATUS OF PART-TIME AND RETIREMENT FARMERS,
DUVAL COUNTY, FLORIDA, 1951.

Employment Status Percent

All Groups ... --.. --....... .....-- ..---- 100.0

Gainfully employed: .... ..--- ....-----
Non-governmental ..........-----. 54.4
Federal .................................. 8.5
State -..---- .-.-.------ ----------.-- ------
State .............. ........................
County .......................................... 0.6
M unicipal-- .......- ....-.... .... ......... 2.6
Self-em played .................................. 8.5
Retirement farmers ..--.....-- ....-- ..- 25.4

N um ber .....................---- ... ......... 307


PART-TIME FARMERS
Research in part-time farming in the area centered upon the
stability of gainful employment and of associated agriculture,
and the economic importance of the combination to the welfare
of the respective families.
The Gainfully Employed.-The largest proportion of the
family heads were employed in transportation, communications
and other public utilities. Employment in public administra-
tion, manufacturing, construction and wholsesale-retail trade
followed in the order named. Nearly half of the part-time farm









14 Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations

operators who were gainfully employed were craftsmen, fore-
men, and kindred workers (Table 6).

TABLE 6.-PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF 203 GAINFULLY EMPLOYED PART-
TIME FARMERS BY MAJOR OCCUPATION GROUP, DUVAL COUNTY, FLORIDA,
1951.*

Major Occupation Group Percent

A ll ... .............. ..-....... -------... -...--.- --. ..-.. 100.0

Craftsmen, foremen, and kindred workers ....---..-.------ ... --- 45.3
Operatives and kindred workers .-..............-------------.. ---...... 14.8
Laborers, except farm and mine ..---.... -- ..--- ..--- ..--- --.....---....- 13.3
Service workers, except private household --............-............. 9.4
Clerical and kindred workers ...........-...-- .....--------............. 3.9
Farm laborers and foremen .....--.......-...-.......-- ..--- ..-- ...- ..-- .. 3.0
Professional, technical, and kindred workers --..................... 2.4
Sales workers .. -........................... .. ----. --.. .....-.--.--.. --..--- ..- 2.0
Private household workers .....................-...-..-.......... .. ... .. ---1.5
Managers, officials, and proprietors, except farm ..----.....--........ 1.0
Farmers, and farm managers ..............................--. .......... --
Unclassified or unreported ..-..................... .. ...... --.. -- ........-- .. 3.4

For major occupational groupings see Alphabetical Index of Occupations and Industries,
Bureau of the Census, USDC, 1950, pp. XV-XXIV.

The Self-Employed.-Independent craftsmen and peddlers
accounted for 60 percent of the self-employed. They were
plumbers, carpenters, sheet metal workers, painters, etc. Vir-
tually all the peddlers were hucksters who produced some of the
vegetables they sold. Twenty percent of the self-employed or
own-account workers operated one-man businesses; 8 percent
used owner-operated trucks for heavy duty hauling, and the
remainder were small-scale building contractors.

RETIREMENT FARMERS
The Agricultural Experiment Station was requested to deter-
mine if retirement farming would be of practical value to re-
tirees, since both the Institute of Gerontology of the University
of Florida and the Citizens Committee on Retirement were con-
cerned with the inadequacy of retirement incomes. Therefore,
the Duval County study was broadened to obtain limited data
on the agricultural activities of retirees, together with a few
other facts about the retirees themselves.4

S During 1952 about 170 interview schedules were completed relating to
retirement farming in Hillsborough, Marion and Putnam counties. These
data have not yet been analyzed and will be released at a later date.








Activities of Industrial Workers and Retirees 15

Sources of Retirement Income.-Classification of the sources
of retirement income was based only upon the principal source
of income (Table 7). Thus Social Security recipients whose
incomes were supplemented by state old-age welfare payments
were not shown under welfare. About 30 percent of the retirees
interviewed received state welfare payments only, and 22 per-
cent Social Security payments alone, or social security and
welfare benefits combined. Welfare payments were made solely
upon the basis of established need and consisted principally of
aid to the aged and the blind. Altogether approximately 42
percent of the retirees reported either partial or total dis-
abilities.
Regardless of their sources of retirement incomes, only 22
percent of the retirees stated that their incomes were sufficient
to meet normal needs; 36 percent reported incomes were inade-
quate; and 10 percent indicated they "could barely get by."
The remainder either lived from their accumulated resources
or were noncommittal as to their financial circumstances. While
these income data are merely exploratory in character, it
appears that most retirees must farm or do something else for
their own personal security and sense of adequacy.
Residence and Mobility of Retirement Farmers.-Population
gains among those 65 years of age or older were about five
times as high in Florida as in the United States between 1900
and 1950, a point which is much stressed by gerontologists.
But the Florida rate of growth for the age groups 5 to 14 and
15 to 44 were also nearly five times the U. S. average. The
average gain in population for Florida during this 50 years
was 424 percent, and for the United States 98 percent. Be-
cause of immigration into Florida at the younger ages, an im-
balance in the age structure of the state due to retirement is
not at present observable (Table 1). This study indicated that,
among the retirement farmers in Duval County, both inter- and
intra-state migration had taken place prior to retirement, be-
cause over 88 percent of the retirees interviewed were county
residents when they retired (Table 8).
Two-thirds, or 64 percent, of the retirement farmers had not
changed their residences after retirement (Table 9), and 17
percent had changed homes only within the county itself. More-
over, most of the retirees who engaged in agriculture lived
within five miles of the Jacksonville city limits.









16 Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations

TABLE 7.-SOURCE OF INCOME CLASSIFICATIONS OF 78 RETIREMENT FARMERS,
DUVAL COUNTY, FLORIDA, 1951.
Proportional
Classification Distribution
S (Percent)
State Welfare:
Old age .................. ....-- .---- 15.4
Other welfare ..................................... 14.1
Social security ...........-..... ---........-....... .- ..--21.8
Personal resources:
Non-agricultural ................................. 5.1
Agricultural ....................----- .............. 3.8
Federal:
Armed services .................................. 6.4
Civil service .............................--...-..- ... 1.3
Railroad retirement ............-........-.. ......... 7.7
M municipal ..................................... ....-- ---. 6.4
County ...............--- ..... ... .............-- ...... 1.3
State ...................-..... .........................- -.. -
Unclassified or not ascertained .... ... 1 16.7

Total ....................... ................. .... 100.0


TABLE 8.-RESIDENCE OF 78 RETIREMENT FARMERS AT BEGINNING OF
RETIREMENT OR INITIAL DISABILITY, DUVAL COUNTY, FLORIDA, 1951.

Residence Distribution
(Percent)

Duval county .--.......................... 80.7

Other Florida county ................ 7.7

Outside Florida ......................... 10.3

N ot reported .....................-......... 1.3

T otal ............................. ........ 1.. 100.0


TABLE 9.-POST-RETIREMENT CHANGES IN THE RESIDENCE OF 78
RETIREMENT FARMERS, DUVAL COUNTY, FLORIDA, 1951.

Residence Changes Distribution
(Percent)

N one ........................ ..... ---........ .....64.0
Intra-county ............- ..............--- ......... --16.6
Intra-state:
Directly to farm --.....--...- ..... --3.9
Indirectly to farm ..................-....-... .. 3.9
Inter-state:
Directly to farm ........------...-... --- 3.9
Indirectly to farm ... .......................... 6.4
N ot reported .............................. ........ 1.3

Total ........ .......... ....-. 100.0








Activities of Industrial Workers and Retirees 17

REASONS FOR ESTABLISHING RURAL HOMES

The economic or dollar-value aspects of part-time or retire-
ment farming require critical analyses to determine whether
or not either is economically feasible, but more than dollar
and cents values are involved. Respondents generally found
it difficult to differentiate between their reasons for farming
and their reasons for establishing rural homes. Actually social
advantages, such as "prefer rural living," were more often ad-
vanced as reasons for rural living and farming than mere eco-
nomic justification (Table 10).

TABLE 10.-PRINCIPAL REASONS GIVEN BY RESPONDENTS FOR PART-TIME
OR RETIREMENT FARMING, DUVAL COUNTY, FLORIDA, 1951.

Proportional Distribution

All Employed Retirement
Reasons for Farming Groups Gainfully | Self Farmers

Percent
Prefer rural living .......... 50.5 57.1 34.6 38.4
Always lived in rural area 11.4 9.9 11.5 15.4
To reduce cost of living .... 8.8 7.4 11.5 11.6
Unable to rent in city ........ 4.9 5.9 3.8 2.5
Home for retirement ........ 4.2 1.0 3.8 12.8
To acquire property .......... 3.9 2.5 11.5 5.1
Chronic illness:
Family head ........----......... 3.3 0.5 3.8 10.3
Other family member .. 0.3 0.5 -1.3
Place to rear children ........ 2.6 3.4 3.8 -
To become farmer ........... 1.6 2.0 3.8 -
Advanced age .........--- ---.. 0.3 1.3
All other ..................-......... 8.2 9.8 11.9 1.3



II
Total ....--------------..-----....----------- 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Number .------.....-..............-------------..... 307 203 26 78



As important as dollar income is, the value of part-time
farming for recreative purposes cannot be minimized. A num-
ber of the operators interviewed stated they farmed to abate
the monotony of their daily employment, or, as in the case of
retirees, to occupy their minds and bodies. Others stressed
that the creative aspects of farming were highly important,
because of the complementary mental satisfactions realized.









18 Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations

TENURE

In Florida the constitutional right of homestead exemption
(Fla. Const., Art. X) encourages home ownership, and nearly
90 percent of all part-time and retirement farmers combined
were home owners (Table 11). Ownership was highest, how-
ever, for the self-employed and lowest for the retirement farm-
ers. Only 4 percent of the self-employed were non-owners,
as compared to 8 percent for the gainfully employed and 17
percent for the retirement farmers.

TABLE 11.-TENURE STATUS OF PART-TIME AND RETIREMENT FARMERS,
DUVAL COUNTY, FLORIDA, 1951.

Distribution

Tenure All Employed Retirement
Groups Gainfully I Self Farmers
Percent

Owner .......................... 89.9 91.6 96.2 83.3
Renter .--------............. 3.3 3.5 3.8 2.6
Other .......................... 6.8 4.9 14.1

Total ............................ 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Number .................. 307 203 26 78
No charge for occupancy and use.

In respect to migration, the part-time farmers were relatively
stable, as only 7 percent had moved to the farms they occupied
within the 12 months preceding dates of interview (Table 12).

TABLE 12.-PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF PART-TIME AND RETIREMENT
FARMERS BY YEARS IN PRESENT RESIDENCE, DUVAL COUNTY, FLORIDA, 1951.

All Employed Retirement
Years in Present Groups Gainfully I Self Farmers
Residence
Percent

Under 1 year .........-.. 7.2 6.9 11.5 6.4
1.0- 4.9 years ....... 35.8 39.9 30.8 26.9
5.0- 8.9 years ........ 25.1 26.1 19.2 24.4
9.0 -12.9 years ..... 10.8 9.4 15.4 12.8
13.0 -16.9 years ....--. 5.5 4.4 11.5 6.4
17.0-20.9 years ...... 3.9 2.0 3.9 9.0
21.0 years or more .... 11.7 11.3 7.7 14.1

Total ..........--- ......-.... 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Number ......... .. 307 203 26 78








Activities of Industrial Workers and Retirees 19

Approximately 29 percent of the retirement farmers and 23
percent of the self-employed had remained on the same farms
13 years or more, as compared to 18 percent of the gainfully
employed.
THE HOME AND FARM

The part-time or retirement farm is both a home and a source
of income. Most operators, or one or more other members of
their families, had the double objective of (1) utilizing a portion
of their time in gardening or farming, for either gainful or
recreative purposes, and (2) supplementing incomes from farm
products grown on the farm. It often appeared that personal
desires outweighed dollar advantages, yet the economic re-
sources the operator possessed and the ways he employed them
largely determined his income returns. In view of this latter
circumstance, it was considered essential to ascertain what
resources part-time and retirement farmers controlled to secure
the advantages they encountered by living on part-time and
retirement farms.

SIZE OF RURAL HOME UNITS
Nearly 70 percent of all the part-time and retirement farms
in the sample were under six acres (Table 13). They varied in
size from less than one-half acre to 125 acres, and averaged
about eight acres. The average size was virtually identical for
each of the three occupational-status classifications.

TABLE 13.-PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF SIZE OF HOLDINGS FOR 229
PART-TIME AND 78 RETIREMENT FARMS, DUVAL COUNTY, FLORIDA, 1951.

All Employed Retirement
Size of Holdings Groups Gainfully I Self Farmers
Percent
Under 2.0 acres .......... 31.7 30.5 19.3 38.5
2.0- 3.9 acres ......... 21.2 23.2 19.3 16.7
4.0- 5.9 acres ......... 16.9 16.7 1 26.9 14.1
6.0- 7.9 acres ........ 3.6 3.9 3.8
8.0- 9.9 acres .......... 5.5 5.4 I 3.8 6.4
10.0 -11.9 acres .......... 8.1 9.9 7.7 3.8
12.0-13.9 acres .......... 1.0 1.0 3.8 -
14.0 15.9 acres .......... 2.6 1.5 3.8 5.1
16.0 acres or over .... 9.4 7.9 15.4 11.6

Total ..... .......... ....... 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Number .................-..- 307 203 26 78








20 Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations

SIZE OF CULTIVATIONS

The majority of the operators limited their farming opera-
tions to under one acre (Table 14), but one of them cultivated
40 acres. The sizes of cultivations were often governed by
either limitations of time on the part of part-time farm opera-
tors or physical impairments of retirees. About 20 percent of
the retirement farmers and the gainfully employed cultivated
less than one-fourth acre of crops, as against 8 percent for the
self-employed.

TABLE 14.-PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF SIZE OF CULTIVATIONS ON
PART-TIME AND RETIREMENT FARMS, DUVAL COUNTY, FLORIDA, 1951.

Size of All Employed Retirement
Cultivations Groups Gainfully Self Farmers
(Acres) Percent

0.25 or less .................. 18.9 19.7 7.7 20.5
0.26 0.50 .................... 29.3 28.5 26.9 32.1
0.51- 0.75 ..............-..... 7.5 9.9 3.8
0.76 1.00 .................. 19.9 19.7 34.6 15.4
1.01 -2.50 ................... 16.6 16.7 15.4 16.7
2.51 5.00 .-......-........... 4.2 3.0 7.7 6.4
5.01 or more ................ 3.6 2.5 7.7 5.1

Total --...............- ...... 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Number ..........-... ... 307 203 26 78



LIVESTOCK OWNED

Poultry was the most frequently reported food livestock.
About 20 percent of the farmers kept milk cows for home use
and approximately 30 percent kept swine (Table 15).

MACHINERY, EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES

About 18 percent of the farmers owned tractors, usually the
small garden type, and about a like percentage kept horses or
mules (Table 16). The self-employed relied less on hand labor
than did the others, although hand labor was the principal
source of work power employed. Most operators who did not
keep tractors or work animals borrowed equipment to break
their land or hired it done on an hourly or custom-rate basis.








Activities of Industrial Workers and Retirees 21

TABLE 15.-PERCENTAGE OF PART-TIME AND RETIREMENT FARMERS
POSSESSING VARIOUS KINDS OF LIVESTOCK, EXCLUSIVE OF WORKSTOCK,
DUVAL COUNTY, FLORIDA, 1951.

All Employed Retirement
Kinds of Groups Gainfully Self I Farmers
Livestock
Percent

Chickens .....--...........-- 73.0 73.4 76.9 70.5
Hogs .-.-- ---....... --- 27.7 30.0 42.3 16.7
Cattle, dairy .............. 18.2 19.7 19.2 14.1
Rabbits .............- .... 3.9 4.4 3.8 2.6
Turkeys .................... i 3.9 5.4 3.8 -
Goats ............................ 2.9 3.9 3.8 -
Cattle, meat ................ 2.6 2.5 3.8 2.6
Ducks ............--.........--------------... 2.6 2.5 3.8


One or more kinds .... 85.3 83.7 88.5 77.0


Number .........---.....--- 307 203 26 78


On the average, the inventory value of farm equipment kept
was extremely low and consisted principally of several types of
hand tools. Such limited working capital investments per-
mitted flexibility of decisions as to whether to farm or not to
farm, for interest returns on the capital invested in farming
were of little or no consequence.

TABLE 16.-PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF PRINCIPAL KINDS OF FARM WORK
POWER ON PART-TIME AND RETIREMENT FARMS, DUVAL COUNTY,
FLORIDA, 1951.

Occupational Status Classification

Work Power Used All Employed Retirement
Groups Gainfully f Self Farmers
Percent

Tractors .................. 17.7 19.7 16.0 12.8
Work animals ......... 16.3 14.8 36.0 14.1
Tractors and work
animals --- .......... ... 1.6 2.0 4.0 -
Hand labor ............... 64.4 63.5 44.0 73.1


Total ......................... 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Number .....---....-.....---.... 307 203 26 78








22 Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations

Feed and Supplies.-The average part-time or retirement
farmer kept very limited amounts of feeds, fertilizers and other
supplies on hand. Although feed costs were a major item of
operating costs, feed was usually purchased on a week-to-week
basis. Inventory supplies were of little consequence, except on
several of the larger farms.

TYPES OF FARMING

Approximately 88 percent of all the part-time and retire-
ment farmers interviewed restricted their operations to garden-
ing (Table 17). They planted vegetable crops according to the
prevailing farming practices in the area. Except for respond-
ents to the south of Jacksonville near the St. Johns River who
had citrus, few respondents reported the production of any
tree-grown fruit. Those living to the west and north of Jack-
sonville reported they had generally been unsuccessful in grow-
ing either fruit or pecan trees.

TABLE 17.-PROPORTIONAL DISTRIBUTION OF PART-TIME AND RETIREMENT
FARMERS BY GROUP CLASSIFICATION, AND BY TYPE OF FARMING, DUVAL
COUNTY, FLORIDA, 1951.

Group Classification

Type of Farming All Employed Retirement
Gainfully Self Farmers
Percent

Gardening*
Type 1 --......-...-- ..- 19.2 20.6 7.7 19.2
Type 2 .--- -.....-..-..-- 34.5 32.5 34.6 39.7
Type 3 ... .----...-- ..- 27.4 33.5 11.6 16.7
Type 4 ...............- ... 6.5 6.9 11.6 3.8
Truck farming ........... 4.6 1.0 19.2 9.0
Floriculture .............. 0.6 2.6
Poultry ........................ 3.3 2.0 3.8 6.4
Cattle, meat .........-... 2.9 3.0 3.8 2.6
Unclassified ................ 1.0 0.5 7.7 -

Total ..........-........-........ 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


Number .......................-- 307 203 26 78

Type 1-No poultry or meat animals (cattle or hogs).
Type 2-Poultry, no meat animals.
Type 3-One kind of meat animal, with or without poultry.
Type 4-Two or more kinds of meat animals, with or without poultry.








Activities of Industrial Workers and Retirees 23

Approximately 3 percent of those interviewed kept small
flocks of poultry (50 or more) for commercial purposes, and
about the same proportion kept cattle for beef for home use
or sale. These were generally dairy offspring. Only those
farmers with larger acreages and higher incomes were invest-
ing in beef production.

FARM CONTRIBUTIONS TO FAMILY LIVING
Part-time and retirement farmers estimated crop production
values for home use for 1950, because some 1951 crops were
still growing or yet to be planted when the interviews were
conducted. Home-use values ranged from nothing, as a result
of crop failures, to $150 for the retirement farmers; to $300
for the gainfully employed; and to $500 for the self-employed.
The self-employed produced crops with more than double the
average value of those grown by either the gainfully employed
or the retirement farmers (Table 18).

TABLE 18.-ESTIMATED AVERAGE VALUE OF CROPS PRODUCED FOR HOME
USE BY PART-TIME AND RETIREMENT FARMERS, DUVAL COUNTY, FLORIDA,
1950.

Occupational Status Total
Number Value
All classes ........................ ....... 219 $38

Occupationally employed ...... 144 32
Self-employed ............---- ... 20 83
Retirement farmers .......... -55 37

Number estimating some value 164 55
"* 88 respondents reported inability to estimate crop values.

Food preservation was of considerable importance to part-
time farm families but of lesser importance to retirement fami-
lies (Table 19). Proportionally more home freezers were owned
by the self-employed than by those included in either of the
other two classifications.
Part-time farm families used community canning plants in
numerous instances in lieu of canning at home. Largest of
these centers was maintained by Duval County. The County
also paid the salaries of the supervisory employees needed to
direct the operations and teach the users (Fig. 4). In 1951
over 132,000 No. 2 tins (or equivalent) of farm products were








24 Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations

preserved there. In addition, neighborhood club women op-
erated six smaller units.5 Costs to the users were nominal,
usually involving little more than the cost of the cans used.

TABLE 19.-PERCENTAGE OF FARM FAMILIES PRESERVING FOOD ON
PART-TIME AND RETIREMENT FARMS, DUVAL COUNTY, FLORIDA, 1951.

Classes Number I Percentage
Canning Freezing

All Groups .....-- ........... .... ......--- ..----I 307 62.2 11.4
Gainfully employed .--..----..----..--.... 203 67.0 12.3
Self-employed ..............-. .-- ...----- 26 57.7 23.1
Retirement farmers ..--.......................... 78 51.3 5.1
_____________________________I_ I --

Production of fresh garden crops for home use and canning
of surplus crops appeared to be of value to more people than
home use of livestock, except possibly for chickens. However,
a small percentage of the operators reported sales of livestock
and of livestock products (Table 20).

SAll the County canning projects were supervised by the County Home
Demonstration Agent, Miss Pearl Laffitte, who retired Aug. 31, 1953.

Fig. 4-Community canning centers, such as this one near Jacksonville, are
used by many part-time farm families.













-4








Activities of Industrial Workers and Retirees 25

TABLE 20.-PERCENTAGE OF PART-TIME AND RETIREMENT FARMERS SELLING
LIVESTOCK OR LIVESTOCK PRODUCTS, DUVAL COUNTY, FLORIDA, 1951.

Total Percentage Selling
Classes Number Livestock
Livestock Products
All Groups ............. ..... 307 10.1 14.0
Gainfully employed .... 203 9.4 11.8
Self-employed ............ 26 19.2 15.4
Retirement farmers .... 78 9.0 20.5


FARM CONTRIBUTIONS OF WHITES AND
NONWHITES COMPARED
The average part-time farm holdings of the whites were
triple those of the nonwhites, or nine acres as compared to
three acres. On the average, each white operator cultivated
about double the acreage tilled by the negro, or 1.6 acres against
0.7 acres.
The value of home-grown crops averaged $42 for the whites
as compared to $27 for the negroes, and averaged $38 for all.
Approximately 95 percent of the negroes limited their activi-
ties to gardening types of farming, as compared to 86 percent
for the whites. None of the negroes owned tractors but 23
percent of the whites did. For those reporting various kinds
of livestock (Table 15), the approximate average numbers kept
were for the whites 50 chickens, six head of swine, and five
head of cattle; for the negroes 25 chickens, three head of swine,
and one cow. These comparisons would seem to indicate that
the white operators either were placing more stress on returns
from part-time farming than were the negroes or had larger
capital resources to employ in farming.

PRODUCTION PROBLEMS
A few of the larger part-time farm operators sought farm-
ing advice from their county agent, but many of those oper-
ating small acreages did not. Occasionally some individuals
requested free seeds or publications from their Congressmen,
or they consulted their seed and feed dealers for farming in-
formation.
Approximately 60 percent of the operators expressed them-
selves as needing advice relating to land, crops, diseases, insects








26 Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations

and pests, or a combination of these (Table 21). Pests com-
monly referred to were ants, beetles, grasshoppers, mole-crickets,
weevils, gophers, moles and salamanders. The control of root-
knot and tomato wilt were also matters of considerable concern.
Moreover, many individuals indicated that droughts and lack of
adequate drainage were problems. In addition, awareness of
soil deficiencies was shown by the number of persons who dis-
closed interest in analyses of their farm soils.

TABLE 21.-PROPORTION OF PART-TIME AND RETIREMENT FARMERS
EXPRESSING NEED FOR SPECIFIC AGRICULTURAL ADVICE, DUVAL COUNTY,
FLORIDA, 1951.

Proportion Indicating Need for Advice

Need Expressed All Employed Retirement
Groups Gainfully I Self Farmers
Percent

Land:
Soil analysis .......... 10.1 11.8 15.4 3.8
Drainage control .. 4.9 3.4 3.8 9.0
Drought control .. 26.7 9.4 15.4 37.2
Crops:
Kinds of crops ... 10.7 10.3 15.4 10.3
Planting dates .... 9.4 9.9 7.7 9.0
Diseases:
Crop ..............-......... 20.5 24.1 3.8 16.7
Animal .......--......... 1.0 1.5 -
Poultry ...........-.... 0.3 1.3
Garden insects and
pests .--..--.----- -. 24.4 21.2 46.2 25.6

Proportion expressing
need ................. 58.0 59.6 69.2 50.0

Number ......--..........-..... 307 ] 203 26 78


FIFTY PART-TIME FARMERS AND THEIR FARMS

Farm management records, or records of costs and receipts,
including the value of products for home use, were taken from
50 part-time farm operators whose names were drawn from the
original list of 82 names (Page 8).6 In order to better under-
stand the nature of part-time farming, certain data relating to

Professor W. F. Callander of the University of Florida Statistical
Laboratory acted as consultant for all sampling techniques followed in this
study.









Activities of Industrial Workers and Retirees 27

family characteristics, employment of family labor, farm in-
vestments, commuting costs, farm costs and receipts, and em-
ployment incomes were gathered.

FAMILY CHARACTERISTICS

The average family consisted of a father, mother, and one
son and daughter living at home and dependent upon their
parents for support. Twelve families reported no children liv-
ing at home and 10 families reported only one child at home.
The average age of the male heads was 47.1 and female heads
41.9; the children averaged approximately 10 years of age, the
sons being about one year older than the daughters (Table 22).
Only three families, or 6 percent, supported an aged family
member.

TABLE 22.-AVERAGE AGES OF FAMILY MEMBERS, 50 PART-TIME FARM
FAMILIES, ARRAYED BY SIZE OF FAMILY, DUVAL COUNTY, FLORIDA, 1951.
No.
Number in of Average Ages
Family !Fami- Heads Children
lies Male Female Male Female

1 2* 56.0 60.0 -
2 10 56.9 50.5 -
3 10 47.9 40.8 15.5 8.4
4 9 46.9 41.1 10.0 12.1
5 9 39.2 36.9 11.5 10.5
6 or over 10 42.8 47.7 9.8 9.1

Average
All Families 50 47.1 41.9 10.9 9.8
Median |
All Families 50 48.0 40.0 11.0 10.0

Range in Age 28 to 68 20 to 65 1 to 20 1 to 21
Represents one widow and one widower.

The average part-time farm operator reported the attainment
of the equivalent of an eighth grade education; 34 percent
reported less than average achievement and 38 percent in excess
of the average. Husbands and wives reported comparable
educations. In most instances the children still living at home
were in the process of securing their education.

EMPLOYMENT OF FAMILY LABOR

About two-thirds of the employed family heads normally
worked days, beginning at 7:00 to 8:30 A.M. and ending at








28 Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations

3:30 to 5:00 P.M. Approximately 12 percent worked on swing
shifts and the remainder were job workers, salesmen or workers
whose employment schedules varied considerably. Throughout
1951 they averaged 47 weeks of work (Table 23). Only four op-
erators who were able to work were not fully employed during
1951. Based on their average weekly earnings, they lost about
$1,150 each from lay-offs, or in the aggregate about $4,600.
As a rule, the part-time farm operator had little time for addi-
tional employment beyond his regular work, except on the farm.
The cost of wages for part-time farm work performed by the
operators was therefore not in competition with other possible
employment. To the extent that this was so, the family labor
used in farming had no "opportunity cost," for no competitive
alternative use was available.

TABLE 23.--DURATION OF ANNUAL GAINFUL EMPLOYMENT, 50 PART-TIME
FARMERS, DUVAL COUNTY, FLORIDA, 1951.

Weeks of Employment Number of Average
Workers Employment

26 weeks or less .............--....... ........ 3 24
26 to 39 weeks .--..-........--.... .. -- -1 39
40 weeks to 52 weeks -......------.........--- ---- 46 49

Total----------- ---_---------------- ---- -0 47
Total ................................. ... ..... .. 50 47

Includes five operators who lost time through illness; also two fully-employed school
employees who work 10 months each.

For the majority of the workers the five-day work week was
the rule. This enabled the workers to devote one day per week
to farming if they so chose. Approximately 86 percent of the
female heads did no off-farm work in 1951, 8 percent worked
for periods approximating three months, and 6 percent for an
average of 11 months. However, about 66 percent of the wives
averaged about six weeks per year in farm work. Feeding
poultry, gathering eggs, hoeing and harvesting garden crops
were tasks often assumed by the women. Comparatively few
of their daughters, but about half of their sons, worked for
limited periods in the fields or gardens. Only 6 percent of the
sons did any of the farm tasks involving heavy physical labor,
such as plowing. Labor expended in farming was more ex-









Activities of Industrial Workers and Retirees 29

tensive during the first half of the year (Table 24). On an
average, about nine days per month, or day-equivalents, were
given to farm work by all members of the family.

TABLE 24.-ESTIMATED PROPORTIONAL DISTRIBUTION OF MANLABOR
UTILIZATION FOR 50 PART-TIME FARMS, BY ANNUAL QUARTERS AND
BY TYPE OF FARMING, DUVAL COUNTY, FLORIDA, 1951.

Work Distribution by Annual Quarters
Type of Jan. April July Oct.
Farming Feb. May Aug. Nov. All
March June Sept. Dec. Quarters
Percent

Gardening:
Type 1 .......... 35 50 10 5 100
Type 2 ......... 35 35 15 15 100
Type 3 .......... 30 40 15 15 100
Type 4 ........ 25 45 20 10 100
Unclassified ........ 20 35 15 30 100


All farms ............ 30 40 15 15 100


Total days I
worked ** ...... 33 44 17 17 111
See Table 17.
** The average total 8-hour days, or day equivalents, worked by part-time farm families.

INVESTMENTS IN REAL ESTATE AND FARMING

Individual investments in part-time farms ranged from $700
to $13,200 and averaged $4,865, according to estimates of the
operators. Fifty percent of the holdings, including land and
buildings, were valued at $4,000 or less (Table 25).

TABLE 25.-VALUATIONS OF 50 PART-TIME FARM HOLDINGS, DUVAL COUNTY,
FLORIDA, 1951.

Value Range Distribution
Number Percent

$2,000 or under ............. 7 14
2,001 to 3,000 ........... .. 10 20
3,001 to 4,000 ........... 8 16
4,001 to 5,000 ............. 5 10
5,001 to 6,000 .............. 6 12
6,001 to 7,000 ............... 4 8
7,001 or over .............. 10 20


Total .......-- ......-..----- ....- ..-- 50 i 100








30 Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations

The farm capital investment, less the value of real estate,
averaged about $400 but ranged from nothing for each of the
respective items to $1,900 (Table 26). The smallest total in-
vestment reported was under $20 and the largest approximated
$3,400. About 52 percent of the farm investment was in live-
stock, 47 percent in machinery and the balance in feed and
supplies.

TABLE 26.-AVERAGE AND MAXIMUM FARM CAPITAL, EXCLUDING REAL
ESTATE, FOR 50 PART-TIME FARMS, DUVAL COUNTY, FLORIDA, 1951.

Average Maximum
Capital Investment Investment Investment

Total Investment ............................ 1 $396 $3,420

Machinery and equipment ......... ... 189 1,900
Feed and supplies .-........................- .... 3 100
Livestock ..........-....................... ... ... 204 1,844

Cattle, beef ..........-- ......-- ........ -.. 80 1,650
Cattle, dairy ................................. 47 500
Hogs .-- .....-- .- .....--........... ---.. 34 325
Poultry ... .....-- ...---..---....---------. 26 84
W ork animals ................................ 15 100
Other anim als ................................ 2 50

HOME MAINTENANCE AND TRANSPORTATION EXPENSES
Two essential categories of non-farm expenses are pertinent
in the operation and maintenance of part-time farms. The first
is the expense necessary to maintain, repair or improve the
real estate investment (Table 27); and the second is the cost
of commuting to and from places of employment (Table 28).
For the 50 operators interviewed the annual outlay for the
maintenance of real estate and transportation costs incident to
employment amounted to $470, or nearly $40 per month.
Property Maintenance, Taxes and Insurance.-Building re-
pairs and improvement costs were the largest real estate ex-
penses reported, averaging $206 (Table 27) and ranging from
nothing to $2,800. Approximately 24 percent of the operators
reported expenditures of $250 and upwards. Thirty percent of
the operators carried no fire insurance on their buildings, and
the largest annual payment reported was $39, ranging down-
ward to about $6. Taxes were generally low, 50 percent paying
none at all, the remainder paying amounts ranging from $0.01
to $18.70 and averaging $1.95.









Activities of Industrial Workers and Retirees 31

TABLE 27.-MISCELLANEOUS HOME-FARM EXPENDITURES OF 49 PART-TIME
FARMERS, DUVAL COUNTY, FLORIDA, 1951.*

Item of Expense Average
Expenditure

Real estate improvements or repairs .........----.....---- ... -$206.10

Property insurance ........... ------------... .... ..... 13.75
Real estate taxes and/or special assessments ............. 1.95

Total ................................... ---------------- -- ....... $221.80

Excludes one renter. The expenditures listed above were not charged against the
farm business.

Transportation.-Commuting costs for employment varied
not only by the distances traveled but also by the kinds of
transportation and the types of conveyances used. Operators
walked to work, rode bicycles or buses or drove automobiles
or trucks. Expense figures used in ascertaining the cost of
operating automobiles and trucks were those estimated by the
operators, and ranged from 4 to 10 cents per mile. Weekly
costs were determined by the number of round trips made per
week (Table 28). The annual cost, which averaged $249, was
found by multiplying the average weekly expenses by the num-
ber of weeks worked. Approximately 4,800 miles were covered
annually by the average operator in going to and from work.

TABLE 28.-COMMUTING COSTS FOR 50 PART-TIME FARMERS BY TYPES OF
FARMING, DUVAL COUNTY, FLORIDA, 1951.

Commuting Costs
Commuting Per Per Per
Type of Farming Daily Wek Year
(Miles)
Dollars

Gardening:
Type 1 .. ...... 15 0.73 3.65 153.30
Type 2 ........... 19 1.03 5.10 234.60
Type 3 ............ 17 0.80 3.70 181.30
Type 4 ............ 29 2.12 10.15 1 497.35
Unclassified .......... 23 1.15 5.75 276.00


General Average .. 20 1.07 5.30 249.10

See Table 17.








32 Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations

ECONOMIC ANALYSES
Among the most important measures of the economic value
of part-time farming are net returns, or the difference between
returns from farming and the cash costs for farming. In
determining net returns no charges were made for land, labor
or interest on capital, because most part-time farm families
will live on their farms whether or not they farm (Table 10);
and the farm labor required will usually be there in any event.
Depreciation or appreciation of machinery, equipment, live-
stock, feed and supplies was made on the basis of changes in
1951 inventory values, as estimated by the operators. Increases
in inventory values thereby compensated for 1951 machinery
and livestock purchases, which were treated as cash farm
expenses. The net returns, as used in this analysis, were the
amount remaining after deducting all cash farm expenses from
the sum of (1) cash farm income, (2) value of home-produced
items used at home, and (3) inventory increases.
Cash Farm Expenses.-Livestock and poultry feed was the
largest single item of farm expense, equaling 50 percent of
all expenses (Table 29). Purchases of new machinery and
machinery repairs totaled about 19 percent of all expenses, and
purchases of cattle about 12 percent. Expenditures for taxes,
fire insurance, repairs to farm dwelling or mortgage payments,
if any, were not charged against the farm business, for these
expenses would have changed little, if any, if the operators had
not farmed at all.

TABLE 29.-AVERAGE CASH FARM EXPENSES AND RANGE OF EXPENSES FOR
50 PART-TIME FARMS, DUVAL COUNTY, FLORIDA, 1951.

S Average Cash Range in
Item of Cash Expense Expenses Cash Expenses
Amount Percent
Feed ......----.. -----------.. .......--.....-- .. $263 50.2 None to $1,725
Machinery and equipment ..... ...... 98 18.7 None to 1,500
Livestock ..............---....................... 64 12.2 None to 1,535
Fertilizer ................................-- ...-- .. 21 4.0 None to 110
Contract work .............-- ........-....... 14 2.7 None to 127
Seed and plants --...............-...-....-... 13 2.5 None to 95
Miscellaneous ...........--------......... ....... 51 9.7 None to 480

Total ---.. --... ----------.....-- --.. $524 100.0 $18 to $5,493








Activities of Industrial Workers and Retirees 33

Returns from Farming.-The average cash receipts reported
for the 50 part-time farms was $75, one-third of which origi-
nated from eggs and another third from hogs (Table 30). From
the standpoint of total value (sales and home use), crops led
in importance, their value equaling about 43 percent of the total.

TABLE 30.-AVERAGE VALUE AND RANGE OF VALUES OF FARM PRODUCTS
SOLD OR PRODUCED FOR HOME USE FOR 50 PART-TIME FARMS, DUVAL
COUNTY, FLORIDA, 1951.

Average Cash Values Range
Item Total Cash
Sales Total Values
Value Percent

Crops ...............-....-..........-- $ 9 $169 42.9 None to $900
Eggs .............-...................... 25 58 14.7 None to 417
Dairy products ..--.............. 3 56 14.2 None to 810
Hogs --............................. .... 21 49 12.5 None to 340
Poultry ............................... 7 36 9.1 None to 231
Cattle ....... -................. 8 15 3.8 None to 300
Miscellaneous .................. 2 11 2.8 None to 130

Total .....-...- ..........- .......... -- $75 $394 100.0 i $20 to $2,815

*Includes values of sales and home use.

On the average, increases in inventory values amounted to
$209 (Table 31). Substantial increases in livestock values
during 1951, together with some rises in the values of ma-
chinery and equipment, accounted for most of the inventory
increases.

TABLE 31.-SUMMARY OF RETURNS LESS CASH EXPENSES FOR 50 PART-TIME
FARMS, DUVAL COUNTY, FLORIDA, 1951.


Items of Financial Summary Value

Average Earnings:
Cash receipts ..-....-....-.......- -............... $ 75
H om e use ....................... .... ....----- .. .. -319
Inventory increases ............-.........-- .... 209
Total average earnings .............---.......... ... 603
Average cash expenses ...............-.......... 524
Earnings less expenses .--....- ................... 79








34 Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations

Returns Less Expenses.-After crediting the average part-
time farm business with cash receipts, value of items produced
on the farm and used at home, and inventory increases, total
receipts amounted to $603 (Table 31). The cash expenses were
$524. The average part-time farm thus earned $79. In addi-
tion to measurable economic values earned, as shown by net
returns, the part-time farm families also had the benefit of
farm products of better quality and in larger quantities than if
they had purchased them, according to opinions frequently ex-
pressed by the respondents.
When the net returns from farming were arrayed by order
of size, it was observed that over two-thirds of the returns
ranged from gains up to $200 to losses down to $200 (Table 32).

TABLE 32.-NUMERICAL DISTRIBUTION OF 50 PART-TIME FARM OPERATORS,
ACCORDING TO NET RETURNS FROM FARMING AND BY OCCUPATION STATUS
CLASSIFICATION, DUVAL COUNTY, FLORIDA, 1951.

Class Interval Number by Occupational
of Net Returns Distribution Income Class
from Farming $5,001 $2,501 $2,500
Percent Number or Over to $5,000 or Less

-301 or more 4.0 2 1 1
-300 to -201 4.0 2 1 1
-200 to -101 8.0 4 3 1
-100 to 1 22.0 11 1 9 1
0 to 99 16.0 8 6 2
100 to 199 22.0 11 1 8 2
200 to 299 12.0 6 4 2
300 to 399 4.0 2 2-
400 to 499 4.0 2 1 1
500 or over 4.0 2 1 1

Total ............... -100.0 50 3 35 12

Median net returns .-...-- $56 $107 $20 $94

The median values simply indicate that as many part-time farmers earned above the
median values as below them.

An analysis of net returns indicated that 62 percent of the
part-time farmers had some success in 1951 (Table 33). When
both crop and livestock enterprises were integrated, average
net returns were highest. It was also clear that part-time
farmers sometimes met with success without livestock on the
farm, or succeeded with crops while failing with livestock.
About 10 percent of the part-time farmers in 1951 made their








Activities of Industrial Workers and Retirees 35

gains on livestock alone, although they may have concurrently
produced some crops which did not return the money invested
in their production.

TABLE 33.-ARRAY OF 50 PART-TIME FARMERS REPORTING NET GAINS OR
LOSSEs ACCORDING TO ENTERPRISE COMBINATIONS, DUVAL COUNTY,
FLORIDA, 1951.
Earnings
Enterprises for Which Gains or I Less
Losses Were Reported Distribution Expenses
(No.) (Pct.) ($)
Net gains:
Both crops and livestock:
Cows and hogs, with or without
poultry ..................... .................. 9 29.0 317
Poultry, neither cows nor hogs .... 8 25.8 190
Crops only .--................... ................. ... 11 35.5 149
Cows and hogs only, with or without
poultry ...........................- ............. 3 9.7 255


Total .............. ----------.. ..........---- ...--. 31 100.0 218


Net losses:
Cows and hogs, with or without
poultry ....................................... 7 36.8 157
Both crops and livestock:
Cows or hogs only, with or without
poultry ........................-- ............... 1 5.3 575
Poultry, neither cows nor hogs .... 2 10.5 -110
Crops only ......................-...... ........--- .. 3 15.8 29
Miscellaneous ** .......-...------- ...........- ... -6 31.6 140


Total .--.........-----------.... ---.........----...- -.. 19 100.0 i 148

Classifications are based upon the principal farm enterprises responsible for gains or
losses irrespective of type of farming or combinations of enterprises on individual farms.
** For six farms, because of certain expense items, losses could not be segregated accord-
ing to enterprises.

On three of the most successful farms, where crops, milk
cows for home use and hogs were associated enterprises, the
operators kept neither horses nor mules but they averaged
nearly $360 in net returns. However, they had some idle land
available for pasturing which helped to reduce feed costs. Of
the unsuccessful part-time farmers, 42 percent lost on livestock
enterprises, excluding poultry; 10 percent on both crops and
poultry; 16 percent from crop failures; and the remainder from
miscellaneous causes (Table 33). Part-time farmers frequently
lost money on hogs, largely as a result of poor farm manage-
ment practices. The excessive use of a car or truck for farm








36 Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations

purposes tended to lower net returns; also the purchases of
machinery not required for small acreages resulted in inven-
tory losses. Almost without exception, the keeping of horses
was unprofitable.

TABLE 34.-COMPARISON OF FARM BUSINESS BY TYPE OF FARMING, 50
PART-TIME FARMS, DUVAL COUNTY, FLORIDA, 1951.

Items of Income or Gardening I Un- All
Earnings Type Type Type Type | classi- Farms
1 2 3 4 fled **

Number of farms .-...... 3 19 17 7 4 50
Dollars

EARNINGS
Crops:
Sales .-...............- ........ 9 5 4 60 9
Home use ........-...--- 86 127 134 344 166 160
Livestock:
Sales .......................... 8 61 48 91 38
Home use ..-.......... -- 42 63 205 6 67
Livestock products:
Sales ..................-- .. -- 9 27 92 36 28
Home use .............. 39 72 291 152 92
Inventory increases:
Feed and supplies .. 9 4 7 5
Livestock .............. 11 74 529 260 124
Machinery and
equipment .........J. 10 45 126 139 80

Total Earnings ........ 105 295 565 1,648 778 603

CASH EXPENSES
Livestock purchases:
Cattle ................... -- 26 260 18 47
Swine .................. 2 10 10 6
Poultry, all types .... 6 4 14 10 6
All other livestock ... 1 14 5
Feed ..................... 93 300 778 214 263
Seed and plants ....... 8 11 9 26 17 13
Fertilizer .............. ... 1 18 14 18 36 48 21
Insecticides and
fungicides ...-..-.... --- 3 2 14 1 4
Contract work ...-...... 19 10 19 4 31 14
Hired labor ............... -- 1 3 73 10 12
New machinery and
equipment -....-...-...... 10 44 147 217 98
Machinery repairs ...... 4 18 8 4
Automobile, farm use
only ....-..-........... ........ 2 13 18 51 30 21
Tractor fuel and oil ...... 3 3 37 6 8
All other ............... -- 1 1 9 5 2

Total cash expenses ... 57 202 578 1,547 398 524

Earnings less expenses i 48 93 -13 101 380 79
SSee Table 17.
** Includes one truck farm, one cotton acreage and two beef cattle enterprises.








Activities of Industrial Workers and Retirees 37

When suitable pastures or home-grown feed crops were avail-
able, the keeping of a milk cow for home use was warranted.
The production of hogs appeared less promising, for on many
farms most or all of the hog feed was purchased. However,
some farmers succeeded with hogs alone or with both hogs
and a cow or cows when they were able to keep feed purchases
to a minimum. For those not so fortunate, the reasons for
losses were not always due to errors in planning or judgment,
but rather to droughts, water damage arising from lack of drain-
age and uncorrected soil deficiencies, according to statements of
the operators.

TYPE OF FARMING COMPARISONS
Gross and net returns were highest when livestock and poul-
try were combined with crop production (Table 34, Type 4).
However, gross earnings were favorable for Types of Farming
1 and 2, when only the ratio of gross earnings to the gross
expenses was considered. Comparisons between net returns
and non-farm income, employment skills, size of farm, size of
cultivations, types of soils, age of operators, length of residence,
and other variables did not indicate that any one item taken
alone was a causal factor affecting net returns.
Simultaneous comparisons of three or more items-such as
soils, age of operators and size of farms-emphasized the
mutuality of many factors in influencing the amount of net
returns on any one farm. The bias of personal preferences and
desires could not be excluded. Because of the recreative aspects
of part-time farming as reported by many operators, the values
of part-time farming were measured by subjective as well as
economic values. Insofar as this was true, the $79 net returns
(Table 34) did not exhibit the totality of rewards derived from
part-time farming.

CASH AND FARM INCOME SUMMARY
During the survey the cash income ranges of only the family
heads were secured. However, nearly 90 percent of the opera-
tors' wives were not employed away from home (Page 28). On
an average the operator's employment income amounted to about
$3,500 and the sale of farm products to $75 (Table 35). The
living furnished by the farm plus the inventory increases just
about equaled all cash farm expenses, regardless of the non-
agricultural income range of the operator.








38 Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations

TABLE 35.-FINANCIAL SUMMARY OF 50 PART-TIME FARM OPERATORS, AND
BY NON-AGRICULTURAL EARNED INCOMES OF FAMILY HEAD, DUVAL
COUNTY, FLORIDA, 1951.*

Income Class of Family Head
Item $5,001 $2,501 $2,500
_Average or Over to $5,000 or Less

Number of farmers reporting ....... 50 3 35 12
Dollars

Cash income:
Sale of farm products ........ ... 75 211 51 110
Employment income ................ 3,485 7,750 3,670 1,880

Total cash income ...................... 3,560 7,961 3,721 1,990

Non-cash income:
Living furnished by farm ....... 319 1,092 280 235
Inventory increases ....... 209 1,291 127 180

Total non-cash income ................... 528 2,383 407 415

Total cash and non-cash income .... 4,088 10,344 4,128 2,405
Total cash farm expenses .........-...... 524 2,396 407 397

Total income less farm expenses .. 3,564 7,948 3,721 2,008
Income gain from farming ......-. 79 198 51 128
Incomes were usually approximations at about the nearest $100 of earned income rather
than in actual earnings. Error is probably greater in the upper income group.

INTERRELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN PART-TIME
FARMING AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT

During the 50-year period from 1900 to 1950 the population
of Jacksonville increased more than sevenfold, or from about
28,400 to 204,500. Concurrently the county population rose
from about 40,000 to 304,000 (Table 36). While rapid growth
in the rural population was evident, all increases in the rural
population were made in the non-farm group. Actually the
rural farm population decreased.
In 1900 Duval County was largely agricultural; the 771 farms
then reported averaged about 87 acres in size. In 1950 the
average size of the 975 farms in the county was 115 acres.
From 1900 to 1950 the proportional gains in the number of
farms were 26 percent and in size 32 percent; but in 1950 only
336 farms were commercial units and the remaining 639 were








Activities of Industrial Workers and Retirees 39

part-time or residential farms. Although part-time and resi-
dential farm data are not available for 1900, the importance of
rural living is emphasized by this shift in use from commercial
to other units. This is further highlighted by the increase
in number of non-agricultural workers between 1900 and 1951.
In 1900 approximately 12,400 workers were non-agriculturally
employed in Jacksonville, and in 1951 (Table 2) over 100,000
were similarly employed. Most of the part-time farmers in-
terviewed were enjoying full employment.

TABLE 36.-RURAL AND URBAN POPULATION GROWTH, 1900-1950,
DUVAL COUNTY, FLORIDA.

Population Rural Population
Year I Non-
Total Urban Rural Farm Farm *

1950 304,029 210,947 93,082 90,106 2,976
1940 210,143 176,631 33,512 27,476 6,036
1930 155,503 135,146 20,357 15,834 4,523
1920 113,540 94,333 19,207 -
1910 75,163 57,699 17,464
1900 39,733 28,429 11,304 -

Includes all persons living outside cities or other incorporated places having 2,500
inhabitants or more who do not live on farms.
** Includes all persons living on farms, without regard to occupation, except for slight
variations in definitions as changed from one census year to another.
Sources: U. S. Census publications.

It is doubtful if many of the family heads would have desired
additional off-farm employment, because only 8 percent were
not fully employed (Table 23). Also the amount of hourly
earnings the fully-employed would have demanded for addi-
tional employment was not ascertained. If, however, no addi-
tional work was available to the fully-employed and if the labor
they spent on farming was no-cost labor, then the gains they
made from farming were net gains.
Four operators, or 8 percent of the total, who were not fully
employed during 1951 reported average net returns of $80, as
compared to $79 for all (Table 31). No data are available to
indicate whether they would have increased their farm opera-
tions if they had known in advance that their employment was
impermanent, particularly since their periods of gainful em-
ployment coincided with the winter and spring growing seasons.
On the average, all operators would have lost money in farm-
ing if the 111 days per year devoted to farming were assigned








40 Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations

values (Table 24). However, to the extent that the labor used
in farming was "no cost" labor and was recreative in nature,
the time devoted to farming was effectively used. Moreover,
many part-time farmers applied self-labor to the repair and im-
provement of their real estate. This, like farming, was an effec-
tive utilization of time. Most of the $206 spent for home
improvement, for example, was for materials (Table 27).
Except for a comparatively few part-time farm operators
who owned larger acreages and who were improving their land
and adding to their machinery and livestock inventories, re-
turns for the use of land for residential purposes were higher
than for agricultural purposes. Over the past generation, as
the Jacksonville business and residential areas reached further
into the countryside, competitive uses for land resulted. Ulti-
mately, rising prices forced much land out of agricultural use
or reduced the individual holdings to part-time farm under-
takings. Some of these in turn finally gave way to suburban
developments.
As the industrial force of Duval County increases in size and
population pressure intensifies, accretions in land values will
reduce, even if they do not remove, any agricultural advan-
tages that now appear to exist in the use of land. Nonetheless,
speculative income opportunities may be to the advantage of
the part-time farm owners.
Aside from the speculative and security aspects of land own-
ership, the part-time farmers are faced annually with the alter-
native use of the money they invest in farming. On the average,
the annual investments were low-$524 (Table 31). The $603
average gross returns were also low, but the rate of return
for the money invested in farming was high, or about 15 per-
cent, as represented by the $79 in net returns. Ownership of
stocks or bonds for investment purposes under normal condi-
tions could not be expected to yield over a 5-percent interest
return. Common stocks have the advantage of possible appre-
ciation, but in areas of heavy population growth land has simi-
lar possibilities of appreciation. Investments in part-time farms
under these conditions seem justified, regardless of the small-
ness of farm output.
The aggregate production of the part-time farms probably
did not exceed 1 to 3 percent of the total 1951 agricultural
production of the county, as based upon estimates resulting
from this survey and other data. None of the part-time farm-








Activities of Industrial Workers and Retirees 41

ers were dairy farmers, but 60 percent of all 1949 cash sales
from farming in the county resulted from dairying (Table 3).
Nor does total income distribution in Duval County appear to
be affected by part-time farming, because the net income in-
crease resulting from part-time farming would probably not
reach $50,000, even on the assumption of maximum net returns
as realized by the 50 operators interviewed-an assumption that
seems highly optimistic. The causal factor in part-time farm-
ing is thereby reduced to living in the country, a preferential
choice for most of those concerned (Table 10), and a choice
which appears to have enhanced the economic welfare of the
part-time farm family.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
SUMMARY
Part-time and retirement farming is firmly established in
Florida, 47 percent of all farms in the state being non-com-
mercial in character. In 1950 in Duval County, the area of
study, the 639 non-commercial farms were 65 percent of the
total.
For each agricultural worker in the county in 1951, 70 other
workers were engaged in non-agricultural employment. Of the
307 part-time and retirement farmers interviewed, 66 percent
were gainfully employed, 25 percent retired and the remainder
self-employed.
Two-thirds of the home-farm units were under six acres in
size and 53 percent were under four acres. Approximately 50
percent of the operators planted half an acre or less in crops
and only 24 percent cultivated more than one acre. Nearly 90
percent of the enterprises were gardening types of agriculture.
About 80 percent of the operators kept either poultry or meat
animals or both.
Part-time and retirement farm homes were residences pri-
marily, there being no apparent relationship between off-farm
work and the extent of land use. Most part-time farmers pro-
vided some farm products for home use but very little for sale.
The economic advantages in part-time farming came more
from savings than from increased earnings. For 50 part-time
farmers, from whom costs and returns were obtained, the aver-
age net returns were $79. In addition the operators used their








42 Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations

labor for home and farm improvements which, with increases
of net worth in real estate, augmented their savings.
The effective use of labor was difficult to assess because part-
time farming, in addition to being a medium for savings, was
a form of recreation to many. However, to the extent that
labor employed in part-time farming was "no cost" labor, it
was effectively used.

CONCLUSIONS
Part-time farming offers economic or subjective value ad-
vantages to those who like the country or who wish to escape
the city. However, for those who want to work only for finan-
cial gains, it may lead to disappointment, for the hourly returns
to labor are generally low. Among the economic rewards en-
joyed by industrial workers who do part-time farming are
reduced living costs and sometimes moderate cash returns.
Technological leisure, or the 40-hour work week, offers the
worker freedom for farming. Returns for the use of land in
Duval County were higher for residential than for agricultural
purposes. But this was also an economic advantage, because
the operators were generally owners who were increasing their
equities in real estate.
The extent and nature of farm operations depends upon the
time the operator has available to farm, his purposes in farm-
ing and the financial and land resources he commands. The
writer believes that under the conditions prevailing in Duval
County, the intensive care of a home garden on suitable soils
with adequate drainage and sufficient moisture offers good
prospects for returns, but otherwise the outcome may be in
doubt. On larger part-time farms the combination of crops
and livestock proved successful only when part of the feed
required for livestock was purchased. This is a point to be em-
phasized in making recommendations to part-time farmers.








Activities of Industrial Workers and Retirees 43

STATEMENT OF SPONSOR

This is the tenth in a series of studies dealing with land
tenure in the Southeast under the sponsorship of the South-
east Regional Land Tenure Committee. The cooperating states
are Florida, Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina,
Tennessee and Virginia. In addition to state membership, and
upon the formal request of the Committee, Joseph Ackerman,
Associate Director of the Farm Foundation, Chicago, Illinois,
and Marshall Harris, Bureau of Agricultural Economics, the
United States Department of Agriculture, serve as secretary
and BAE representative, respectively.
The Committee has enjoyed the cooperation and financial
support of the Farm Foundation from its inception in May 1946.
The General Education Board of New York contributed lib-
erally to its support for several years. Allocations by the
respective states, the BAE, and more recently from funds pro-
vided by the Research and Marketing Act, have permitted
the continuance of Committee-sponsored land tenure research.
Previous publications sponsored by the Committee are:
No. 1. The Farm Tenure Situation in the Southeast. S. C. Agr. Exp. Sta.
Bul. 370.
No. 2. Farm Inheritance and Settlement of Estates. Va. Agr. Exp. Sta.
Bul. 413.
No. 3. Rural Land Ownership in Florida. Fla. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 460.
No. 4. Farm Land Ownership in the Southeast. S. C. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul.
378.
No. 5. Current Farm Leasing Practices in Florida. Bul. 13, So. Coop.
Series, Fla. Agr. Exp. Sta.
No. 6. Rental Arrangements on Tractor and Non-tractor Farms in the
Southern Piedmont. Bul. 21, So. Coop. Series, S. C. Agr. Exp.
Sta.
No. 7. Some Factors in Farm Organization and Returns to Tenants and
Landlords by Type of Leasing Arrangements West Ten-
nessee, 1947. Tenn. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 217.
No. 8. Father-Son Farm Agreements. Bul. 9, So. Coop. Series, Va. Agr.
Exp. Sta.
No. 9. Rental Arrangements on Crop-Share Farms. Fla. Agr. Exp. Sta.
Bul. 498.





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