• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Title Page
 Foreword
 Acknowledgement
 Table of Contents
 List of Tables
 Appendix
 Introduction
 Resources and present farming...
 Development of alternative farming...
 Appendix
 Reference






Group Title: Technical bulletin - North Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station - no. 87
Title: Opportunities for adjustments in farming systems
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE PAGE TEXT
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00053870/00001
 Material Information
Title: Opportunities for adjustments in farming systems southern Piedmont area, North Carolina
Series Title: Technical bulletin North Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station
Physical Description: 68 p. : ill. ; 23 cm.
Language: English
Creator: McPherson, W. W ( Woodrow Wilson )
Pierce, W. H ( Walter Howard ), 1902-
Greene, R. E. L ( Robert Edward Lee ), 1910-
Publisher: North Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station
Place of Publication: Raleigh
Publication Date: 1949
 Subjects
Subject: Agriculture -- Economic aspects -- North Carolina -- 1945-   ( lcsh )
Agriculture -- Statistics -- North Carolina   ( lcsh )
Genre: government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
statistics   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Statement of Responsibility: W.W. McPherson, W.H. Pierce, and R.E.L. Greene.
General Note: Caption title.
General Note: In cooperation with the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, United States Department of Agriculture.
Funding: Technical bulletin (North Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station) ;
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00053870
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: oclc - 07780836

Table of Contents
    Title Page
        Title Page
    Foreword
        Page 1
    Acknowledgement
        Page 1
    Table of Contents
        Page 2-3
    List of Tables
        Page 4-5
    Appendix
        Page 4-5
    Introduction
        Page 4-5
        Purpose of study
            Page 4-5
        Method and procedure
            Page 4-5
            Source and type of data collected
                Page 6-7
    Resources and present farming systems
        Page 8-9
        Description of the area
            Page 8-9
            Physical features
                Page 8-9
                Climate and weather
                    Page 10-11
            Social and economic conditions
                Page 12-13
                Figures 5 and 6
                    Page 12-13
                Trends
                    Page 14-15
                    Page 16-17
                    Page 18-19
                    Pge 20-21
            Farm organization and incomes in 1945
                Page 22-23
                Acreage of land
                    Page 22-23
                Power and equipment
                    Page 22-23
                Buildings
                    Page 22-23
                Population and labor supply
                    Page 22-23
                Tenure, Age, and education of farm operators
                    Pge 24-25
                Tables 7, 8 , 9 and 10
                    Pge 24-25
                Enterprise combinations and income
                    Page 26-27
                Tables 11 and 12
                    Page 26-27
                Production requirements and rates of production for crops and livestock with present and improved practices
                    Pge 28-29
                    Tables 13, 14 and 15
                        Pge 28-29
                    Crops
                        Pge 28-29
                    Livestock
                        Page 30-31
                    Tables 16, 17 and 18
                        Page 30-31
    Development of alternative farming systems
        Page 32-33
        Selection and combination of farm enterprises
            Page 32-33
            Tables 19, 20 and 21
                Page 32-33
            Relative cost and returns, principal enterprises with present and improved practices
                Page 34-35
                Livestock
                    Page 36-37
        Present and alternative farming systems
            Page 38-39
            Tables 25 and 26
                Page 38-39
            Small farms
                Page 40-41
                Page 42-43
            Table 27
                Page 40-41
            Medium-size farms
                Page 44-45
            Figure 12 and table 30
                Page 44-45
                Page 46-47
                Page 48-49
            Large farms
                Page 50-51
            Tables 34 and 35
                Page 50-51
                Page 52-53
                Page 54-55
        Farm size, production efficency and incomes
            Page 56-57
            Tables 39 and 40
                Page 56-57
                Page 58-59
        Summary and conclusions
            Page 60-61
    Appendix
        Page 62-63
        Page 64-65
        Page 66-67
    Reference
        Page 68
Full Text


September, 1949


Technica-Bulletin No. 87


Opportunities for Adjustments

In Farming Systems


Southern Piedmont Area, North Carolina

















North Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station
in cooperation with the
Bureau of Agricultural Economics
UnitcJ States Department of Agriculture










FOREWORD

An analysis of alternative farming systems in an area must be pre-
ceded by a careful study of available resources and the present and ex-
pected future economic situation. This involves a detailed inventory of
present farm resources and the way in which they are being used.
Part I of the report is a detailed description of agricultural conditions
found in the area-the amount of resources available on various sizes and
types of farms; the variations in existing forming systems; and the extent
to which improved practices are being used.
Part II of the report deals with the analytical phases of the study.
This section is intended to answer some of the questions regarding adjust-
ments. The relative profitableness of enterprises found in the area has
been determined and alternative enterprise combinations presented. The
effect of adopting improved practices along with adjustments in enterprise
combinations is illustrated by complete budget analyses.


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This report is the result of a study which was conducted under the
joint direction of G. W. Forster, Head, Department of Agricultural Eco-
nomics, North Carolina State College, and E. L. Langsford, Agricultural
Economist, Bureau of Agricultural Economics, United States Department of
Agriculture. R. J. Saville, Agricultural Economist, formerly with the Bu-
reau of Agricultural Economics, acted in an advisory capacity throughout
the study.

Agricultural Experiment Station and the Extension Service of North Caro-
lina. Appreciation is expressed to J. F. Reed, R. L. Lovvorn, and E. R.
Collins, of the Department of Agronomy. Dr. Reed spent considerable time
in connection with the agronomic practices and in reviewing the manuscript.
J. A. Arey, dairy specialist, and C. F. Parrish, poultry specialist, contributed
materially to the work covering livestock-production practices. D. W. Col-
vard, Animal Industry Department, and C. B. Ratchford, farm manage-
ment specialist, reviewed the manuscript and provided valuable suggestions.
R. L. Anderson, Department of Experimental Statistics, served as consultant
in regard to the sampling procedure and statistical techniques of analysis.
Forms used as a basis of this study were mapped and soil samples gath-
ered by H. M. Smith, Bureau of Plant Industry, Soils, and Agricultural En-
gineering, USDA, and W. D. Lee, Soils Specialist, North Carolina Agricul-
tural Extension Service. Soil samples were analyzed by the Soils Testing
Laboratory, North Carolina Department of Agriculture. Local personnel of
the Extension Service and of the Soil Conservation Service, cooperated in do-
ing field work.
Appreciation is expressed to the farmers who contributed their time, and
knowledge, and the records of their farm businesses.










FOREWORD

An analysis of alternative farming systems in an area must be pre-
ceded by a careful study of available resources and the present and ex-
pected future economic situation. This involves a detailed inventory of
present farm resources and the way in which they are being used.
Part I of the report is a detailed description of agricultural conditions
found in the area-the amount of resources available on various sizes and
types of farms; the variations in existing forming systems; and the extent
to which improved practices are being used.
Part II of the report deals with the analytical phases of the study.
This section is intended to answer some of the questions regarding adjust-
ments. The relative profitableness of enterprises found in the area has
been determined and alternative enterprise combinations presented. The
effect of adopting improved practices along with adjustments in enterprise
combinations is illustrated by complete budget analyses.


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This report is the result of a study which was conducted under the
joint direction of G. W. Forster, Head, Department of Agricultural Eco-
nomics, North Carolina State College, and E. L. Langsford, Agricultural
Economist, Bureau of Agricultural Economics, United States Department of
Agriculture. R. J. Saville, Agricultural Economist, formerly with the Bu-
reau of Agricultural Economics, acted in an advisory capacity throughout
the study.

Agricultural Experiment Station and the Extension Service of North Caro-
lina. Appreciation is expressed to J. F. Reed, R. L. Lovvorn, and E. R.
Collins, of the Department of Agronomy. Dr. Reed spent considerable time
in connection with the agronomic practices and in reviewing the manuscript.
J. A. Arey, dairy specialist, and C. F. Parrish, poultry specialist, contributed
materially to the work covering livestock-production practices. D. W. Col-
vard, Animal Industry Department, and C. B. Ratchford, farm manage-
ment specialist, reviewed the manuscript and provided valuable suggestions.
R. L. Anderson, Department of Experimental Statistics, served as consultant
in regard to the sampling procedure and statistical techniques of analysis.
Forms used as a basis of this study were mapped and soil samples gath-
ered by H. M. Smith, Bureau of Plant Industry, Soils, and Agricultural En-
gineering, USDA, and W. D. Lee, Soils Specialist, North Carolina Agricul-
tural Extension Service. Soil samples were analyzed by the Soils Testing
Laboratory, North Carolina Department of Agriculture. Local personnel of
the Extension Service and of the Soil Conservation Service, cooperated in do-
ing field work.
Appreciation is expressed to the farmers who contributed their time, and
knowledge, and the records of their farm businesses.









CONTENTS


INTRODUCTION ........................................ ....................................... 5
Purpose of Study........... ............................................................... ..................................... 5
Method and Procedure ....................................................................................................... 5
Sampling Procedure ............................................... .................................................. 5
Source and type of data collected ............................................................................... 7
Method of analysis ........................................................................................................ 8


Part I. Resources and Present Farming Systems
DESCRIPTION OF THE AREA .................................................................................................... 8
Physical Features ................................................................................................................... 8
Topography and soils ........................................ ........ ....................... .......................... 8
Climate and weather ............................................... ..................................................... 10
Social and Economic Conditions ....................................................................................... 12
Population .......................................................................................................................... 12
Resources ............................................................................................................................ 13
Trends ...................................................................... . . .............. 14
FARM ORGANIZATIONS AND INCOM ES IN 1945 .......................... ............... ................ 22
Acreage of Land ........................ ......................................................................................... 22
Power and Equipment ............... ........................................................................................... 22
Buildings ......................................................................................................................... .... 23
Population and Labor Supply ............................................................................................. 23
Tenure, Age, and Education of Form Operators ................................................. ............ 24
Tenure .................................................................................................................................. 24
Age of operator ................................................................................................................. 24
Education ............................................................................................................................. 25
Enterprise Combinations and Income ................................................................................... 26
General land use ............................................................................................................... 26
Crops grown ....................................................................................................................... 26
Productive livestock ........................................................................................................... 26
Income .................................................................................. ....................................... 28
PRODUCTION REQUIREMENTS AND RATES OF PRODUCTION FOR CROPS AND LIVE-
STOCK W ITH PRESENT AND IM PROVED PRACTICES ........................................ ..... 29
Crops ......................................................... ..................................................................... 29
Seed and fertilizer .... ................................................................................................ 30
Yields .................................................................................................................... 30
Labor and power requirements ....................................................................................... 31
Livestock ................................................... .......................................................................... 31
Feed, land, and labor ....................................................... .............................................. 31
Rates of production ...... ............................. .......................................................... 33


Part II. Development of Alternative Farming Systems

SELECTION AND COM BINATION OF FARM ENTERPRISES .................................................. 33
Relative Costs and Returns, Principal Enterprises with Present and Improved Practices 35
Crops .... ....... ......................................... ..... .. 35
Livestock ................................................ ........................................................................ 37
PRESENT AND ALTERNATIVE FARMING SYSTEMS ........................................ 39
Small F rms ......... ... ................................................................................ ... 40
Present and alternative systems of the representative farm ....................... ......... 40
Variations in land capability ..................................................................................... 45
M edium-Size Farms ...... ............................... ......................................... ........... 45
Present and alternative systems of the representative farm ....................................... 45
Variations in land capability .............................................................. ........................ 50
Large Forms ..................................................................................... .................. .......... 50
FARM SIZE, PRODUCTION EFFICIENCY, AND INCOMES ........................ .................. 56
SUM MARY AND CONCLUSIONS ................................. ................................................. 60
APPENDIX ............................................................................................................... 63
LIST OF REFERENCES ..........................................................................................68


TABLES
Table Title Page
1 Location and size of sample, Southern Piedmont, North Carolina, 1945 ................ 7
2 Number of farmers, tenure, and color, Southern Piedmont, North Carolina, 1945.... 13
3 Ages of farmers, Southern Piedmont, North Carolina, 1945 .................................... 14
4 Farm resources and value of products sold, Southern Piedmont, North
Carolina, 1945 .................................................................... 16
5 Production and yield, by 5-year periods, six principal crops, Southern Piedmont,
North Carolina, 1926-1945 ........................................................................ 18
6 Proportion of operators' dwellings equipped with specified facilities, by size
of farm, 217 farms, Southern Piedmont, North Carolina, 1945 .................... 23
7 Population and labor supply by size of farm, 217 farms, Southern Piedmont,
North Carolina, 1945 .......................................................... ......................... 24
8 Tenure of farm operators by size of farm, 217 farms, Southern Piedmont,
North Carolina, 1945 ................................................................... ....................... 24
9 Age of farm operators, by size of farm, 217 forms, Southern Piedmont
North Carolina, 1945 ................................................................ 25
10 Education of farm operators by size of farm, 217 forms, Southern Piedmont,
N north Carolina, 1945 ............................................................................................ 25
11 Land use by size of farm, 217 farms, Southern Piedmont, North Carolina, 1945 26
12 Crops grown by size of form, 217 farms, Southern Piedmont, North
C arolina, 1945 .......................................... ...................................................... 27
13 Acreage used for cotton by size of farm, 217 forms, Southern Piedmont,
N orth Carolina, 1945 ......................................................................................... 28
14 Productive livestock and form operator's income by size of form, 217 forms,
Southern Piedmont, North Carolina, 1945 ...................................................... 2
15 Variation in number of hens by size of form, 217 forms, Southern Piedmont,
North Carolina, 1945 .......:................. ............. ...................................... 29
16 Present and improved annual rates of fertilization and seeding, principal crops,
Southern Piedmont, North Carolina ............................................................. 30
17 Average yield per acre, principal crops, 217 farms, Southern Piedmont,
N north C arolina ....................... ....... ... ........... ............... .............................. 30
18 Man labor used per acre, principal crops, on farms with and on forms without
tractors, Southern Piedmont, North Carolina .......................................... 31
19 Power used per acre, principal crops, on forms with and without tractors,
Southern Piedmont, North Carolina .......................................................... 32
20 Feed, power, and labor requirements, principal livestock enterprises,
Southern Piedmont, North Carolina ............................................................... 32
21 Rates of production, principal livestock enterprises, with 1945 practices and
improved practices, Southern Piedmont, North Carolina ............................... 33
22 Prices received by farmers, principal products sold, Southern Piedmont,
North Carolina, 1945 and average 1935-39 ................................................ 36
23 Specified annual direct cash costs per acre, principal crops, with 1945
practices and improved practices, Southern Piedmont, North Carolina ............ 36
24 Value of production and specified direct costs per acre, principal crops, with
1945 practices and improved practices, Southern Piedmont, North Carolina.... 37
25 Specified annual direct costs, principal classes of livestock, with 1945
practices and improved practices, Southern Piedmont, North Carolina ............ 38
26 Value of production and specified direct costs, principal livestock enterprises,
Southern Piedmont, North Carolina ....................................................... ......... 38
27 Most intensive crop rotations adapted to specified soil conditions, Southern
Piedm ont, N orth Carolina .......................................................... ...................... 41
28 Organizations of representative small farm, 1945 and reorganized system,
Southern Piedmont, North Carolina ................................................................ 42









Table Title Page
29 Summary of major land use capabilities, representative small farm, Southern
Piedm ont, North Carolina ............................................................ ....................... 43
30 Summary of income and expenses, based on two price levels, representative small
farm, 1945 and reorganized system, Southern Piedmont, North Carolina ........ 45
31 Alternative enterprise combinations and resulting incomes, small farms above
and below average in land capability, Southern Piedmont, North Carolina ...... 46
32 Organization of representative medium-size form, 1945 and reorganized
system, Southern Piedmont, North Carolina ................................... ......... 47
33 Summary of major land use capabilities, representative medium-size farm,
Southern Piedmont, North Carolina ............................................................ 48


34 Summary of income and expenses based on two price levels, representative
mdium-size farm, 1945 and reorganized system, Southern Piedmont,
N orth Carolina ..................................................................................................
35 Alternative enterprise combinations and resulting incomes, medium-size farms
above and below average in land capability, Southern Piedmont, North
C arolina ..............................................................................................................


Opportunities for Adjustments



In Farming Systems

Southern Piedmont Area, North Carolina

W. W. McPherson, W. H. Pierce, and R. E. L. Greene'


INTRODUCTION


50


51


36 Summary of major land use capabilities, representative large farm,
Southern Piedmont, North Carolina ....................................................... .......... 52


37 Organization of representative large farm, 1945 and alternative systems,
Southern Piedmont, North Carolina .................. ................................... ........
38 Income and expenses, based on two price levels, representative large farm,
1945 and alternative systems, Southern Piedmont, North Carolina ...............


53

54


39 Proportion of labor living on farms utilized in productive work, representative
farms, 1945 and reorganized systems, Southern Piedmont, North Carolina ...... 57
40 Returns per unit of labor on representative farms, 1945 and reorganized
systems, Southern Piedmont, North Carolina ....................................................... 57
41 Investment per acre of cropland on representative farms, 1945 and reorganized
systems, Southern Piedmont, North Carolina ........................................ ... 58
42 Relation of land and investment to labor on farms, representative farms,
1945 and reorganized systems, Southern Piedmont, North Carolina ................ 58
43 Summary of incomes at 1945 prices, representative farms, 1945 and reorganized
systems, Southern Piedmont, North Carolina .................................... .......... 59
44 Summary of incomes at 1935-39 average prices, representative farms, 1945
and reorganized systems, Southern Piedmont, North Carolina .................... 60

APPENDIX
I Production and sale of farm products, representative small farm, 1945 and
reorganized system, Southern Piedmont, North Carolina ................................ 63
II Farm expenses, representative small farm, 1945 and reorganized system,
Southern Piedmont, North Carolin ...................................................... .......... 63
III Production and sale of farm products, representative medium-size farm, 1945
and reorganized system, Southern Piedmont North Carolina ............................ 64
IV Farm expenses, representative medium-size farm, 1945 and reorganized
system, Southern Piedmont, North Carolina ..................................... ........... 64
V Production and sale of farm products, representative large farm, 1945 and
reorganized system, Southern Pielmont, North Carolina .............................. 65
VI Farm products used by operator's family, representative large form, 1945 and
reorganized system, Southern Piednont, Norih Carolina .............................. 65
VII Farm expenses, representative large farm, 1945 and reorganized cotton-livestock
systems, Sou.hern Piedmont, North Carolina .................................. ........... 66
VIII Farm organizations in 1945 compared with alternatives, representative farms,
Southern Piedmont, North Carolina .............................................. .............. 67


As shown in this study, the
Southern Piedmont is one of the
major cotton producing areas of
North Carolina (Figure 1). The
area of study includes all of type-
of-farming area 5B and a portion
of area 7.2 Cotton has long domi-
nated the farm economy of the
area, which in 1945 contained 36
per cent of the State's total cotton
acreage. The intensity of cotton
production varies throughout the
area with the greatest concentra-
tion occurring in the southern tier
of counties.
Important economic and techno-
logical changes, which influence ad-
justments in farming systems, have
occurred during recent years. Of
particular importance are the op-
portunities for off-farm or urban
employment, changes in relative
prices of farm products, and the
work of public programs affecting
agriculture.
The technical changes include
the development of hybrid corn
adapted to this area, improvements
in pasture and other forage pro-
duction, and development of mecha-
nized equipment better adapted to
the farm economy of the Piedmont.
Effects of some of these factors
SW. W. McPherson. Agricultural Econo-
mist. BIureau of Agricultural Economics.
W. f. 'Hierce. Associate Agricultural Econ-
omist, anl R. E. L. Greene, formerly
Associate Agricultural Economist, Depart-
ment of Agricultural Economics, North
Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station.
The area covered in this study comprises
the northern section of the cotton-produc-
inli area of the southeastern Piedmnont sub-
rcgion that stretches from the central part
of North Carolina southward through
South Carolina, Georgia, and into Alabama.


are reflected in recent trends in
production and in employment of
resources. The potential influence
of all these factors needs careful
study so that farmers may direct
their resources into more profit-
able lines of production.

Purpose of Study
The purpose of the study was to
provide information needed by
farmers and by public agencies
working with farmers, in making
profitable adjustments in farming.
More specifically the objective was
to analyze alternative systems of
farming in view of current eco-
nomic and technological conditions.
This objective includes (1) an
analysis of the relative efficiency
of different combinations of re-
sources and scales of operation,
in both short-run and long-run sit-
uations, and (2) the presentation
of specific alternative farming sys-
tems," based on individual farms.

Method and Procedure
An analysis of the structure of
the farm economy is necessary for
determining opportunities for prof-
itable adjustments. Some useful
data were available. But for an
accurate description of the assets
and operation of individual farms
further information was needed.
Sampling Procedure: In view of
the objective of the study and of
a "Farming system," a term used through-
out this report means the combination of
resources and technical practices and en-
terprise combinations that are integrated
to form the farm business.









Table Title Page
29 Summary of major land use capabilities, representative small farm, Southern
Piedm ont, North Carolina ............................................................ ....................... 43
30 Summary of income and expenses, based on two price levels, representative small
farm, 1945 and reorganized system, Southern Piedmont, North Carolina ........ 45
31 Alternative enterprise combinations and resulting incomes, small farms above
and below average in land capability, Southern Piedmont, North Carolina ...... 46
32 Organization of representative medium-size form, 1945 and reorganized
system, Southern Piedmont, North Carolina ................................... ......... 47
33 Summary of major land use capabilities, representative medium-size farm,
Southern Piedmont, North Carolina ............................................................ 48


34 Summary of income and expenses based on two price levels, representative
mdium-size farm, 1945 and reorganized system, Southern Piedmont,
N orth Carolina ..................................................................................................
35 Alternative enterprise combinations and resulting incomes, medium-size farms
above and below average in land capability, Southern Piedmont, North
C arolina ..............................................................................................................


Opportunities for Adjustments



In Farming Systems

Southern Piedmont Area, North Carolina

W. W. McPherson, W. H. Pierce, and R. E. L. Greene'


INTRODUCTION


50


51


36 Summary of major land use capabilities, representative large farm,
Southern Piedmont, North Carolina ....................................................... .......... 52


37 Organization of representative large farm, 1945 and alternative systems,
Southern Piedmont, North Carolina .................. ................................... ........
38 Income and expenses, based on two price levels, representative large farm,
1945 and alternative systems, Southern Piedmont, North Carolina ...............


53

54


39 Proportion of labor living on farms utilized in productive work, representative
farms, 1945 and reorganized systems, Southern Piedmont, North Carolina ...... 57
40 Returns per unit of labor on representative farms, 1945 and reorganized
systems, Southern Piedmont, North Carolina ....................................................... 57
41 Investment per acre of cropland on representative farms, 1945 and reorganized
systems, Southern Piedmont, North Carolina ........................................ ... 58
42 Relation of land and investment to labor on farms, representative farms,
1945 and reorganized systems, Southern Piedmont, North Carolina ................ 58
43 Summary of incomes at 1945 prices, representative farms, 1945 and reorganized
systems, Southern Piedmont, North Carolina .................................... .......... 59
44 Summary of incomes at 1935-39 average prices, representative farms, 1945
and reorganized systems, Southern Piedmont, North Carolina .................... 60

APPENDIX
I Production and sale of farm products, representative small farm, 1945 and
reorganized system, Southern Piedmont, North Carolina ................................ 63
II Farm expenses, representative small farm, 1945 and reorganized system,
Southern Piedmont, North Carolin ...................................................... .......... 63
III Production and sale of farm products, representative medium-size farm, 1945
and reorganized system, Southern Piedmont North Carolina ............................ 64
IV Farm expenses, representative medium-size farm, 1945 and reorganized
system, Southern Piedmont, North Carolina ..................................... ........... 64
V Production and sale of farm products, representative large farm, 1945 and
reorganized system, Southern Pielmont, North Carolina .............................. 65
VI Farm products used by operator's family, representative large form, 1945 and
reorganized system, Southern Piednont, Norih Carolina .............................. 65
VII Farm expenses, representative large farm, 1945 and reorganized cotton-livestock
systems, Sou.hern Piedmont, North Carolina .................................. ........... 66
VIII Farm organizations in 1945 compared with alternatives, representative farms,
Southern Piedmont, North Carolina .............................................. .............. 67


As shown in this study, the
Southern Piedmont is one of the
major cotton producing areas of
North Carolina (Figure 1). The
area of study includes all of type-
of-farming area 5B and a portion
of area 7.2 Cotton has long domi-
nated the farm economy of the
area, which in 1945 contained 36
per cent of the State's total cotton
acreage. The intensity of cotton
production varies throughout the
area with the greatest concentra-
tion occurring in the southern tier
of counties.
Important economic and techno-
logical changes, which influence ad-
justments in farming systems, have
occurred during recent years. Of
particular importance are the op-
portunities for off-farm or urban
employment, changes in relative
prices of farm products, and the
work of public programs affecting
agriculture.
The technical changes include
the development of hybrid corn
adapted to this area, improvements
in pasture and other forage pro-
duction, and development of mecha-
nized equipment better adapted to
the farm economy of the Piedmont.
Effects of some of these factors
SW. W. McPherson. Agricultural Econo-
mist. BIureau of Agricultural Economics.
W. f. 'Hierce. Associate Agricultural Econ-
omist, anl R. E. L. Greene, formerly
Associate Agricultural Economist, Depart-
ment of Agricultural Economics, North
Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station.
The area covered in this study comprises
the northern section of the cotton-produc-
inli area of the southeastern Piedmnont sub-
rcgion that stretches from the central part
of North Carolina southward through
South Carolina, Georgia, and into Alabama.


are reflected in recent trends in
production and in employment of
resources. The potential influence
of all these factors needs careful
study so that farmers may direct
their resources into more profit-
able lines of production.

Purpose of Study
The purpose of the study was to
provide information needed by
farmers and by public agencies
working with farmers, in making
profitable adjustments in farming.
More specifically the objective was
to analyze alternative systems of
farming in view of current eco-
nomic and technological conditions.
This objective includes (1) an
analysis of the relative efficiency
of different combinations of re-
sources and scales of operation,
in both short-run and long-run sit-
uations, and (2) the presentation
of specific alternative farming sys-
tems," based on individual farms.

Method and Procedure
An analysis of the structure of
the farm economy is necessary for
determining opportunities for prof-
itable adjustments. Some useful
data were available. But for an
accurate description of the assets
and operation of individual farms
further information was needed.
Sampling Procedure: In view of
the objective of the study and of
a "Farming system," a term used through-
out this report means the combination of
resources and technical practices and en-
terprise combinations that are integrated
to form the farm business.









Table Title Page
29 Summary of major land use capabilities, representative small farm, Southern
Piedm ont, North Carolina ............................................................ ....................... 43
30 Summary of income and expenses, based on two price levels, representative small
farm, 1945 and reorganized system, Southern Piedmont, North Carolina ........ 45
31 Alternative enterprise combinations and resulting incomes, small farms above
and below average in land capability, Southern Piedmont, North Carolina ...... 46
32 Organization of representative medium-size form, 1945 and reorganized
system, Southern Piedmont, North Carolina ................................... ......... 47
33 Summary of major land use capabilities, representative medium-size farm,
Southern Piedmont, North Carolina ............................................................ 48


34 Summary of income and expenses based on two price levels, representative
mdium-size farm, 1945 and reorganized system, Southern Piedmont,
N orth Carolina ..................................................................................................
35 Alternative enterprise combinations and resulting incomes, medium-size farms
above and below average in land capability, Southern Piedmont, North
C arolina ..............................................................................................................


Opportunities for Adjustments



In Farming Systems

Southern Piedmont Area, North Carolina

W. W. McPherson, W. H. Pierce, and R. E. L. Greene'


INTRODUCTION


50


51


36 Summary of major land use capabilities, representative large farm,
Southern Piedmont, North Carolina ....................................................... .......... 52


37 Organization of representative large farm, 1945 and alternative systems,
Southern Piedmont, North Carolina .................. ................................... ........
38 Income and expenses, based on two price levels, representative large farm,
1945 and alternative systems, Southern Piedmont, North Carolina ...............


53

54


39 Proportion of labor living on farms utilized in productive work, representative
farms, 1945 and reorganized systems, Southern Piedmont, North Carolina ...... 57
40 Returns per unit of labor on representative farms, 1945 and reorganized
systems, Southern Piedmont, North Carolina ....................................................... 57
41 Investment per acre of cropland on representative farms, 1945 and reorganized
systems, Southern Piedmont, North Carolina ........................................ ... 58
42 Relation of land and investment to labor on farms, representative farms,
1945 and reorganized systems, Southern Piedmont, North Carolina ................ 58
43 Summary of incomes at 1945 prices, representative farms, 1945 and reorganized
systems, Southern Piedmont, North Carolina .................................... .......... 59
44 Summary of incomes at 1935-39 average prices, representative farms, 1945
and reorganized systems, Southern Piedmont, North Carolina .................... 60

APPENDIX
I Production and sale of farm products, representative small farm, 1945 and
reorganized system, Southern Piedmont, North Carolina ................................ 63
II Farm expenses, representative small farm, 1945 and reorganized system,
Southern Piedmont, North Carolin ...................................................... .......... 63
III Production and sale of farm products, representative medium-size farm, 1945
and reorganized system, Southern Piedmont North Carolina ............................ 64
IV Farm expenses, representative medium-size farm, 1945 and reorganized
system, Southern Piedmont, North Carolina ..................................... ........... 64
V Production and sale of farm products, representative large farm, 1945 and
reorganized system, Southern Pielmont, North Carolina .............................. 65
VI Farm products used by operator's family, representative large form, 1945 and
reorganized system, Southern Piednont, Norih Carolina .............................. 65
VII Farm expenses, representative large farm, 1945 and reorganized cotton-livestock
systems, Sou.hern Piedmont, North Carolina .................................. ........... 66
VIII Farm organizations in 1945 compared with alternatives, representative farms,
Southern Piedmont, North Carolina .............................................. .............. 67


As shown in this study, the
Southern Piedmont is one of the
major cotton producing areas of
North Carolina (Figure 1). The
area of study includes all of type-
of-farming area 5B and a portion
of area 7.2 Cotton has long domi-
nated the farm economy of the
area, which in 1945 contained 36
per cent of the State's total cotton
acreage. The intensity of cotton
production varies throughout the
area with the greatest concentra-
tion occurring in the southern tier
of counties.
Important economic and techno-
logical changes, which influence ad-
justments in farming systems, have
occurred during recent years. Of
particular importance are the op-
portunities for off-farm or urban
employment, changes in relative
prices of farm products, and the
work of public programs affecting
agriculture.
The technical changes include
the development of hybrid corn
adapted to this area, improvements
in pasture and other forage pro-
duction, and development of mecha-
nized equipment better adapted to
the farm economy of the Piedmont.
Effects of some of these factors
SW. W. McPherson. Agricultural Econo-
mist. BIureau of Agricultural Economics.
W. f. 'Hierce. Associate Agricultural Econ-
omist, anl R. E. L. Greene, formerly
Associate Agricultural Economist, Depart-
ment of Agricultural Economics, North
Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station.
The area covered in this study comprises
the northern section of the cotton-produc-
inli area of the southeastern Piedmnont sub-
rcgion that stretches from the central part
of North Carolina southward through
South Carolina, Georgia, and into Alabama.


are reflected in recent trends in
production and in employment of
resources. The potential influence
of all these factors needs careful
study so that farmers may direct
their resources into more profit-
able lines of production.

Purpose of Study
The purpose of the study was to
provide information needed by
farmers and by public agencies
working with farmers, in making
profitable adjustments in farming.
More specifically the objective was
to analyze alternative systems of
farming in view of current eco-
nomic and technological conditions.
This objective includes (1) an
analysis of the relative efficiency
of different combinations of re-
sources and scales of operation,
in both short-run and long-run sit-
uations, and (2) the presentation
of specific alternative farming sys-
tems," based on individual farms.

Method and Procedure
An analysis of the structure of
the farm economy is necessary for
determining opportunities for prof-
itable adjustments. Some useful
data were available. But for an
accurate description of the assets
and operation of individual farms
further information was needed.
Sampling Procedure: In view of
the objective of the study and of
a "Farming system," a term used through-
out this report means the combination of
resources and technical practices and en-
terprise combinations that are integrated
to form the farm business.









Table Title Page
29 Summary of major land use capabilities, representative small farm, Southern
Piedm ont, North Carolina ............................................................ ....................... 43
30 Summary of income and expenses, based on two price levels, representative small
farm, 1945 and reorganized system, Southern Piedmont, North Carolina ........ 45
31 Alternative enterprise combinations and resulting incomes, small farms above
and below average in land capability, Southern Piedmont, North Carolina ...... 46
32 Organization of representative medium-size form, 1945 and reorganized
system, Southern Piedmont, North Carolina ................................... ......... 47
33 Summary of major land use capabilities, representative medium-size farm,
Southern Piedmont, North Carolina ............................................................ 48


34 Summary of income and expenses based on two price levels, representative
mdium-size farm, 1945 and reorganized system, Southern Piedmont,
N orth Carolina ..................................................................................................
35 Alternative enterprise combinations and resulting incomes, medium-size farms
above and below average in land capability, Southern Piedmont, North
C arolina ..............................................................................................................


Opportunities for Adjustments



In Farming Systems

Southern Piedmont Area, North Carolina

W. W. McPherson, W. H. Pierce, and R. E. L. Greene'


INTRODUCTION


50


51


36 Summary of major land use capabilities, representative large farm,
Southern Piedmont, North Carolina ....................................................... .......... 52


37 Organization of representative large farm, 1945 and alternative systems,
Southern Piedmont, North Carolina .................. ................................... ........
38 Income and expenses, based on two price levels, representative large farm,
1945 and alternative systems, Southern Piedmont, North Carolina ...............


53

54


39 Proportion of labor living on farms utilized in productive work, representative
farms, 1945 and reorganized systems, Southern Piedmont, North Carolina ...... 57
40 Returns per unit of labor on representative farms, 1945 and reorganized
systems, Southern Piedmont, North Carolina ....................................................... 57
41 Investment per acre of cropland on representative farms, 1945 and reorganized
systems, Southern Piedmont, North Carolina ........................................ ... 58
42 Relation of land and investment to labor on farms, representative farms,
1945 and reorganized systems, Southern Piedmont, North Carolina ................ 58
43 Summary of incomes at 1945 prices, representative farms, 1945 and reorganized
systems, Southern Piedmont, North Carolina .................................... .......... 59
44 Summary of incomes at 1935-39 average prices, representative farms, 1945
and reorganized systems, Southern Piedmont, North Carolina .................... 60

APPENDIX
I Production and sale of farm products, representative small farm, 1945 and
reorganized system, Southern Piedmont, North Carolina ................................ 63
II Farm expenses, representative small farm, 1945 and reorganized system,
Southern Piedmont, North Carolin ...................................................... .......... 63
III Production and sale of farm products, representative medium-size farm, 1945
and reorganized system, Southern Piedmont North Carolina ............................ 64
IV Farm expenses, representative medium-size farm, 1945 and reorganized
system, Southern Piedmont, North Carolina ..................................... ........... 64
V Production and sale of farm products, representative large farm, 1945 and
reorganized system, Southern Pielmont, North Carolina .............................. 65
VI Farm products used by operator's family, representative large form, 1945 and
reorganized system, Southern Piednont, Norih Carolina .............................. 65
VII Farm expenses, representative large farm, 1945 and reorganized cotton-livestock
systems, Sou.hern Piedmont, North Carolina .................................. ........... 66
VIII Farm organizations in 1945 compared with alternatives, representative farms,
Southern Piedmont, North Carolina .............................................. .............. 67


As shown in this study, the
Southern Piedmont is one of the
major cotton producing areas of
North Carolina (Figure 1). The
area of study includes all of type-
of-farming area 5B and a portion
of area 7.2 Cotton has long domi-
nated the farm economy of the
area, which in 1945 contained 36
per cent of the State's total cotton
acreage. The intensity of cotton
production varies throughout the
area with the greatest concentra-
tion occurring in the southern tier
of counties.
Important economic and techno-
logical changes, which influence ad-
justments in farming systems, have
occurred during recent years. Of
particular importance are the op-
portunities for off-farm or urban
employment, changes in relative
prices of farm products, and the
work of public programs affecting
agriculture.
The technical changes include
the development of hybrid corn
adapted to this area, improvements
in pasture and other forage pro-
duction, and development of mecha-
nized equipment better adapted to
the farm economy of the Piedmont.
Effects of some of these factors
SW. W. McPherson. Agricultural Econo-
mist. BIureau of Agricultural Economics.
W. f. 'Hierce. Associate Agricultural Econ-
omist, anl R. E. L. Greene, formerly
Associate Agricultural Economist, Depart-
ment of Agricultural Economics, North
Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station.
The area covered in this study comprises
the northern section of the cotton-produc-
inli area of the southeastern Piedmnont sub-
rcgion that stretches from the central part
of North Carolina southward through
South Carolina, Georgia, and into Alabama.


are reflected in recent trends in
production and in employment of
resources. The potential influence
of all these factors needs careful
study so that farmers may direct
their resources into more profit-
able lines of production.

Purpose of Study
The purpose of the study was to
provide information needed by
farmers and by public agencies
working with farmers, in making
profitable adjustments in farming.
More specifically the objective was
to analyze alternative systems of
farming in view of current eco-
nomic and technological conditions.
This objective includes (1) an
analysis of the relative efficiency
of different combinations of re-
sources and scales of operation,
in both short-run and long-run sit-
uations, and (2) the presentation
of specific alternative farming sys-
tems," based on individual farms.

Method and Procedure
An analysis of the structure of
the farm economy is necessary for
determining opportunities for prof-
itable adjustments. Some useful
data were available. But for an
accurate description of the assets
and operation of individual farms
further information was needed.
Sampling Procedure: In view of
the objective of the study and of
a "Farming system," a term used through-
out this report means the combination of
resources and technical practices and en-
terprise combinations that are integrated
to form the farm business.









Table Title Page
29 Summary of major land use capabilities, representative small farm, Southern
Piedm ont, North Carolina ............................................................ ....................... 43
30 Summary of income and expenses, based on two price levels, representative small
farm, 1945 and reorganized system, Southern Piedmont, North Carolina ........ 45
31 Alternative enterprise combinations and resulting incomes, small farms above
and below average in land capability, Southern Piedmont, North Carolina ...... 46
32 Organization of representative medium-size form, 1945 and reorganized
system, Southern Piedmont, North Carolina ................................... ......... 47
33 Summary of major land use capabilities, representative medium-size farm,
Southern Piedmont, North Carolina ............................................................ 48


34 Summary of income and expenses based on two price levels, representative
mdium-size farm, 1945 and reorganized system, Southern Piedmont,
N orth Carolina ..................................................................................................
35 Alternative enterprise combinations and resulting incomes, medium-size farms
above and below average in land capability, Southern Piedmont, North
C arolina ..............................................................................................................


Opportunities for Adjustments



In Farming Systems

Southern Piedmont Area, North Carolina

W. W. McPherson, W. H. Pierce, and R. E. L. Greene'


INTRODUCTION


50


51


36 Summary of major land use capabilities, representative large farm,
Southern Piedmont, North Carolina ....................................................... .......... 52


37 Organization of representative large farm, 1945 and alternative systems,
Southern Piedmont, North Carolina .................. ................................... ........
38 Income and expenses, based on two price levels, representative large farm,
1945 and alternative systems, Southern Piedmont, North Carolina ...............


53

54


39 Proportion of labor living on farms utilized in productive work, representative
farms, 1945 and reorganized systems, Southern Piedmont, North Carolina ...... 57
40 Returns per unit of labor on representative farms, 1945 and reorganized
systems, Southern Piedmont, North Carolina ....................................................... 57
41 Investment per acre of cropland on representative farms, 1945 and reorganized
systems, Southern Piedmont, North Carolina ........................................ ... 58
42 Relation of land and investment to labor on farms, representative farms,
1945 and reorganized systems, Southern Piedmont, North Carolina ................ 58
43 Summary of incomes at 1945 prices, representative farms, 1945 and reorganized
systems, Southern Piedmont, North Carolina .................................... .......... 59
44 Summary of incomes at 1935-39 average prices, representative farms, 1945
and reorganized systems, Southern Piedmont, North Carolina .................... 60

APPENDIX
I Production and sale of farm products, representative small farm, 1945 and
reorganized system, Southern Piedmont, North Carolina ................................ 63
II Farm expenses, representative small farm, 1945 and reorganized system,
Southern Piedmont, North Carolin ...................................................... .......... 63
III Production and sale of farm products, representative medium-size farm, 1945
and reorganized system, Southern Piedmont North Carolina ............................ 64
IV Farm expenses, representative medium-size farm, 1945 and reorganized
system, Southern Piedmont, North Carolina ..................................... ........... 64
V Production and sale of farm products, representative large farm, 1945 and
reorganized system, Southern Pielmont, North Carolina .............................. 65
VI Farm products used by operator's family, representative large form, 1945 and
reorganized system, Southern Piednont, Norih Carolina .............................. 65
VII Farm expenses, representative large farm, 1945 and reorganized cotton-livestock
systems, Sou.hern Piedmont, North Carolina .................................. ........... 66
VIII Farm organizations in 1945 compared with alternatives, representative farms,
Southern Piedmont, North Carolina .............................................. .............. 67


As shown in this study, the
Southern Piedmont is one of the
major cotton producing areas of
North Carolina (Figure 1). The
area of study includes all of type-
of-farming area 5B and a portion
of area 7.2 Cotton has long domi-
nated the farm economy of the
area, which in 1945 contained 36
per cent of the State's total cotton
acreage. The intensity of cotton
production varies throughout the
area with the greatest concentra-
tion occurring in the southern tier
of counties.
Important economic and techno-
logical changes, which influence ad-
justments in farming systems, have
occurred during recent years. Of
particular importance are the op-
portunities for off-farm or urban
employment, changes in relative
prices of farm products, and the
work of public programs affecting
agriculture.
The technical changes include
the development of hybrid corn
adapted to this area, improvements
in pasture and other forage pro-
duction, and development of mecha-
nized equipment better adapted to
the farm economy of the Piedmont.
Effects of some of these factors
SW. W. McPherson. Agricultural Econo-
mist. BIureau of Agricultural Economics.
W. f. 'Hierce. Associate Agricultural Econ-
omist, anl R. E. L. Greene, formerly
Associate Agricultural Economist, Depart-
ment of Agricultural Economics, North
Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station.
The area covered in this study comprises
the northern section of the cotton-produc-
inli area of the southeastern Piedmnont sub-
rcgion that stretches from the central part
of North Carolina southward through
South Carolina, Georgia, and into Alabama.


are reflected in recent trends in
production and in employment of
resources. The potential influence
of all these factors needs careful
study so that farmers may direct
their resources into more profit-
able lines of production.

Purpose of Study
The purpose of the study was to
provide information needed by
farmers and by public agencies
working with farmers, in making
profitable adjustments in farming.
More specifically the objective was
to analyze alternative systems of
farming in view of current eco-
nomic and technological conditions.
This objective includes (1) an
analysis of the relative efficiency
of different combinations of re-
sources and scales of operation,
in both short-run and long-run sit-
uations, and (2) the presentation
of specific alternative farming sys-
tems," based on individual farms.

Method and Procedure
An analysis of the structure of
the farm economy is necessary for
determining opportunities for prof-
itable adjustments. Some useful
data were available. But for an
accurate description of the assets
and operation of individual farms
further information was needed.
Sampling Procedure: In view of
the objective of the study and of
a "Farming system," a term used through-
out this report means the combination of
resources and technical practices and en-
terprise combinations that are integrated
to form the farm business.










the time and funds available, "pur-
posive sampling" was considered
the most effective method. This
method employs selective sampling
within specified strata.
The major soil types were
grouped into associations based on
soils that occur in close geograph-
ic patterns. Neighborhood bound-
aries were super-imposed on soil-
association maps of the area.
Neighborhoods in which little or
no cotton was grown in 1945 and
those in which relatively large
areas of the minor soil groups oc-
curred were eliminated. This re-
duced the area to be sampled to
the cotton-producing neighborhoods
located within six major soil as-
sociations.
Complete neighborhoods were se-
lected as sampling units. The num-
ber of units allocated to each soil
association was approximately pro-
portionate to the total acreage of
the respective group. The entire
sample included 11 neighborhoods
(Table 1). Farm management rec-
ords were obtained from 220 farm-
ers and used to ascertain the more
common systems of farming and
modal levels of farm resources.
To evaluate the influence on-net
returns of changes in agronomic
practices and soil management, it
was necessary to analyze the quali-
ty of the land resources in more
detail than could be obtained from

Table 1.-Location and size of sample, Sou

sail AAnsocniatinn Cro s Lonr


the initial survey. For this analy-
sis the 220 farms were stratified
by soil-association groups, then
classified into groups of major
sizes and types, based on predomi-
nant systems of farming. This
-classification resulted in 22 major
groups. Purposive sampling was
again used for the selection of one
farm from each group for special
study.
Source and Type of Data Col-
lected: The basic data for the 220
farms were obtained by the sur-
vey method for the 1945 crop-
year.' The record of each farm
included an inventory of resources;
acreages of crops; actual and nor-
mal yields;' production and dispo-
sition of crops; number, produc-
tion, and disposal of livestock and
livestock products; and crop and
livestock practices. The 22 farms
selected as representative of the
major groups were studied in con-

To supplement data collected in this
study, materials were available from two
farm-management studies previously con-
ducted in parts of the area by the North
Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station
in cooperation with the Bureau of Agricul-
tural Economics. Secondary sources of
data include reports of the U. S. Census,
Federal-State Crop Reporting Service,
Weather Bureau, U. S. Dept. of Commerce,
and county soil surveys prepared by the
Bureau of Plant Industry, Soils and Agri-
cultural Engineering, U S. Department of
Agriculture.
SNormal Yields, as used in this report,
reflect the level of yields under approxi-
mately average climatic conditions.

then Piedmont, North Carolina, 1945
Neighbor- Total Sample Sub-
itinn hoods of Farms sample


Cu so C',4.n, Or-c


County Number Number Number
1. Cecil-Yadkin-Lloyd Cleveland 2 41 4
Iredell 2 40 3
Total (4) (81) (7)
2. Cecil-Appling-Durham Anson 1 20 2
Gaston 1 20 2
Total (2) (40) (4)
3. Georgeville-Herndon-Aalamance-
Orange Union 2 40 3
4. Davidson-Lloyd-Mecklenburg
Catawba 1 21 2
5. Iredell-Mecklenburg Cabarrus 1 20 3
6. White Store-Creedmoor Anson 1 18 3

Total 7 11 220 22


0
0
U
4) 4
I U
+> 8









siderable detail. Each was mapped
by soil technicians to show soil
type, degree of slope and erosion,
and land use capabilities. Soil
samples from each farm were col-
lected and analyzed. In addition,
records of cropping practices by
fields for 1944, 1945, and 1946 were
obtained from the farmer.
Method of Analysis: Data were
analyzed by neighborhoods, by soil-
association groups, and by size of
farm. Sample farms were classi-
fied into major groups based on
production opportunities. Present
farming systems for each group
were evaluated in terms of net
farm income, using practices and
input-output rates most common
in the area. In describing present


PART. RES


Physical Features
Topography and Soils:0 There
are considerable differences in the
physical features of the area. Ele-
vation ranges from 220 feet in the
southeastern section of Anson
County to 3978 feet at the summit
of Sugarloaf Mountain in Ruther-
ford County. However, the eleva-
tion is generally between 500 and
900 feet.
Fairly level, undulating, and
rolling relief characterize 42 per
cent of the total area; 36 per cent
is strongly rolling to hilly; 17 per
cent is steep; and 5 per cent is very
steep.` Most of the cultivated land
is found on slopes ranging from 2
to 10 per cent. Drainage is good
except in a few of the first bot-
tomlands that are subject to occa-
sional overflow.
Quantitative data in this section are
estimates derived from area soils maps.
and Soil Conservation Service data.
Undulating relief means slopes rising
3 to 7 feet in a hundred; rolling, 7 to 15
feet: hilly, 15 to 25 feet; steep, 25 to 45
feet; and very steep, more than 45 feet
in a hundred. Slopes more than 15 per
cent are considered too steep for tilled
crops.


conditions frequency distributions
were used to reveal important var-
iations that otherwise might be ob-
scured by averages. In arriving at
the more common organizations
and practices and in appraising
present farming systems, modal
tendencies were given more weight
than the arithmetic averages be-
cause of the skewed and multi-
modal distribution.
A budget analysis was used to
determine the influence of changes
in farming systems on net incomes.
Generally, the analysis covered two
conditions: (1) changes that would
be profitable, assuming relatively
fixed land and labor and (2) ad-
justments that would be profitable,
assuming all factors variable.


SOURCESS AND


0
N
44





= ,. )



%;~ cc
..






2
r_10 o x: ov)





4 ~ C-4
Id"
-1 o co wC





-H4 I Z Q



2~~~~.5 2M9 1--



I C%
0 a 1) a 0 0 0













0

1,


0
o ~
ca ~ h I H 4
a'" a


















40 1- w 5
-a H t w i
> o


Q~ a 10 Eo
a~.,~c. .e .
a 0'C 'C

-.' o a a


H a -. 4


H l4( 'C H) 0) 0 a
..4o~ ., 5 *
o l > ~ r c a
a a 00
oeq 00kla N(
ar r
rooillWd:


The soils of the area are pre-
dominately clay loams, sandy
loams, and clays, all having clay or
clay loam subsoils. Soil types form
a varied pattern. It is not uncom-
mon for small areas or even in-
dividual farms to be composed of
two or three, and often four or
more, soil types.
A map of the soil-association
groups is shown in Figure 2.! The
six most important associations
are Cecil-Yadkin-Lloyd, George-
ville Herndon Alamance-Orangc,
Cecil-Appling-Durham,. Davidson-
Lloyd-Mecklenburg, Iredell-Meck-
lenburg, and White Store-Creed-
moor. In addition, many minor
groups occur in localized areas and
frequently are interspersed within
the major soil associations.
The Gcorgeville Herndon-Ala-
mance-Orange and Cecil Appling-
Durham associations are moderate-
ly susceptible to erosion, the
s For detailed description of each soil, see
County Soil Surveys prepared by the United
States Department of Agriculture, Bureau
of Plant Industry, Soils, and Agricultural
Engineering, in cooperation with the North
Carolina Department of Agriculture.


PRESENT FARMING SYSTEMS

DESCRIPTION OF THE AREA









siderable detail. Each was mapped
by soil technicians to show soil
type, degree of slope and erosion,
and land use capabilities. Soil
samples from each farm were col-
lected and analyzed. In addition,
records of cropping practices by
fields for 1944, 1945, and 1946 were
obtained from the farmer.
Method of Analysis: Data were
analyzed by neighborhoods, by soil-
association groups, and by size of
farm. Sample farms were classi-
fied into major groups based on
production opportunities. Present
farming systems for each group
were evaluated in terms of net
farm income, using practices and
input-output rates most common
in the area. In describing present


PART. RES


Physical Features
Topography and Soils:0 There
are considerable differences in the
physical features of the area. Ele-
vation ranges from 220 feet in the
southeastern section of Anson
County to 3978 feet at the summit
of Sugarloaf Mountain in Ruther-
ford County. However, the eleva-
tion is generally between 500 and
900 feet.
Fairly level, undulating, and
rolling relief characterize 42 per
cent of the total area; 36 per cent
is strongly rolling to hilly; 17 per
cent is steep; and 5 per cent is very
steep.` Most of the cultivated land
is found on slopes ranging from 2
to 10 per cent. Drainage is good
except in a few of the first bot-
tomlands that are subject to occa-
sional overflow.
Quantitative data in this section are
estimates derived from area soils maps.
and Soil Conservation Service data.
Undulating relief means slopes rising
3 to 7 feet in a hundred; rolling, 7 to 15
feet: hilly, 15 to 25 feet; steep, 25 to 45
feet; and very steep, more than 45 feet
in a hundred. Slopes more than 15 per
cent are considered too steep for tilled
crops.


conditions frequency distributions
were used to reveal important var-
iations that otherwise might be ob-
scured by averages. In arriving at
the more common organizations
and practices and in appraising
present farming systems, modal
tendencies were given more weight
than the arithmetic averages be-
cause of the skewed and multi-
modal distribution.
A budget analysis was used to
determine the influence of changes
in farming systems on net incomes.
Generally, the analysis covered two
conditions: (1) changes that would
be profitable, assuming relatively
fixed land and labor and (2) ad-
justments that would be profitable,
assuming all factors variable.


SOURCESS AND


0
N
44





= ,. )



%;~ cc
..






2
r_10 o x: ov)





4 ~ C-4
Id"
-1 o co wC





-H4 I Z Q



2~~~~.5 2M9 1--



I C%
0 a 1) a 0 0 0













0

1,


0
o ~
ca ~ h I H 4
a'" a


















40 1- w 5
-a H t w i
> o


Q~ a 10 Eo
a~.,~c. .e .
a 0'C 'C

-.' o a a


H a -. 4


H l4( 'C H) 0) 0 a
..4o~ ., 5 *
o l > ~ r c a
a a 00
oeq 00kla N(
ar r
rooillWd:


The soils of the area are pre-
dominately clay loams, sandy
loams, and clays, all having clay or
clay loam subsoils. Soil types form
a varied pattern. It is not uncom-
mon for small areas or even in-
dividual farms to be composed of
two or three, and often four or
more, soil types.
A map of the soil-association
groups is shown in Figure 2.! The
six most important associations
are Cecil-Yadkin-Lloyd, George-
ville Herndon Alamance-Orangc,
Cecil-Appling-Durham,. Davidson-
Lloyd-Mecklenburg, Iredell-Meck-
lenburg, and White Store-Creed-
moor. In addition, many minor
groups occur in localized areas and
frequently are interspersed within
the major soil associations.
The Gcorgeville Herndon-Ala-
mance-Orange and Cecil Appling-
Durham associations are moderate-
ly susceptible to erosion, the
s For detailed description of each soil, see
County Soil Surveys prepared by the United
States Department of Agriculture, Bureau
of Plant Industry, Soils, and Agricultural
Engineering, in cooperation with the North
Carolina Department of Agriculture.


PRESENT FARMING SYSTEMS

DESCRIPTION OF THE AREA









siderable detail. Each was mapped
by soil technicians to show soil
type, degree of slope and erosion,
and land use capabilities. Soil
samples from each farm were col-
lected and analyzed. In addition,
records of cropping practices by
fields for 1944, 1945, and 1946 were
obtained from the farmer.
Method of Analysis: Data were
analyzed by neighborhoods, by soil-
association groups, and by size of
farm. Sample farms were classi-
fied into major groups based on
production opportunities. Present
farming systems for each group
were evaluated in terms of net
farm income, using practices and
input-output rates most common
in the area. In describing present


PART. RES


Physical Features
Topography and Soils:0 There
are considerable differences in the
physical features of the area. Ele-
vation ranges from 220 feet in the
southeastern section of Anson
County to 3978 feet at the summit
of Sugarloaf Mountain in Ruther-
ford County. However, the eleva-
tion is generally between 500 and
900 feet.
Fairly level, undulating, and
rolling relief characterize 42 per
cent of the total area; 36 per cent
is strongly rolling to hilly; 17 per
cent is steep; and 5 per cent is very
steep.` Most of the cultivated land
is found on slopes ranging from 2
to 10 per cent. Drainage is good
except in a few of the first bot-
tomlands that are subject to occa-
sional overflow.
Quantitative data in this section are
estimates derived from area soils maps.
and Soil Conservation Service data.
Undulating relief means slopes rising
3 to 7 feet in a hundred; rolling, 7 to 15
feet: hilly, 15 to 25 feet; steep, 25 to 45
feet; and very steep, more than 45 feet
in a hundred. Slopes more than 15 per
cent are considered too steep for tilled
crops.


conditions frequency distributions
were used to reveal important var-
iations that otherwise might be ob-
scured by averages. In arriving at
the more common organizations
and practices and in appraising
present farming systems, modal
tendencies were given more weight
than the arithmetic averages be-
cause of the skewed and multi-
modal distribution.
A budget analysis was used to
determine the influence of changes
in farming systems on net incomes.
Generally, the analysis covered two
conditions: (1) changes that would
be profitable, assuming relatively
fixed land and labor and (2) ad-
justments that would be profitable,
assuming all factors variable.


SOURCESS AND


0
N
44





= ,. )



%;~ cc
..






2
r_10 o x: ov)





4 ~ C-4
Id"
-1 o co wC





-H4 I Z Q



2~~~~.5 2M9 1--



I C%
0 a 1) a 0 0 0













0

1,


0
o ~
ca ~ h I H 4
a'" a


















40 1- w 5
-a H t w i
> o


Q~ a 10 Eo
a~.,~c. .e .
a 0'C 'C

-.' o a a


H a -. 4


H l4( 'C H) 0) 0 a
..4o~ ., 5 *
o l > ~ r c a
a a 00
oeq 00kla N(
ar r
rooillWd:


The soils of the area are pre-
dominately clay loams, sandy
loams, and clays, all having clay or
clay loam subsoils. Soil types form
a varied pattern. It is not uncom-
mon for small areas or even in-
dividual farms to be composed of
two or three, and often four or
more, soil types.
A map of the soil-association
groups is shown in Figure 2.! The
six most important associations
are Cecil-Yadkin-Lloyd, George-
ville Herndon Alamance-Orangc,
Cecil-Appling-Durham,. Davidson-
Lloyd-Mecklenburg, Iredell-Meck-
lenburg, and White Store-Creed-
moor. In addition, many minor
groups occur in localized areas and
frequently are interspersed within
the major soil associations.
The Gcorgeville Herndon-Ala-
mance-Orange and Cecil Appling-
Durham associations are moderate-
ly susceptible to erosion, the
s For detailed description of each soil, see
County Soil Surveys prepared by the United
States Department of Agriculture, Bureau
of Plant Industry, Soils, and Agricultural
Engineering, in cooperation with the North
Carolina Department of Agriculture.


PRESENT FARMING SYSTEMS

DESCRIPTION OF THE AREA








others highly susceptible. This,
coupled with the rolling topogra-
phy, the frequent downpour of
rains, and the fact that cotton and
corn-the principal crops-are in-
tertilled, has led to general sheet
erosion and considerable gullying
throughout the area. Parts of fields
and, in some cases, entire fields,
have been removed from cultiva-
tion due to severe erosion.
Moisture penetration of the sub-
soils is moderate with the excep-
tion of White Store, Creedmoor,
and Orange, where it is slow and
Iredell-Mecklenburg, where it is
very slow. All "retain moisture
well.
On heavy or clay soils, the range
of moisture conditions suitable for
tillage is more limited than for
sandy soils. The narrowest range
occurs in the Iredell-Mecklenburg
group. These conditions limit suit-
able periods of tillage as well as
opportunities for late fall, winter,
and early spring grazing of small
grains. The soil is often too wet
to allow cattle to range on the
fields.
Crops best adapted generally to
these soils are cotton, corn, small
grains, and lespedeza. Sandy loams
are suitable for sweet potatoes.
With proper practices, alfalfa and
clovers are adapted to all of the
soil groups except White Store-
Creedmoor, the more poorly
drained Iredell-Mecklenburg, and
the shallower phases of the
Georgeville Herndon Alamance -
Orange.
Climate and Weather: The cli-
mate is suited to the production of
corn, cotton, small grain, lespe-
deza, hays, pastures, and to many
other crops not adapted to the
soils. Based on weather data from
the Charlotte Station, normal an-
nual rainfall is 46 inches fairly
well distributed throughout the
year (Figure 3). Winter rains us-
ually are fairly slow and last for
several hours or days, whereas
summer rains often occur as thun-
dershowers that are downpours.
The latter result in considerable
runoff, particularly on the slopes.


The chances that several con-
secutive days suited to harvesting
of hay and grain will occur when
needed are of major concern to
farmers and to those whl are in-
vestigating possibilities for adding
new enterprises or changing farm
practices. Normally, the number
of clear days that occur in any
one month is highest in October,
November, and September, respec-
tively, and lowest in July, June
and August. ,
From June 2 through the third
week in August, the critical har-
vesting period for alfalfa, hay and
small grains, the chances of three
or more consecutive days of har-
vest weather occurring within any
one week are two or three out of
ten. During September, when an-
nual legume hays are harvested,
the chances become 40 to 50 per
cent (Figure 4). During this pe-
riod, September is the only month
in which the probability of seven
or more consecutive days cf har-
vest weather is greater than 20
per cent. These data indicate that
risks of losing hay due to weather
damage are much greater during
late spring and summer than dur-
ing early fall.
Probable dates of the last frost
in the spring and the first frost
in the fall are of major importance
in planning farm operations. Al-
though the average date of the
last killing frost in the spring is
March 25, frost has occurred as
late as April 20. The average date
of the first killing frost in the
fall is November 11, but frosts
have occurred as early as October
8 (Figure 5).
The chances are nine in ten that
one or more killing frosts will
occur after March 5. Twenty days
later, March 25, chances of anoth-
er killing frost are reduced to five
in ten or 50 per cent. By April 6,
this figure has fallen to 20 per cent.
In the fall, chances are only two
in ten that a killing frost will oc-
cur before October 31, but in eight
out of ten years the first killing
frost occurs before November 18.
These data are more useful than


a. Monthly precipitation


b. Clear days per ronth 2/


Inches
12 ,


c. Days v.ith 0.01 inch or more of rain d. 1ean temperature
Days Derrees
16 q0

121 '1945a
00
0 rr-



eI I


J F I! A ?: J J A S 0 D A J J A J A S 0 N D
1,onth l;onth
Figure 3. Monthly Precipitation and Temperatures, Normal and 1945, Charlotte,
North Carolina.1
Source: U. S. Department of Commerce, Weather Bureau. Normal is the 1878-1944 average.
SNumber of partly cloudy days is usually high between April and September.

Per cent


40 more 7 days or more


o30


50


1 2 5 4 S 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
June July Aug. Sept.
lMonth and Week
Figure 4. Percentage Probability of Consecutive Harvest Weather Days' by
Weeks, during Period June 2 to September 28, Charlotte, North Carolina.-
SDays with no rain, plus days clear or partly cloudy, with 0.01 inch or trace of rain.
2Source: U. S. Department of Commerce, Weather Bureau, records from 1896 to 1945.









Per cen
100,


25 1 5 3 15 2a 25 301 10 5 20 2s 8 15 205 30 l 15 20 25 30
Feb. arch April Date Oct. Nov. Dec.
Figure 5. Frost Risk Curves: The Probable Dates of the Last Killing Frost in the
Spring and the First Killing Frost in the Fall, Charlotte, North Carolina.'
SSource: U. S. Department of Commerce, Weather Bureau, Records from 1896 to 1945.


are figures showing only normal
weather.

Social and Econo:.-ic
Conditions
In addition to a knowledge of
soils and climate, a knowledge of
recent trends in social and eco-
nomic conditions is also essential
to a clear understanding of the
agricultural problems of an area.
Man-land ratio, available capital
resources, tenure, age and man-
agerial aptitude of farm operators,
distance to all weather roads and
to markets, past experience of
farmers in handling the alternative
enterprises, and off-farm employ-
ment opportunities all must be
considered in studying means of
improving farming systems.
Population: The total popula-
tion of the Southern Piedmont has
increased steadily in the last 50
years. Farm population, however,
has declined since 1935 (Figure 6).
In 1940, farm population num-
bered 240,499, or 34 per cent of
tne total population. Between 1940
and 1945 farm population decreased
by 57,341 people, a decline of 24
per cent.
The Census of 1945 listed 39,915
farmers in the area (Table 2). Of
this number, 55 per cent were
owners and 9 per cent part own-
ers. The proportion of tenancy


population
(000)
800 r


400


01
18'


has shown a marked decline from
51 per cent in 1930 to 36 per cent
in 1945 (Figure 7).
Farm mortgage debt in relation
to assets is shown in Figure 8.
The mortgage indebtedness has
been decreasing gradually since
the peak period following World
War I. However, the ratio of
mortgage debt to value of real
estate on mortgaged farms contin-
ued to increase with the decline in
value of farm real estate during
the depression years. Since 1930,
the per cent of all owner and part-
owner farms that are mortgaged
has remained fairly constant.
The number of farms has de-
creased slightly, and total acreage
of improved land has increased.
The net result has been a small
increase in average size of farms.
Farm Population per 100 acres of
improved land declined from 17.5
persons in 1930 to 11.4 persons in
1945. As a result of population
shifts, the greatest change has been
a reduced labor force living on
individual farms rather than an
increase in farm size or a reduc-
tion in number of farms through
farm abandonment.
Of particular significance to this
area from the standpoint of farm
adjustments is age of the farmers.
In 1945, the average age of all
farmers was 47 years; 35 per cent


90


-.L-- ----a-~-






I I


1930 1940

Piedmont, North Carolina,


1900


Figure 6. Population:
1890-1945.
1 Source: U. S. Census.


1910

Total and Farm,


were 55 or older. Only 18 per cent
were under 35 (Table 3).
This area, like other sections
of the Piedmont, has many peo-
ple who live on farms but who
spend all or part of their time in
off-farm work. The exact propor-
tion of the rural population or the
number of farmers who depend en-
tirely upon agriculture for a live-
lihood cannot be ascertained from


1920
Year
Southern


data available. In 1945, 27 per cent
of the farmers were engaged in
off-farm work. Probably of more
importance is the number of mem-
bers of the family other than the
operator who were engaged in off-
farm work.
Resources:" In 1945 the aver-
age size of all farms in this area
SBased on U. S. Census definition of a
farm.


Table 2.-Number of farmers, tenure, and color, Southern Piedmont, North Carolina, 19451
Color Proportion of all farmers
Tenure White Non-white Total White Non-white Total
Per cent Per cent Per cent
Full owner .... 20,540 1,374 21,914 51.4 3.4 54.8
Part owner .... 3,059 355 3,414 7.7 .9 8.6
Manager ...... 75 3 78 .2 .0 .2
Tenants ....... 6,155 2,015 8,170 15.4 5.1 20.5
Share croppers 2,950 3,389 6,339 7.4 8.5 15.9

Total ......32,779 7,136 39,915 82.1 17.9 100.0
Source: U. S. Census of Agriculture.


It
Latest the last Earliest the first
killing frost has killing frost has
occurred in spring 1f53 days free occurred in fall .
frin frost


------- 'edian dates -t
231 days growing season




J L L. , , ,


80o


01


Total population


Farm population


I


\









Per cen
100,


25 1 5 3 15 2a 25 301 10 5 20 2s 8 15 205 30 l 15 20 25 30
Feb. arch April Date Oct. Nov. Dec.
Figure 5. Frost Risk Curves: The Probable Dates of the Last Killing Frost in the
Spring and the First Killing Frost in the Fall, Charlotte, North Carolina.'
SSource: U. S. Department of Commerce, Weather Bureau, Records from 1896 to 1945.


are figures showing only normal
weather.

Social and Econo:.-ic
Conditions
In addition to a knowledge of
soils and climate, a knowledge of
recent trends in social and eco-
nomic conditions is also essential
to a clear understanding of the
agricultural problems of an area.
Man-land ratio, available capital
resources, tenure, age and man-
agerial aptitude of farm operators,
distance to all weather roads and
to markets, past experience of
farmers in handling the alternative
enterprises, and off-farm employ-
ment opportunities all must be
considered in studying means of
improving farming systems.
Population: The total popula-
tion of the Southern Piedmont has
increased steadily in the last 50
years. Farm population, however,
has declined since 1935 (Figure 6).
In 1940, farm population num-
bered 240,499, or 34 per cent of
tne total population. Between 1940
and 1945 farm population decreased
by 57,341 people, a decline of 24
per cent.
The Census of 1945 listed 39,915
farmers in the area (Table 2). Of
this number, 55 per cent were
owners and 9 per cent part own-
ers. The proportion of tenancy


population
(000)
800 r


400


01
18'


has shown a marked decline from
51 per cent in 1930 to 36 per cent
in 1945 (Figure 7).
Farm mortgage debt in relation
to assets is shown in Figure 8.
The mortgage indebtedness has
been decreasing gradually since
the peak period following World
War I. However, the ratio of
mortgage debt to value of real
estate on mortgaged farms contin-
ued to increase with the decline in
value of farm real estate during
the depression years. Since 1930,
the per cent of all owner and part-
owner farms that are mortgaged
has remained fairly constant.
The number of farms has de-
creased slightly, and total acreage
of improved land has increased.
The net result has been a small
increase in average size of farms.
Farm Population per 100 acres of
improved land declined from 17.5
persons in 1930 to 11.4 persons in
1945. As a result of population
shifts, the greatest change has been
a reduced labor force living on
individual farms rather than an
increase in farm size or a reduc-
tion in number of farms through
farm abandonment.
Of particular significance to this
area from the standpoint of farm
adjustments is age of the farmers.
In 1945, the average age of all
farmers was 47 years; 35 per cent


90


-.L-- ----a-~-






I I


1930 1940

Piedmont, North Carolina,


1900


Figure 6. Population:
1890-1945.
1 Source: U. S. Census.


1910

Total and Farm,


were 55 or older. Only 18 per cent
were under 35 (Table 3).
This area, like other sections
of the Piedmont, has many peo-
ple who live on farms but who
spend all or part of their time in
off-farm work. The exact propor-
tion of the rural population or the
number of farmers who depend en-
tirely upon agriculture for a live-
lihood cannot be ascertained from


1920
Year
Southern


data available. In 1945, 27 per cent
of the farmers were engaged in
off-farm work. Probably of more
importance is the number of mem-
bers of the family other than the
operator who were engaged in off-
farm work.
Resources:" In 1945 the aver-
age size of all farms in this area
SBased on U. S. Census definition of a
farm.


Table 2.-Number of farmers, tenure, and color, Southern Piedmont, North Carolina, 19451
Color Proportion of all farmers
Tenure White Non-white Total White Non-white Total
Per cent Per cent Per cent
Full owner .... 20,540 1,374 21,914 51.4 3.4 54.8
Part owner .... 3,059 355 3,414 7.7 .9 8.6
Manager ...... 75 3 78 .2 .0 .2
Tenants ....... 6,155 2,015 8,170 15.4 5.1 20.5
Share croppers 2,950 3,389 6,339 7.4 8.5 15.9

Total ......32,779 7,136 39,915 82.1 17.9 100.0
Source: U. S. Census of Agriculture.


It
Latest the last Earliest the first
killing frost has killing frost has
occurred in spring 1f53 days free occurred in fall .
frin frost


------- 'edian dates -t
231 days growing season




J L L. , , ,


80o


01


Total population


Farm population


I


\


































LaOu lVuu 1910 1920 1930 1940
Year
Figure 7. Tenure Status of Farmers, Southern Piedmont, North Carolina, 1890-
1945.'
'Sou,rce: U. S. Censt-s of Agriculture; Managers ranged between 35 and 152, a negligible
number; all tenants included croppers.


was 73.2 acres. Approximately 55
per cent, or 40.6 acres, was classed
as improved land. About a third
of the land was in woods (Table
4). Livestock per farm averaged
1.4 head of workstock, 3.7 head of
all cattle, 2.3 hogs, and 46 chick-
ens.
Cash income from sales of prod-
ucts in 1944 was $1,019 per farm.
Receipts were distributed among
the principal sources as follows:
Cotton, 52.3 per cent; other crops,
15.1 per cent; dairy products, 14.2
per cent; poultry products, 11.8 per
cent; and other livestock and live-


stock products, 6.6 per cent. Of the
total number of farmers, 68 per
cent reported income from cotton;
50 per cent, income from poultry;
and 33 per cent, income from dairy
products. Cotton occupied about a
fifth of the total cropland harvest-
ed in 1944.
Trends: The acreage of cotton
declined from a peak of 527 thou-
sand in 1926 to 200 thousand in
1945. The number of farmers
growing cotton declined steadily
from 37,807 in 1930 to 27,159 in
1945. Significant trends occurring
in the area from 1926 to 1945 were:


Table 3.-Ages of farmers, Southern Piedmont, North Carolina, 19451
Number Percentage Cumulative
Ages in years farmers of total percentage
34 and less ................... 6,918 17.6 17.6
35 to 54 ............... ..18,578 47.4 65.0
55 to 64 .. ................. 7,861 20.0 85.0
65 and more ................... 5,877 15.0 100.0

Total ......... ........39,234 100.0
Source: U. S. Census of Agriculture.


Ce4

H
H$4
G


r^k





kak

P4c CE


L
CO
<)0


0
C;



2
a
U



o.






o
z

a


.-
C
L.




I
0


0

u
H a.

0-
o


U




0 E




H
6 5






0,~
s Y"
t-


I !-









(1) A steadily declining acreage of
cotton, accompanied by higher
yields; (2) a considerable increase
in acreage of wheat, with some
increase in yields; (3) an increase
in acreage and yields of oats; (4) a
gradual decline in acreage of corn,
and higher yields during 1941-45.
(5) Over 100 per cent increase in
acreage of hay with little change
in yield; increase in lespedeza for
hay from a negligible quantity to
the most important source of hay;
(6) increase in lespedeza for seed


from a very small acreage to 95
thousand acres; (7) increase of 20
per cent in number of cows milked
and increase of 36 per cent in to-
tal milk production; (8) increase
of 26 per cent in number of chick-
ens (inventory on January 1) and
143 per cent increase in total pro-
duction of eggs. (Figure 9, Table
5).
Price relationships for the period
1926 to 1945 of the principal prod-
ucts sold by farmers are shown
in Figure 10.


Table 4.-Farm resources and value of products sold, Southern Piedmont, North Carolina,
19451

Area Average Percentage
Item total per of
(000) farm2 total
Acres Acres Per cent
Land:
Cropland harvested .................... 1,097 27.5 37.6
Cropland failure ...................... 10 0.2 0.3
Cropland idle or fallow ............... 230 5.8 7.9
Cropland used for pasture ............. 92 2.3 3.1
Total cropland .................... 1,429 35.8 48.9
W oodland pastured .................... 190 4.8 6.5
Other land pastured ................... 194 4.8 6.5
Woodland not pastured ................ 945 23.7 32.4
All other farm land .................. 163 4.1 5.6
Total land in farms ................ 2,920 73.2 100.0
Land used for crops ............... 1,107 27.7 37.9
Total woodland ................... 1,135 28.5 38.9
Livestock: Number Number
All cattle and calves ................... 147 3.7 *
Cows and heifers, 2 years and over .... 90 2.3
All hogs and pigs .................... 92 2.3 *
Sows and gilts ........................ 8 .2 *
Chickens ............................. 1,826 45.7 *
M ules and colts ....................... 41 1.0 *
Horses and colts ...................... 16 .4
Total workstock .................. 57 1.4 *
Tractors ................................ 8 .2 *
Value of sales: Dollars Dollars
Livestock and products ................ 13,259 332 32.6
Crops ............................. .. 27,419 687 67.4
Total sales ....................... 40,678 1,019 100.0
Inventory values:
Land and buildings .................... 141,529 3,546 80.7
Implements and machinery ............ 13,021 326 7.4
W orkstock ........................... 9,884 248 5.6
All other livestock ................... 11,052 277 6.3
Total livestock .................. .. 20,936 525 11.9
Total values ....................175,486 4,397 100.0
SU. S. Census of Agriculture. 1945; acreages are for the 1944 crop year; values and
livestock numbers are inventory of January 1, 1945.
STotal number of farms as reported by U. S. Census of Agriculture was 39.915.
Data not applicable.


Index
175,


0 1L
1926


.

/\ /\/


/\. / Yield


\. Production
.s L / ..

1926 = 100
Acreage
Acreage 526,713
Prod., bales 297,471
Yield, lb. lint 270


1931


1936


1941


Year
Figure 9a Cotton, 1926-1945, Sou.nern Piedmont, North Carolina.1
SSource: Crop Reporting Service of the Dureau of Agricultural Economics, USDA andn
N. C. Department of Agriculture.
Acres
(000)


1926 1931 1936 19,
Year
Figure 9b. Acreage of the Five Principal Crops, 1926-1945.'










g
r
r


1945 19 per cent reported them.
The total number of tractors more
than doubled between 1940 and
1945.


210


180

150


OL
189

Figur
of Mi


Index
250,


S -

Total production



S ,/ .. Number of cows


,,' "...- /
-- Production per cow
1890 = 100


Number of cows 35,665
Total prod.,gal. 12,093,099
Prod. per cow, gal. 539



i i i -, l i I i ,I --,, l ,- i ,
0 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940
Year
S9c. Number of Cows Milked, Production Per Cow and Total Production
Ik, Southern Piedmont, North Carolino, 1890-1945.,


1Source: U. S. Census of Agriculture.


Table 5.-Production and yield, by 5 year periods, six principal crops, Southern Piedmont,
North Carolina, 1926-19451
All
Period Cotton Corn Wheat Oats tame Lespedeza
(lint) hay seed
1.000 1.000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000
bales bu. bu. bu. tons lbs.
Production
1926-1930 ..... 265 7,190 1,192 1,631 1082 *
1931-1935 .... .215 6,370 1,720 1,910 126 *
1936-1940 .....201 6,139 2,411 1,927 146 *
1941-1945 .... .191 6,362 2,697 2,846 218 21,230
Yield per acre Lbs.- Bu. Bu. Bu. Ton Lbs.
1926-1930 .....258 19.3 10.8 21.7 '.1.0 *
1931-1935 .... 286 17.0 11.0 -20.3 1.0 *
1936-1940 .....342 17.9 12.5 20.3 1.0 *
1941-1945 .... 385 21.3 13.8 25.4 1.1 225
1 Source: Derived from data reported by United States Department of Agriculture and
North Carolina Department of Agriculture, Crop Reporting Service.
2Average of 1929-1930.
s Net weight of lint.
Data not available.


225


200


175 L


125L


75


50


25


Production p

7


/



i /


er bird I


/ ,,


'. Po Total
.' Production


S-- \/


Number







1925 = 100

Number chickens 1,447,601
Total egg prod., doz. 4,802,663
Prod. per bird, doz. 5.5


OL
19;


I I I I


1930


1955
Year


1940


1945


Figure 9d. Trend in Numbers of Chickens on Forms, Total Egg Production and
Production Per Bird, Southern Piedmont, North Carolina, 1925-1945.'
1 Source: U. S. Census of Agriculture.


Index
300


-


Workstock as a source of power
declined continuously from 1920 to
1945. In 1925, only 6 per cent of
the farmers reported tractors; in


I


25












Dollars
(Millions)
60,


30L


V


a'i


/Other
TIoT

1/t
I/Cot/


a{zf

1938 '39 '40 '41


com
;"/ //1


'42 '43 '44 '45


Year
Figure 9c. Value of Production: Cotton and Other Principal Crops, Southern
Piedmont, North Carolina, 1938-1945.1
SSoulrce: USDA und NCDA Crop iteporting Service; other crops includes 11 t: 13 of the
most important crops.


Index


Cotton
J


* Eggs


M


..,/


SWheat


.1 I I t 1 i i e I
1926 1931 1936 1941
Figure 10. Trends in Prices Received by Farmers; Wholesale Milk, Eggs, Cotton,
and Wheat, Southern Piedmont, North Carolina, 1926-1945.'
'Source: USDA und NCDA Crop Reporting Service.


-2-cL-I- ---


1926 = 100
Cotton, lint,lb.
Wheat, bu.
/ilk, cwt.
Ews. doz.


~~I_ _Ie~sl~ll~l_


11.9 cents


~


~


b










FARM ORGANIZATIONS AND INCOMES IN 1945


Acreage of Land
In the Piedmont area the farm
economy is centered around crops.
This means that crop acreage is
of major importance. On farms
in the sample, acreages used for
crops ranged from 6.5 to 722.10
The distribution of farms, when
classified according to acres used
for crops, indicate three rather
broad size groups-small, 10 to
44 acres; medium, 45 to 74 acres;
and large, 75 or more acres (Fig-
ure 11).
Of the same farms, 47 per cent
were small; 30 per cent, medium;
and 23 per cent, large. Though.
wide extremes in crop acreages
were found among the large farms,
two-thirds of them ranged between
75 and 150 acres. Large farms
accounted for only 23 per cent of
the number of farms, but they
comprised 48 per cent of the land
10 Beyond this point in the analysis three
farms were not included because of their
extreme size and organization. These farms
included one with 772 acres used for crops,
and two with 6.5 and 23.0 acres, respec-
tively, where unusual circumstances limited
production to reseeded lespedeza.
No. of farms


used for crops. Small farms ac-
counted for only 24 per cent of the
total cropland in use.

Power and Equipment
Workstock was the principal
source of power on the small and
medium farms, but two-thirds of
the large farms had a tractor in
addition to two or more head of
workstock. Small and medium-
size farms were predominantly
"two-mule" units. Sixty-four per
cent of the small farms and 54 per
cent of the medium farms operat-
ed with two head of workstock
each. On the "one-mule" units
there were many cases when an
additional mule was borrowed or
hired. Tractors on the small and
medium-size farms often were
used to do custom work on neigh-
boring farms in addition to work
at home.
Equipment on farms using mules
or horses as power usually con-
sisted of two-horse implements for
seed-bed preparation and one-horse
equipment for planting and culti-
vating.


One or more wagons, turning
plows, smoothing harrows, cultiva-
tors, middle busters, and plow
stocks, a combination corn-cotton
planter, fertilizer distributor, mow-
ing machine, dump rake, and the
usual small tools, were the more
common equipment found on farms.
There were some differences ac-
cording to size of farms. A mow-
ing machine was reported on half
of the small, on three-fourths of
the medium, and on almost all of
the large farms.
On farms with tractors, a break-
ing plow and tandem disk were
the principal tractor equipment. On
most of the tractor farms, plant-
ing and cultivating was done with
workstock. On the large farms,
the percentage of tractor farmers
reporting other tractor equipment
were: planter, 21 per cent; culti-
vator, 24 per cent; grain drill, 36
per cent; mowing machine, 36 per
cent; and combine, 45 per cent.
On the medium-size farms, only
about a third of the farmers with
tractors reported combines.

Buildings
Many of the farms have only a
few buildings other than dwellings
for the operator's family, and for
sharecroppers or hired labor fami-
lies. The small farms usually have
a general barn and one or two
small structures such as poultry
house, corn crib, and smokehouse.
Medium and large farms usually
have a general-purpose barn, a
poultry house, corn crib, smoke-
house, granary, and one or two
other small buildings for tools,
storage, and shop work. On farms
with dairy herds (more than 6


cows) a dairy barn or milking shed
is common. In the main, farm
buildings were in poor to fair
condition.
Two-thirds of the dwellings on
small farms were equipped with
electricity, while 94 per cent of the
large farms were so equipped
(Table 6). A running water sys-
tem was found in less than a third
of the dwellings on small and med-
ium-size farms, but in 71 per cent
of the dwellings on large farms.

Population and Labor Supply
The size of the operator's fami-
ly was about the same regardless
of size of the farm. The number
of sharecropper families increased
as the size of the farm increased
(Table 7).
On 79 per cent of the small
farms, labor was furnished almost
entirely by the operator and his
family. Occasionally an extra per-
son was hired to help harvest hay
and to pick cotton. Of the 103
small farms, 22 (usually those with
the larger.acreages of cotton) em-
ployed sharecropper labor. On the
medium-size farms, sharecroppers
were found on 29 of the 59 farms
that grew cotton. On three-fourths
of the farms where sharecropper
labor was used, the operator's fam-
ily had only one man.
About three-fourths of the large
farms employed sharecropper la-
bor, ranging from one family for
25 per cent of the group to six to
eight families for 7 per cent of the
group. On farms where only one
sharecropper family was employed,
the average acreage of cotton per
family, including the operator's
family, was 7.7 acres. The aver-


Acres used for crops
Figure 11. Distribution of Numbers of Farms by Acres Used for Crops, 220
Forms, Southern Piedmont, North Carolina, 1945.'
SRange 6.5 772.0 acres.


Table 6.-Proportion of operators' dwellings equipped with specified facilities, by size of
farm, 217 farms, Southern Piedmont, North Carolina, 1945
Percentage of farms reporting
Item
Small Medium Large All farms
Electricity ....................... 67 75 94 76
Radios ........................84 94 94 89
Running water .................. 26 29 71 37
Refrigerators .................. 47 50 82 55










FARM ORGANIZATIONS AND INCOMES IN 1945


Acreage of Land
In the Piedmont area the farm
economy is centered around crops.
This means that crop acreage is
of major importance. On farms
in the sample, acreages used for
crops ranged from 6.5 to 722.10
The distribution of farms, when
classified according to acres used
for crops, indicate three rather
broad size groups-small, 10 to
44 acres; medium, 45 to 74 acres;
and large, 75 or more acres (Fig-
ure 11).
Of the same farms, 47 per cent
were small; 30 per cent, medium;
and 23 per cent, large. Though.
wide extremes in crop acreages
were found among the large farms,
two-thirds of them ranged between
75 and 150 acres. Large farms
accounted for only 23 per cent of
the number of farms, but they
comprised 48 per cent of the land
10 Beyond this point in the analysis three
farms were not included because of their
extreme size and organization. These farms
included one with 772 acres used for crops,
and two with 6.5 and 23.0 acres, respec-
tively, where unusual circumstances limited
production to reseeded lespedeza.
No. of farms


used for crops. Small farms ac-
counted for only 24 per cent of the
total cropland in use.

Power and Equipment
Workstock was the principal
source of power on the small and
medium farms, but two-thirds of
the large farms had a tractor in
addition to two or more head of
workstock. Small and medium-
size farms were predominantly
"two-mule" units. Sixty-four per
cent of the small farms and 54 per
cent of the medium farms operat-
ed with two head of workstock
each. On the "one-mule" units
there were many cases when an
additional mule was borrowed or
hired. Tractors on the small and
medium-size farms often were
used to do custom work on neigh-
boring farms in addition to work
at home.
Equipment on farms using mules
or horses as power usually con-
sisted of two-horse implements for
seed-bed preparation and one-horse
equipment for planting and culti-
vating.


One or more wagons, turning
plows, smoothing harrows, cultiva-
tors, middle busters, and plow
stocks, a combination corn-cotton
planter, fertilizer distributor, mow-
ing machine, dump rake, and the
usual small tools, were the more
common equipment found on farms.
There were some differences ac-
cording to size of farms. A mow-
ing machine was reported on half
of the small, on three-fourths of
the medium, and on almost all of
the large farms.
On farms with tractors, a break-
ing plow and tandem disk were
the principal tractor equipment. On
most of the tractor farms, plant-
ing and cultivating was done with
workstock. On the large farms,
the percentage of tractor farmers
reporting other tractor equipment
were: planter, 21 per cent; culti-
vator, 24 per cent; grain drill, 36
per cent; mowing machine, 36 per
cent; and combine, 45 per cent.
On the medium-size farms, only
about a third of the farmers with
tractors reported combines.

Buildings
Many of the farms have only a
few buildings other than dwellings
for the operator's family, and for
sharecroppers or hired labor fami-
lies. The small farms usually have
a general barn and one or two
small structures such as poultry
house, corn crib, and smokehouse.
Medium and large farms usually
have a general-purpose barn, a
poultry house, corn crib, smoke-
house, granary, and one or two
other small buildings for tools,
storage, and shop work. On farms
with dairy herds (more than 6


cows) a dairy barn or milking shed
is common. In the main, farm
buildings were in poor to fair
condition.
Two-thirds of the dwellings on
small farms were equipped with
electricity, while 94 per cent of the
large farms were so equipped
(Table 6). A running water sys-
tem was found in less than a third
of the dwellings on small and med-
ium-size farms, but in 71 per cent
of the dwellings on large farms.

Population and Labor Supply
The size of the operator's fami-
ly was about the same regardless
of size of the farm. The number
of sharecropper families increased
as the size of the farm increased
(Table 7).
On 79 per cent of the small
farms, labor was furnished almost
entirely by the operator and his
family. Occasionally an extra per-
son was hired to help harvest hay
and to pick cotton. Of the 103
small farms, 22 (usually those with
the larger.acreages of cotton) em-
ployed sharecropper labor. On the
medium-size farms, sharecroppers
were found on 29 of the 59 farms
that grew cotton. On three-fourths
of the farms where sharecropper
labor was used, the operator's fam-
ily had only one man.
About three-fourths of the large
farms employed sharecropper la-
bor, ranging from one family for
25 per cent of the group to six to
eight families for 7 per cent of the
group. On farms where only one
sharecropper family was employed,
the average acreage of cotton per
family, including the operator's
family, was 7.7 acres. The aver-


Acres used for crops
Figure 11. Distribution of Numbers of Farms by Acres Used for Crops, 220
Forms, Southern Piedmont, North Carolina, 1945.'
SRange 6.5 772.0 acres.


Table 6.-Proportion of operators' dwellings equipped with specified facilities, by size of
farm, 217 farms, Southern Piedmont, North Carolina, 1945
Percentage of farms reporting
Item
Small Medium Large All farms
Electricity ....................... 67 75 94 76
Radios ........................84 94 94 89
Running water .................. 26 29 71 37
Refrigerators .................. 47 50 82 55










FARM ORGANIZATIONS AND INCOMES IN 1945


Acreage of Land
In the Piedmont area the farm
economy is centered around crops.
This means that crop acreage is
of major importance. On farms
in the sample, acreages used for
crops ranged from 6.5 to 722.10
The distribution of farms, when
classified according to acres used
for crops, indicate three rather
broad size groups-small, 10 to
44 acres; medium, 45 to 74 acres;
and large, 75 or more acres (Fig-
ure 11).
Of the same farms, 47 per cent
were small; 30 per cent, medium;
and 23 per cent, large. Though.
wide extremes in crop acreages
were found among the large farms,
two-thirds of them ranged between
75 and 150 acres. Large farms
accounted for only 23 per cent of
the number of farms, but they
comprised 48 per cent of the land
10 Beyond this point in the analysis three
farms were not included because of their
extreme size and organization. These farms
included one with 772 acres used for crops,
and two with 6.5 and 23.0 acres, respec-
tively, where unusual circumstances limited
production to reseeded lespedeza.
No. of farms


used for crops. Small farms ac-
counted for only 24 per cent of the
total cropland in use.

Power and Equipment
Workstock was the principal
source of power on the small and
medium farms, but two-thirds of
the large farms had a tractor in
addition to two or more head of
workstock. Small and medium-
size farms were predominantly
"two-mule" units. Sixty-four per
cent of the small farms and 54 per
cent of the medium farms operat-
ed with two head of workstock
each. On the "one-mule" units
there were many cases when an
additional mule was borrowed or
hired. Tractors on the small and
medium-size farms often were
used to do custom work on neigh-
boring farms in addition to work
at home.
Equipment on farms using mules
or horses as power usually con-
sisted of two-horse implements for
seed-bed preparation and one-horse
equipment for planting and culti-
vating.


One or more wagons, turning
plows, smoothing harrows, cultiva-
tors, middle busters, and plow
stocks, a combination corn-cotton
planter, fertilizer distributor, mow-
ing machine, dump rake, and the
usual small tools, were the more
common equipment found on farms.
There were some differences ac-
cording to size of farms. A mow-
ing machine was reported on half
of the small, on three-fourths of
the medium, and on almost all of
the large farms.
On farms with tractors, a break-
ing plow and tandem disk were
the principal tractor equipment. On
most of the tractor farms, plant-
ing and cultivating was done with
workstock. On the large farms,
the percentage of tractor farmers
reporting other tractor equipment
were: planter, 21 per cent; culti-
vator, 24 per cent; grain drill, 36
per cent; mowing machine, 36 per
cent; and combine, 45 per cent.
On the medium-size farms, only
about a third of the farmers with
tractors reported combines.

Buildings
Many of the farms have only a
few buildings other than dwellings
for the operator's family, and for
sharecroppers or hired labor fami-
lies. The small farms usually have
a general barn and one or two
small structures such as poultry
house, corn crib, and smokehouse.
Medium and large farms usually
have a general-purpose barn, a
poultry house, corn crib, smoke-
house, granary, and one or two
other small buildings for tools,
storage, and shop work. On farms
with dairy herds (more than 6


cows) a dairy barn or milking shed
is common. In the main, farm
buildings were in poor to fair
condition.
Two-thirds of the dwellings on
small farms were equipped with
electricity, while 94 per cent of the
large farms were so equipped
(Table 6). A running water sys-
tem was found in less than a third
of the dwellings on small and med-
ium-size farms, but in 71 per cent
of the dwellings on large farms.

Population and Labor Supply
The size of the operator's fami-
ly was about the same regardless
of size of the farm. The number
of sharecropper families increased
as the size of the farm increased
(Table 7).
On 79 per cent of the small
farms, labor was furnished almost
entirely by the operator and his
family. Occasionally an extra per-
son was hired to help harvest hay
and to pick cotton. Of the 103
small farms, 22 (usually those with
the larger.acreages of cotton) em-
ployed sharecropper labor. On the
medium-size farms, sharecroppers
were found on 29 of the 59 farms
that grew cotton. On three-fourths
of the farms where sharecropper
labor was used, the operator's fam-
ily had only one man.
About three-fourths of the large
farms employed sharecropper la-
bor, ranging from one family for
25 per cent of the group to six to
eight families for 7 per cent of the
group. On farms where only one
sharecropper family was employed,
the average acreage of cotton per
family, including the operator's
family, was 7.7 acres. The aver-


Acres used for crops
Figure 11. Distribution of Numbers of Farms by Acres Used for Crops, 220
Forms, Southern Piedmont, North Carolina, 1945.'
SRange 6.5 772.0 acres.


Table 6.-Proportion of operators' dwellings equipped with specified facilities, by size of
farm, 217 farms, Southern Piedmont, North Carolina, 1945
Percentage of farms reporting
Item
Small Medium Large All farms
Electricity ....................... 67 75 94 76
Radios ........................84 94 94 89
Running water .................. 26 29 71 37
Refrigerators .................. 47 50 82 55










FARM ORGANIZATIONS AND INCOMES IN 1945


Acreage of Land
In the Piedmont area the farm
economy is centered around crops.
This means that crop acreage is
of major importance. On farms
in the sample, acreages used for
crops ranged from 6.5 to 722.10
The distribution of farms, when
classified according to acres used
for crops, indicate three rather
broad size groups-small, 10 to
44 acres; medium, 45 to 74 acres;
and large, 75 or more acres (Fig-
ure 11).
Of the same farms, 47 per cent
were small; 30 per cent, medium;
and 23 per cent, large. Though.
wide extremes in crop acreages
were found among the large farms,
two-thirds of them ranged between
75 and 150 acres. Large farms
accounted for only 23 per cent of
the number of farms, but they
comprised 48 per cent of the land
10 Beyond this point in the analysis three
farms were not included because of their
extreme size and organization. These farms
included one with 772 acres used for crops,
and two with 6.5 and 23.0 acres, respec-
tively, where unusual circumstances limited
production to reseeded lespedeza.
No. of farms


used for crops. Small farms ac-
counted for only 24 per cent of the
total cropland in use.

Power and Equipment
Workstock was the principal
source of power on the small and
medium farms, but two-thirds of
the large farms had a tractor in
addition to two or more head of
workstock. Small and medium-
size farms were predominantly
"two-mule" units. Sixty-four per
cent of the small farms and 54 per
cent of the medium farms operat-
ed with two head of workstock
each. On the "one-mule" units
there were many cases when an
additional mule was borrowed or
hired. Tractors on the small and
medium-size farms often were
used to do custom work on neigh-
boring farms in addition to work
at home.
Equipment on farms using mules
or horses as power usually con-
sisted of two-horse implements for
seed-bed preparation and one-horse
equipment for planting and culti-
vating.


One or more wagons, turning
plows, smoothing harrows, cultiva-
tors, middle busters, and plow
stocks, a combination corn-cotton
planter, fertilizer distributor, mow-
ing machine, dump rake, and the
usual small tools, were the more
common equipment found on farms.
There were some differences ac-
cording to size of farms. A mow-
ing machine was reported on half
of the small, on three-fourths of
the medium, and on almost all of
the large farms.
On farms with tractors, a break-
ing plow and tandem disk were
the principal tractor equipment. On
most of the tractor farms, plant-
ing and cultivating was done with
workstock. On the large farms,
the percentage of tractor farmers
reporting other tractor equipment
were: planter, 21 per cent; culti-
vator, 24 per cent; grain drill, 36
per cent; mowing machine, 36 per
cent; and combine, 45 per cent.
On the medium-size farms, only
about a third of the farmers with
tractors reported combines.

Buildings
Many of the farms have only a
few buildings other than dwellings
for the operator's family, and for
sharecroppers or hired labor fami-
lies. The small farms usually have
a general barn and one or two
small structures such as poultry
house, corn crib, and smokehouse.
Medium and large farms usually
have a general-purpose barn, a
poultry house, corn crib, smoke-
house, granary, and one or two
other small buildings for tools,
storage, and shop work. On farms
with dairy herds (more than 6


cows) a dairy barn or milking shed
is common. In the main, farm
buildings were in poor to fair
condition.
Two-thirds of the dwellings on
small farms were equipped with
electricity, while 94 per cent of the
large farms were so equipped
(Table 6). A running water sys-
tem was found in less than a third
of the dwellings on small and med-
ium-size farms, but in 71 per cent
of the dwellings on large farms.

Population and Labor Supply
The size of the operator's fami-
ly was about the same regardless
of size of the farm. The number
of sharecropper families increased
as the size of the farm increased
(Table 7).
On 79 per cent of the small
farms, labor was furnished almost
entirely by the operator and his
family. Occasionally an extra per-
son was hired to help harvest hay
and to pick cotton. Of the 103
small farms, 22 (usually those with
the larger.acreages of cotton) em-
ployed sharecropper labor. On the
medium-size farms, sharecroppers
were found on 29 of the 59 farms
that grew cotton. On three-fourths
of the farms where sharecropper
labor was used, the operator's fam-
ily had only one man.
About three-fourths of the large
farms employed sharecropper la-
bor, ranging from one family for
25 per cent of the group to six to
eight families for 7 per cent of the
group. On farms where only one
sharecropper family was employed,
the average acreage of cotton per
family, including the operator's
family, was 7.7 acres. The aver-


Acres used for crops
Figure 11. Distribution of Numbers of Farms by Acres Used for Crops, 220
Forms, Southern Piedmont, North Carolina, 1945.'
SRange 6.5 772.0 acres.


Table 6.-Proportion of operators' dwellings equipped with specified facilities, by size of
farm, 217 farms, Southern Piedmont, North Carolina, 1945
Percentage of farms reporting
Item
Small Medium Large All farms
Electricity ....................... 67 75 94 76
Radios ........................84 94 94 89
Running water .................. 26 29 71 37
Refrigerators .................. 47 50 82 55










FARM ORGANIZATIONS AND INCOMES IN 1945


Acreage of Land
In the Piedmont area the farm
economy is centered around crops.
This means that crop acreage is
of major importance. On farms
in the sample, acreages used for
crops ranged from 6.5 to 722.10
The distribution of farms, when
classified according to acres used
for crops, indicate three rather
broad size groups-small, 10 to
44 acres; medium, 45 to 74 acres;
and large, 75 or more acres (Fig-
ure 11).
Of the same farms, 47 per cent
were small; 30 per cent, medium;
and 23 per cent, large. Though.
wide extremes in crop acreages
were found among the large farms,
two-thirds of them ranged between
75 and 150 acres. Large farms
accounted for only 23 per cent of
the number of farms, but they
comprised 48 per cent of the land
10 Beyond this point in the analysis three
farms were not included because of their
extreme size and organization. These farms
included one with 772 acres used for crops,
and two with 6.5 and 23.0 acres, respec-
tively, where unusual circumstances limited
production to reseeded lespedeza.
No. of farms


used for crops. Small farms ac-
counted for only 24 per cent of the
total cropland in use.

Power and Equipment
Workstock was the principal
source of power on the small and
medium farms, but two-thirds of
the large farms had a tractor in
addition to two or more head of
workstock. Small and medium-
size farms were predominantly
"two-mule" units. Sixty-four per
cent of the small farms and 54 per
cent of the medium farms operat-
ed with two head of workstock
each. On the "one-mule" units
there were many cases when an
additional mule was borrowed or
hired. Tractors on the small and
medium-size farms often were
used to do custom work on neigh-
boring farms in addition to work
at home.
Equipment on farms using mules
or horses as power usually con-
sisted of two-horse implements for
seed-bed preparation and one-horse
equipment for planting and culti-
vating.


One or more wagons, turning
plows, smoothing harrows, cultiva-
tors, middle busters, and plow
stocks, a combination corn-cotton
planter, fertilizer distributor, mow-
ing machine, dump rake, and the
usual small tools, were the more
common equipment found on farms.
There were some differences ac-
cording to size of farms. A mow-
ing machine was reported on half
of the small, on three-fourths of
the medium, and on almost all of
the large farms.
On farms with tractors, a break-
ing plow and tandem disk were
the principal tractor equipment. On
most of the tractor farms, plant-
ing and cultivating was done with
workstock. On the large farms,
the percentage of tractor farmers
reporting other tractor equipment
were: planter, 21 per cent; culti-
vator, 24 per cent; grain drill, 36
per cent; mowing machine, 36 per
cent; and combine, 45 per cent.
On the medium-size farms, only
about a third of the farmers with
tractors reported combines.

Buildings
Many of the farms have only a
few buildings other than dwellings
for the operator's family, and for
sharecroppers or hired labor fami-
lies. The small farms usually have
a general barn and one or two
small structures such as poultry
house, corn crib, and smokehouse.
Medium and large farms usually
have a general-purpose barn, a
poultry house, corn crib, smoke-
house, granary, and one or two
other small buildings for tools,
storage, and shop work. On farms
with dairy herds (more than 6


cows) a dairy barn or milking shed
is common. In the main, farm
buildings were in poor to fair
condition.
Two-thirds of the dwellings on
small farms were equipped with
electricity, while 94 per cent of the
large farms were so equipped
(Table 6). A running water sys-
tem was found in less than a third
of the dwellings on small and med-
ium-size farms, but in 71 per cent
of the dwellings on large farms.

Population and Labor Supply
The size of the operator's fami-
ly was about the same regardless
of size of the farm. The number
of sharecropper families increased
as the size of the farm increased
(Table 7).
On 79 per cent of the small
farms, labor was furnished almost
entirely by the operator and his
family. Occasionally an extra per-
son was hired to help harvest hay
and to pick cotton. Of the 103
small farms, 22 (usually those with
the larger.acreages of cotton) em-
ployed sharecropper labor. On the
medium-size farms, sharecroppers
were found on 29 of the 59 farms
that grew cotton. On three-fourths
of the farms where sharecropper
labor was used, the operator's fam-
ily had only one man.
About three-fourths of the large
farms employed sharecropper la-
bor, ranging from one family for
25 per cent of the group to six to
eight families for 7 per cent of the
group. On farms where only one
sharecropper family was employed,
the average acreage of cotton per
family, including the operator's
family, was 7.7 acres. The aver-


Acres used for crops
Figure 11. Distribution of Numbers of Farms by Acres Used for Crops, 220
Forms, Southern Piedmont, North Carolina, 1945.'
SRange 6.5 772.0 acres.


Table 6.-Proportion of operators' dwellings equipped with specified facilities, by size of
farm, 217 farms, Southern Piedmont, North Carolina, 1945
Percentage of farms reporting
Item
Small Medium Large All farms
Electricity ....................... 67 75 94 76
Radios ........................84 94 94 89
Running water .................. 26 29 71 37
Refrigerators .................. 47 50 82 55









Table 7.-Population and labor supply by size of farm, 217 farms, Southern Piedmont, North
Carolina, 1945

Average per farm
Item
Small Medium Large
Number Number Number
Population on farms:
Number in operator's family .................. 4.3 4.4 4.5
Number in sharecropper and hired labor families .1.3 3.5 11.7

Total .................................. 5.6 7.9 16.2
Number of sharecropper and hired labor families .2 .7 2.1
Males 15 years and over:
In operator's family ......................... .. 1.3 1.6 1.5
In sharecropper and hired labor families .........3 .9 3.0

Total ..................................... 1.6 2.5 4.5


age acreage of cotton per family
on other farms ranged consistent-
ly from 10 to 12 acres, regardless
of the number of families or the
total acreage of cotton. In con-
trast, the larger dairy farms hired
labor on a monthly basis.

Tenure, Age, and Education
of Farm Operators
Tenure: The farms of this area
are predominantly owner-operated
units. Sixty-nine per cent of all
farmers owned their farms; 13 per
cent were part-owners; and 18 per
cent were tenants. On the small
farms, 21 per cent of the opera-
tors rented all of their land. This
was true for only 8 per cent of
the large farms (Table 8). Of the
operators on large farms, a larger
proportion owned some land and
rented additional land than was
true for the other groups. These
operators used this method to en-
large the size of their businesses.


Only a relatively small percent-
age of the farms were mortgaged
-16 per cent of the sniall farms,
18 per cent of those in the med-
ium group, and 12 per cent of the
large farms. Production credit was
used by 19 per cent of the farm-
ers on small units, 29 per cent of
the medium, and 18 per cent of the
group on large farms.
Age of Operators: Only 18 per
cent of the farmers were less than
40 years old, and nearly 40 per
cent were 60 or older. The dis-
tribution of farmers by age groups
followed about the same pattern
in all three size groups (Table 9).
The average age of operators on
small farms was 53, on medium
farms 54, and on large farms 55
years.
Age of operator greatly in-
fluences opportunities for long-
term adjustments because older
men hesitate to make changes
from which they will receive little
or no benefit. This is especially


Table 9.-Age of farm operators, by size of farm, 217 forms, Southern Piedmont, North
Carolina, 1945
Number of operators Proportion of total number
Years of age
Small Medium Large Small Medium Large
Number Number Number Per cent Per cent Per cent
25-29 ........... 2 1 1 2.0 1.5 2.1
30-34 ........... 7 2 4 6.9 3.1 8.5
35-39 ........... 12 7 3 11.9 10.8 6.4
40-44 ........... 10 4 3 9.9 6.2 6.4
45-49 ........... 10 9 6 9.9 13.8 12.8
50-54 ........... 8 11 5 7.9 16.9 10.6
55-59 ........... 14 8 5 13.8 12.3 10.6
60-64 ........... 14 8 7 13.9 12.3 14.9
65-69 ........... 12 7 8 11.9 10.8 17.0
70-74 ........... 10 5 2 9.9 7.7 4.3
75-79 ........... 2 1 2 2.0 1.5 4.3
80 and over ...... 2 1 3.1 2.1

Total .......101 65 147 100.0 100.0 100.0
1 Age of two operators not reported.


true if younger members of the
family are not looking ahead to
taking over the farm business. In
only 34 per cent of the cases was
there a son 15 years or older on
the farms. There was a son less
than 15 years on an additional
18 per cent of the farms. On 35
per cent, there were one or more
sons under 15 years. Thus a son
of the operator was living on,the
farm in only 52 per cent of the
cases.
Education: Education and expe-
rience, as they influence the man-
agerial ability of the farmer,


affect potential adjustments. In
terms of formal education, 17 per
cent of all farm operators had corn-
pleted less than four grades in
school; 44 per cent, fourth through
seventh grade; 23 per cent, one
year or more of high school but not
graduated; and 16 per cent had
completed high school requirements
(Table 10). About the same pro-
portion of the operators for each
size-of-the-farm group had com-
pleted from the fourth to the sev-
enth grades. More of the operators
on the large farms had completed
high school or had some college


Table 10.-Education of farm operators by size of farm, 217 farms, Southern Piedmont,
North Carolina, 1945
Number of operators Proportion of total operators
Years reached Size Group Size Group
in school All All
Small Medium Large farms Small Medium Large farms


Table 8.-Tenure of form operators by size of form, 217 farms, Southern Piedmont, North
Carolina, 1945
Number of operators Percentage of total operators
Tenure status
Small Medium Large All farms Small Medium Large All farms
Owner .......... 71 43 36 150 69 66 74 69
Part-owner ...... 10 9 9 28 10 14 18 13
Renter .......... 22 13 4 39 21 20 8 18

Total ........103 65 49 217 100 100 100 100


Number Number Number Number Per cent Per cent Per cent
Less than 4th grade. 19 13 5 37 18 20 9
4th to 7th grade ... 46 29 21 96 45 44 43
Entered high school
but did not
graduate ........ 26 14 9 49 25 22 19
Graduated from
high school ...... 12 8 9 29 12 12 19
College, one year
or more ......... .. 1 5 6 ... 2 10

Total ..........103 65 49 217 100 100 100


Per
cent
17
44


23

13

3

100









Table 7.-Population and labor supply by size of farm, 217 farms, Southern Piedmont, North
Carolina, 1945

Average per farm
Item
Small Medium Large
Number Number Number
Population on farms:
Number in operator's family .................. 4.3 4.4 4.5
Number in sharecropper and hired labor families .1.3 3.5 11.7

Total .................................. 5.6 7.9 16.2
Number of sharecropper and hired labor families .2 .7 2.1
Males 15 years and over:
In operator's family ......................... .. 1.3 1.6 1.5
In sharecropper and hired labor families .........3 .9 3.0

Total ..................................... 1.6 2.5 4.5


age acreage of cotton per family
on other farms ranged consistent-
ly from 10 to 12 acres, regardless
of the number of families or the
total acreage of cotton. In con-
trast, the larger dairy farms hired
labor on a monthly basis.

Tenure, Age, and Education
of Farm Operators
Tenure: The farms of this area
are predominantly owner-operated
units. Sixty-nine per cent of all
farmers owned their farms; 13 per
cent were part-owners; and 18 per
cent were tenants. On the small
farms, 21 per cent of the opera-
tors rented all of their land. This
was true for only 8 per cent of
the large farms (Table 8). Of the
operators on large farms, a larger
proportion owned some land and
rented additional land than was
true for the other groups. These
operators used this method to en-
large the size of their businesses.


Only a relatively small percent-
age of the farms were mortgaged
-16 per cent of the sniall farms,
18 per cent of those in the med-
ium group, and 12 per cent of the
large farms. Production credit was
used by 19 per cent of the farm-
ers on small units, 29 per cent of
the medium, and 18 per cent of the
group on large farms.
Age of Operators: Only 18 per
cent of the farmers were less than
40 years old, and nearly 40 per
cent were 60 or older. The dis-
tribution of farmers by age groups
followed about the same pattern
in all three size groups (Table 9).
The average age of operators on
small farms was 53, on medium
farms 54, and on large farms 55
years.
Age of operator greatly in-
fluences opportunities for long-
term adjustments because older
men hesitate to make changes
from which they will receive little
or no benefit. This is especially


Table 9.-Age of farm operators, by size of farm, 217 forms, Southern Piedmont, North
Carolina, 1945
Number of operators Proportion of total number
Years of age
Small Medium Large Small Medium Large
Number Number Number Per cent Per cent Per cent
25-29 ........... 2 1 1 2.0 1.5 2.1
30-34 ........... 7 2 4 6.9 3.1 8.5
35-39 ........... 12 7 3 11.9 10.8 6.4
40-44 ........... 10 4 3 9.9 6.2 6.4
45-49 ........... 10 9 6 9.9 13.8 12.8
50-54 ........... 8 11 5 7.9 16.9 10.6
55-59 ........... 14 8 5 13.8 12.3 10.6
60-64 ........... 14 8 7 13.9 12.3 14.9
65-69 ........... 12 7 8 11.9 10.8 17.0
70-74 ........... 10 5 2 9.9 7.7 4.3
75-79 ........... 2 1 2 2.0 1.5 4.3
80 and over ...... 2 1 3.1 2.1

Total .......101 65 147 100.0 100.0 100.0
1 Age of two operators not reported.


true if younger members of the
family are not looking ahead to
taking over the farm business. In
only 34 per cent of the cases was
there a son 15 years or older on
the farms. There was a son less
than 15 years on an additional
18 per cent of the farms. On 35
per cent, there were one or more
sons under 15 years. Thus a son
of the operator was living on,the
farm in only 52 per cent of the
cases.
Education: Education and expe-
rience, as they influence the man-
agerial ability of the farmer,


affect potential adjustments. In
terms of formal education, 17 per
cent of all farm operators had corn-
pleted less than four grades in
school; 44 per cent, fourth through
seventh grade; 23 per cent, one
year or more of high school but not
graduated; and 16 per cent had
completed high school requirements
(Table 10). About the same pro-
portion of the operators for each
size-of-the-farm group had com-
pleted from the fourth to the sev-
enth grades. More of the operators
on the large farms had completed
high school or had some college


Table 10.-Education of farm operators by size of farm, 217 farms, Southern Piedmont,
North Carolina, 1945
Number of operators Proportion of total operators
Years reached Size Group Size Group
in school All All
Small Medium Large farms Small Medium Large farms


Table 8.-Tenure of form operators by size of form, 217 farms, Southern Piedmont, North
Carolina, 1945
Number of operators Percentage of total operators
Tenure status
Small Medium Large All farms Small Medium Large All farms
Owner .......... 71 43 36 150 69 66 74 69
Part-owner ...... 10 9 9 28 10 14 18 13
Renter .......... 22 13 4 39 21 20 8 18

Total ........103 65 49 217 100 100 100 100


Number Number Number Number Per cent Per cent Per cent
Less than 4th grade. 19 13 5 37 18 20 9
4th to 7th grade ... 46 29 21 96 45 44 43
Entered high school
but did not
graduate ........ 26 14 9 49 25 22 19
Graduated from
high school ...... 12 8 9 29 12 12 19
College, one year
or more ......... .. 1 5 6 ... 2 10

Total ..........103 65 49 217 100 100 100


Per
cent
17
44


23

13

3

100








training than was true for either
the small or medium-size group.

Enterprise Combinations
and Incomes
Although the farms varied in
size, land use and enterprise com-
binations were similar in many re-
spects.
General Land Use: General land
use on these farms is given in
Table 11. Total cropland aver-
aged 34.5 acres on small farms and
137 acres on large farms. The
proportion of total land devoted
to each major use was similar for
each size group. About 47 per cent
was in cropland; 7 per cent, in open
pasture; 8 per cent, in woods pas-
tured; and 38 per cent, in woods
and other uses. On small farms a
much larger percentage of the
cropland was idle than on large
farms.
Crops Grown: Cotton, corn,
small grain, and lespedeza were
the principal crops grown (Table
12). Cotton was the principal cash
crop, although frequently small
quantities of small grain and les-
pedeza seed were sold. The other
crops were primarily for feed, food,
and soil improvement. Cotton oc-
cupied about 23 per cent of the
cropland; corn, 21 per cent; and
small grains, about 22 per cent.
On the large farms with tractors
a smaller percentage of the crop-
land was in corn and a larger per-
centage in small grain than was


true for either small or medium
farms. These data indicate that
about half of the land used for
crops was intertilled-much more
than is consistent with long-term
soil conservation in the area.
No cotton was grown on 16 of
the small farms, six of the medium
farms, and five of the large farms
(Table 13). None of the farmers
on the small farms grew more
than 20 acres of cotton. Nine farm-
ers in the large group grew more
than 50 acres of cotton. On farms
where no cotton was grown, the
farm operators usually did not de-
pend entirely on their farms as a
principal source of income. Us-
ually they were employed off the
farm or were connected with the
operation of other farms in addi-
tion to the unit included in this
study. Units on which no cotton
was grown and on which the oper-
ator depended entirely for his in-
come were usually highly special-
ized in livestock. A few of the
farmers on large farms operated
Grade A dairies. Others sold poul-
try products and/or unclassified
milk.
Productive Livestock: Produc-
tive livestock consisted chiefly of
dairy cows, chickens, and hogs
(Table 14). Only five farmers on
the small, two on the medium, and
one on the large farms did not
report any dairy cows. One-fourth
of the small farms had more than
two cows, whereas one-fourth of
the medium farms had more than


Table 11.-Lond use by size of farm, 217 farms, Southern Piedmont, North Carolina, 1945

Su Average per farm Proportion of total acres
Land use
Small Medium Large Small Medium Large
Acres Acres Acres Per cent Per cent Per cent
Used for crops ....30.0 56.8 130.3 40.3 45.3 45.1
Idle ............ 4.5 5.3 6.7 6.0 4.2 2.3

Total cropland ..34.5 62.1 137.0 46.3 49.5 47.4
Open pasture ..... 4.7 7.5 25.6 6.3 6.0 8.9
Woods pastured ... 6.4 9.1 26.2 8.6 7.3 9.1
Other land .......28.9 46.7 100.1 38.8 37.2 34.6

Total all land .. .74.5 125.4 288.9 100.0 100.0 100.0


five cows. On two-thirds of the
large farms the operator received
income from sale of dairy products.
On 35 per cent of the large farms
six or more cows were kept. All
the farms producing Grade A milk
had herds of 15 or more cows, but


only 14 per cent of the large farms
and none of the smaller farms
produced Grade A milk.
In most cases, poultry flocks were
kept primarily for the production
of eggs and chicken for home use.
On most farms less than 75 hens


Table 12.-Crops grown by size of farm, 217 farms, Southern Piedmont, North Carolina, 1945
Size of farm
Crop All
Small Medium Large farms
Average acres per farm
Cotton ... ................. 7.2 13.0 28.2 13.7
Corn ....................... 7.5 12.3 25.1 12.9
W heat ..................... 2.8 6.8 10.0 5.6
Oats, grain ................. 2.3 6.0 22.7 8.0
Small grain hay ............. 2.5 3.3 8.5 4.1
Lespedeza hay .............. 5.7 10.1 25.8 11.6
Lespedeza seed .............. 1.5 6.0 16.0 6.1
Lespedeza cover ............. 4.2 9.5 16.1 9.4
All other crops .............. 4.5 5.9 25.4 8.7

Total crops ............ .. 38.2 72.9 177.8 80.1
Double-cropped ........... 8.2 16.1 47.5 19.4

Acreage used for crops .... 30.0 56.8 130.3 60.7
Percentage of farms reporting specified items
Cotton ..................... 84 91 90 88
Corn ...................... 95 97 96 96
W heat ...................... 47 71 71 59
Oats, grain ................. 37 71 84 58
Small grain hay ............ 61 57 59 59
Lespedeza hay ............... 85 94 96 95
Lespedeza seed .............. 28 58 61 45
Lespedeza cover ............. 59 68 73 65
All other crops .............. 100 100 100 100

Total crops ............... 100 100 100 100
Double-cropped ........... 86 100 96 88

Acreage used for crops .... 100 100 100 100
Percentage of total acres used for crops
Cotton ..................... 24 23 22 23
Corn ....................... 25 22 19 21
W heat ..................... 9 12 8 9
Oats, grain ................. 8 11 17 13
Small grain hay ............. 8 6 7 7
Lespedeza hay .............. 19 18 20 19
Lespedeza seed ............ 5 10 12 10
Lespedeza cover ............. 14 17 12 16
All other crops .............. 15 9 19 14

Total crops ............... 127 128 136 132
Double-cropped ........... 27 28 36 32

Acreage used for crops .... 100 100 100 100


(26),








training than was true for either
the small or medium-size group.

Enterprise Combinations
and Incomes
Although the farms varied in
size, land use and enterprise com-
binations were similar in many re-
spects.
General Land Use: General land
use on these farms is given in
Table 11. Total cropland aver-
aged 34.5 acres on small farms and
137 acres on large farms. The
proportion of total land devoted
to each major use was similar for
each size group. About 47 per cent
was in cropland; 7 per cent, in open
pasture; 8 per cent, in woods pas-
tured; and 38 per cent, in woods
and other uses. On small farms a
much larger percentage of the
cropland was idle than on large
farms.
Crops Grown: Cotton, corn,
small grain, and lespedeza were
the principal crops grown (Table
12). Cotton was the principal cash
crop, although frequently small
quantities of small grain and les-
pedeza seed were sold. The other
crops were primarily for feed, food,
and soil improvement. Cotton oc-
cupied about 23 per cent of the
cropland; corn, 21 per cent; and
small grains, about 22 per cent.
On the large farms with tractors
a smaller percentage of the crop-
land was in corn and a larger per-
centage in small grain than was


true for either small or medium
farms. These data indicate that
about half of the land used for
crops was intertilled-much more
than is consistent with long-term
soil conservation in the area.
No cotton was grown on 16 of
the small farms, six of the medium
farms, and five of the large farms
(Table 13). None of the farmers
on the small farms grew more
than 20 acres of cotton. Nine farm-
ers in the large group grew more
than 50 acres of cotton. On farms
where no cotton was grown, the
farm operators usually did not de-
pend entirely on their farms as a
principal source of income. Us-
ually they were employed off the
farm or were connected with the
operation of other farms in addi-
tion to the unit included in this
study. Units on which no cotton
was grown and on which the oper-
ator depended entirely for his in-
come were usually highly special-
ized in livestock. A few of the
farmers on large farms operated
Grade A dairies. Others sold poul-
try products and/or unclassified
milk.
Productive Livestock: Produc-
tive livestock consisted chiefly of
dairy cows, chickens, and hogs
(Table 14). Only five farmers on
the small, two on the medium, and
one on the large farms did not
report any dairy cows. One-fourth
of the small farms had more than
two cows, whereas one-fourth of
the medium farms had more than


Table 11.-Lond use by size of farm, 217 farms, Southern Piedmont, North Carolina, 1945

Su Average per farm Proportion of total acres
Land use
Small Medium Large Small Medium Large
Acres Acres Acres Per cent Per cent Per cent
Used for crops ....30.0 56.8 130.3 40.3 45.3 45.1
Idle ............ 4.5 5.3 6.7 6.0 4.2 2.3

Total cropland ..34.5 62.1 137.0 46.3 49.5 47.4
Open pasture ..... 4.7 7.5 25.6 6.3 6.0 8.9
Woods pastured ... 6.4 9.1 26.2 8.6 7.3 9.1
Other land .......28.9 46.7 100.1 38.8 37.2 34.6

Total all land .. .74.5 125.4 288.9 100.0 100.0 100.0


five cows. On two-thirds of the
large farms the operator received
income from sale of dairy products.
On 35 per cent of the large farms
six or more cows were kept. All
the farms producing Grade A milk
had herds of 15 or more cows, but


only 14 per cent of the large farms
and none of the smaller farms
produced Grade A milk.
In most cases, poultry flocks were
kept primarily for the production
of eggs and chicken for home use.
On most farms less than 75 hens


Table 12.-Crops grown by size of farm, 217 farms, Southern Piedmont, North Carolina, 1945
Size of farm
Crop All
Small Medium Large farms
Average acres per farm
Cotton ... ................. 7.2 13.0 28.2 13.7
Corn ....................... 7.5 12.3 25.1 12.9
W heat ..................... 2.8 6.8 10.0 5.6
Oats, grain ................. 2.3 6.0 22.7 8.0
Small grain hay ............. 2.5 3.3 8.5 4.1
Lespedeza hay .............. 5.7 10.1 25.8 11.6
Lespedeza seed .............. 1.5 6.0 16.0 6.1
Lespedeza cover ............. 4.2 9.5 16.1 9.4
All other crops .............. 4.5 5.9 25.4 8.7

Total crops ............ .. 38.2 72.9 177.8 80.1
Double-cropped ........... 8.2 16.1 47.5 19.4

Acreage used for crops .... 30.0 56.8 130.3 60.7
Percentage of farms reporting specified items
Cotton ..................... 84 91 90 88
Corn ...................... 95 97 96 96
W heat ...................... 47 71 71 59
Oats, grain ................. 37 71 84 58
Small grain hay ............ 61 57 59 59
Lespedeza hay ............... 85 94 96 95
Lespedeza seed .............. 28 58 61 45
Lespedeza cover ............. 59 68 73 65
All other crops .............. 100 100 100 100

Total crops ............... 100 100 100 100
Double-cropped ........... 86 100 96 88

Acreage used for crops .... 100 100 100 100
Percentage of total acres used for crops
Cotton ..................... 24 23 22 23
Corn ....................... 25 22 19 21
W heat ..................... 9 12 8 9
Oats, grain ................. 8 11 17 13
Small grain hay ............. 8 6 7 7
Lespedeza hay .............. 19 18 20 19
Lespedeza seed ............ 5 10 12 10
Lespedeza cover ............. 14 17 12 16
All other crops .............. 15 9 19 14

Total crops ............... 127 128 136 132
Double-cropped ........... 27 28 36 32

Acreage used for crops .... 100 100 100 100


(26),








fabie 13.-Acreage used for cotton by size of farm, 217 farms, Southern Piedmont, North
Carolina, 1945

Acres in cotton Number of farms Percentage of total number
Acres in cotton
Small Medium Large Small Medium Large
None ......... 16 6 5 15.5 9.2 10.2
1-5 ........... 30 3 3 29.1 4.6 6.1
6-10 .......... 28 19 7 27.2 29.2 14.3
11-15 ......... 25 21 5 24.3 32.4 10.2
16-20 ......... 4 5 4 3.9 7.7 8.2
21-25 ......... 5 6 7.7 12.3
26-30 ......... 3 2 4.6 4.1
31-35 ......... 1 1 1.5 2.0
36-40 ......... 2 1 3.1 2.0
41-45 .. 3 6.1
46-50 .. 3 6.1
51-55 .... 1 2.0
56-60 .. 4 8.2
61 and over ... 4 8.2

Total .... 103 65 49 100.0 100.0 100.0


were kept and only a few flocks
were of commercial size (Table
15).
Pork was also produced almost
exclusively for home consumption.
Brood sows were reported on only
15 per cent of the small farms
and on 31 per cent of the large
farms. Usually when brood sows
were kept, pigs were sold at wean-
ing time, except those kept to pro-
duce pork for the family.
Income: In 1945, net cash in-
come averaged $1,215 for all farms
studied, and varied from an aver-
age of $601 for the small farms
to $2,320 for the large farms. This


figure represents returns to the
farm operator and his family for
family labor, management, and in-
vestment in the farm business. It
is the amount available to pay for
family living expenses, debts, and
farm improvements, and to re-
place worn-out equipment. Net
cash income as calculated does not
include income from other sources
other than the farm business. In
32 per cent of the cases, the oper-
ator, or some member of the family
living on the farm, was employed
in off-farm work. Three-fourths of
those working off the farm were
employed for six months or more.


Table 14.-Productive livestock and form operator's income by size of form, 217 farms,
Southern Piedmont. North Carolina. 1945

Proportion of farm reporting
Item Average per farm specific items
Small Medium Large Small Medium Large

Productive Livestock: Number Number Number Per cent Percent Percent
Productive Livestock:
Dairy cows ............ 2.1 3.8 9.5 94 97 98
Brood sows ............ .2 .3 .4 15 22 31
Hogs raised ........... 2.0 2.1 3.1 83 85 84
Hens ................ 68.0 67.8 89.5 100 100 100
Farm Operator's Income Dollars Dollars Dollars
Summary:
Cash income .......... 1,241 2,640 6,198
Cash expenses' ........640 1,284 3,878

Net cash income 601 1,356 2,320
1 Includes cost of share cropper labor.


Table 15.-Variation in number of hens by size of farm, 217 forms, Southern Piedmont,
North Carolina, 1945
Number of farms Percentage of total farms
Number of hens
Small Medium Large Small Medium Large
25 or less .......... 18 11 7 17 16 15
26-50 .............. 43 27 17 42 42 35
51-75 .............. 18 9 4 17 14 8
76-100 ............. 9 7 7 9 11 14
101-125 ............ 5 2 4 5 3 8
126-150 ............ 1 4 2 1 6 4
151-175 ............ 2 2 1 2 3 2
176-200 ............ 3 2 3 3 3 6
201 or over ........ 4 1 4 4 2 8

Total ..........103 65 49 100 100 100


PRODUCTION REQUIREMENTS AND RATES OF PRODUCTION
FOR CROPS AND LIVESTOCK WITH PRESENT
AND IMPROVED PRACTICES


Production practices contribute
materially to the farmer's degree
of success. In this area there are
considerable opportunities for in-
creasing crop yields, livestock pro-
duction rates, and net farm income
through the adoption of improved
crop and livestock practices. Ef-
fects of improved practices on rates
of production are discussed in this
section.
"Production requirements" are a
relative concept. They depend up-
on the quality of resources and the
desired level of output. Require-
ments for 1945 are based on the
most common practices followed
and the modal levels of equipment
used by farmers with and with-
out tractors. The improved prac-
tices are based on available experi-
mental data and the experiences of
farmers and agricultural workers
in regard to most efficient fertiliza-
tion, seeding rates, rotations, and
methods of livestock production.

Crops"
Seed and Fertilizer: Table 16
gives present and improved rates
of fertilization and seeding for
'1 In this report it is not practicable to
discuss the complete details on present and
improved practices for each enterprise.
Only sufficient materials basic to an under-
standing of the analysis to follow are in-
cluded. A detailed description of present


principal crops in the Southern
Piedmont. It should be recognized
that practices which must be im-
proved for more efficient produc-
tion are not limited to fertiliza-
tion and.seeding rates. Other prac-
tices include treatments for dis-
ease and insects, better tillage, use
of recommended varieties of seed,
use of lime and phosphate, and
crop rotations.
In the past, cotton held priority
on farmers' fertilizer and its ap-
plication to cotton was more near-
ly in line with the recommended
practice than was true for other
crops. Only 13 per cent of the
farmers reported alfalfa in 1945
and the practices used varied in
different parts of the area. Pas-
ture improvement was not found a
predominant practice. Only 18 per
cent of the farmers had limed any
part of their pastures.
Since 1940 lime has been applied
to cropland on about half of the
farms, but very little of the crop-
practices is covered in the supplementary
report, PRODUCTION PRACTICES AND
PRODUCTION RATES, PRINCIPAL EN-
TERI'RISES ON COTTON FARMS.
SOUTHERN PIEDMONT. NORTH CARO-
LINA, by W. W. McPherson, W. H. Pierce,
and R. E. L. Greene. For detailed recom-
mendations see the IIANIBOOK FOR
AGRICULTURAL WORKERS, prepared by
the North Carolina Agricultural Extension
Service and published annually, and the
publications listed on page 69.








fabie 13.-Acreage used for cotton by size of farm, 217 farms, Southern Piedmont, North
Carolina, 1945

Acres in cotton Number of farms Percentage of total number
Acres in cotton
Small Medium Large Small Medium Large
None ......... 16 6 5 15.5 9.2 10.2
1-5 ........... 30 3 3 29.1 4.6 6.1
6-10 .......... 28 19 7 27.2 29.2 14.3
11-15 ......... 25 21 5 24.3 32.4 10.2
16-20 ......... 4 5 4 3.9 7.7 8.2
21-25 ......... 5 6 7.7 12.3
26-30 ......... 3 2 4.6 4.1
31-35 ......... 1 1 1.5 2.0
36-40 ......... 2 1 3.1 2.0
41-45 .. 3 6.1
46-50 .. 3 6.1
51-55 .... 1 2.0
56-60 .. 4 8.2
61 and over ... 4 8.2

Total .... 103 65 49 100.0 100.0 100.0


were kept and only a few flocks
were of commercial size (Table
15).
Pork was also produced almost
exclusively for home consumption.
Brood sows were reported on only
15 per cent of the small farms
and on 31 per cent of the large
farms. Usually when brood sows
were kept, pigs were sold at wean-
ing time, except those kept to pro-
duce pork for the family.
Income: In 1945, net cash in-
come averaged $1,215 for all farms
studied, and varied from an aver-
age of $601 for the small farms
to $2,320 for the large farms. This


figure represents returns to the
farm operator and his family for
family labor, management, and in-
vestment in the farm business. It
is the amount available to pay for
family living expenses, debts, and
farm improvements, and to re-
place worn-out equipment. Net
cash income as calculated does not
include income from other sources
other than the farm business. In
32 per cent of the cases, the oper-
ator, or some member of the family
living on the farm, was employed
in off-farm work. Three-fourths of
those working off the farm were
employed for six months or more.


Table 14.-Productive livestock and form operator's income by size of form, 217 farms,
Southern Piedmont. North Carolina. 1945

Proportion of farm reporting
Item Average per farm specific items
Small Medium Large Small Medium Large

Productive Livestock: Number Number Number Per cent Percent Percent
Productive Livestock:
Dairy cows ............ 2.1 3.8 9.5 94 97 98
Brood sows ............ .2 .3 .4 15 22 31
Hogs raised ........... 2.0 2.1 3.1 83 85 84
Hens ................ 68.0 67.8 89.5 100 100 100
Farm Operator's Income Dollars Dollars Dollars
Summary:
Cash income .......... 1,241 2,640 6,198
Cash expenses' ........640 1,284 3,878

Net cash income 601 1,356 2,320
1 Includes cost of share cropper labor.


Table 15.-Variation in number of hens by size of farm, 217 forms, Southern Piedmont,
North Carolina, 1945
Number of farms Percentage of total farms
Number of hens
Small Medium Large Small Medium Large
25 or less .......... 18 11 7 17 16 15
26-50 .............. 43 27 17 42 42 35
51-75 .............. 18 9 4 17 14 8
76-100 ............. 9 7 7 9 11 14
101-125 ............ 5 2 4 5 3 8
126-150 ............ 1 4 2 1 6 4
151-175 ............ 2 2 1 2 3 2
176-200 ............ 3 2 3 3 3 6
201 or over ........ 4 1 4 4 2 8

Total ..........103 65 49 100 100 100


PRODUCTION REQUIREMENTS AND RATES OF PRODUCTION
FOR CROPS AND LIVESTOCK WITH PRESENT
AND IMPROVED PRACTICES


Production practices contribute
materially to the farmer's degree
of success. In this area there are
considerable opportunities for in-
creasing crop yields, livestock pro-
duction rates, and net farm income
through the adoption of improved
crop and livestock practices. Ef-
fects of improved practices on rates
of production are discussed in this
section.
"Production requirements" are a
relative concept. They depend up-
on the quality of resources and the
desired level of output. Require-
ments for 1945 are based on the
most common practices followed
and the modal levels of equipment
used by farmers with and with-
out tractors. The improved prac-
tices are based on available experi-
mental data and the experiences of
farmers and agricultural workers
in regard to most efficient fertiliza-
tion, seeding rates, rotations, and
methods of livestock production.

Crops"
Seed and Fertilizer: Table 16
gives present and improved rates
of fertilization and seeding for
'1 In this report it is not practicable to
discuss the complete details on present and
improved practices for each enterprise.
Only sufficient materials basic to an under-
standing of the analysis to follow are in-
cluded. A detailed description of present


principal crops in the Southern
Piedmont. It should be recognized
that practices which must be im-
proved for more efficient produc-
tion are not limited to fertiliza-
tion and.seeding rates. Other prac-
tices include treatments for dis-
ease and insects, better tillage, use
of recommended varieties of seed,
use of lime and phosphate, and
crop rotations.
In the past, cotton held priority
on farmers' fertilizer and its ap-
plication to cotton was more near-
ly in line with the recommended
practice than was true for other
crops. Only 13 per cent of the
farmers reported alfalfa in 1945
and the practices used varied in
different parts of the area. Pas-
ture improvement was not found a
predominant practice. Only 18 per
cent of the farmers had limed any
part of their pastures.
Since 1940 lime has been applied
to cropland on about half of the
farms, but very little of the crop-
practices is covered in the supplementary
report, PRODUCTION PRACTICES AND
PRODUCTION RATES, PRINCIPAL EN-
TERI'RISES ON COTTON FARMS.
SOUTHERN PIEDMONT. NORTH CARO-
LINA, by W. W. McPherson, W. H. Pierce,
and R. E. L. Greene. For detailed recom-
mendations see the IIANIBOOK FOR
AGRICULTURAL WORKERS, prepared by
the North Carolina Agricultural Extension
Service and published annually, and the
publications listed on page 69.








fabie 13.-Acreage used for cotton by size of farm, 217 farms, Southern Piedmont, North
Carolina, 1945

Acres in cotton Number of farms Percentage of total number
Acres in cotton
Small Medium Large Small Medium Large
None ......... 16 6 5 15.5 9.2 10.2
1-5 ........... 30 3 3 29.1 4.6 6.1
6-10 .......... 28 19 7 27.2 29.2 14.3
11-15 ......... 25 21 5 24.3 32.4 10.2
16-20 ......... 4 5 4 3.9 7.7 8.2
21-25 ......... 5 6 7.7 12.3
26-30 ......... 3 2 4.6 4.1
31-35 ......... 1 1 1.5 2.0
36-40 ......... 2 1 3.1 2.0
41-45 .. 3 6.1
46-50 .. 3 6.1
51-55 .... 1 2.0
56-60 .. 4 8.2
61 and over ... 4 8.2

Total .... 103 65 49 100.0 100.0 100.0


were kept and only a few flocks
were of commercial size (Table
15).
Pork was also produced almost
exclusively for home consumption.
Brood sows were reported on only
15 per cent of the small farms
and on 31 per cent of the large
farms. Usually when brood sows
were kept, pigs were sold at wean-
ing time, except those kept to pro-
duce pork for the family.
Income: In 1945, net cash in-
come averaged $1,215 for all farms
studied, and varied from an aver-
age of $601 for the small farms
to $2,320 for the large farms. This


figure represents returns to the
farm operator and his family for
family labor, management, and in-
vestment in the farm business. It
is the amount available to pay for
family living expenses, debts, and
farm improvements, and to re-
place worn-out equipment. Net
cash income as calculated does not
include income from other sources
other than the farm business. In
32 per cent of the cases, the oper-
ator, or some member of the family
living on the farm, was employed
in off-farm work. Three-fourths of
those working off the farm were
employed for six months or more.


Table 14.-Productive livestock and form operator's income by size of form, 217 farms,
Southern Piedmont. North Carolina. 1945

Proportion of farm reporting
Item Average per farm specific items
Small Medium Large Small Medium Large

Productive Livestock: Number Number Number Per cent Percent Percent
Productive Livestock:
Dairy cows ............ 2.1 3.8 9.5 94 97 98
Brood sows ............ .2 .3 .4 15 22 31
Hogs raised ........... 2.0 2.1 3.1 83 85 84
Hens ................ 68.0 67.8 89.5 100 100 100
Farm Operator's Income Dollars Dollars Dollars
Summary:
Cash income .......... 1,241 2,640 6,198
Cash expenses' ........640 1,284 3,878

Net cash income 601 1,356 2,320
1 Includes cost of share cropper labor.


Table 15.-Variation in number of hens by size of farm, 217 forms, Southern Piedmont,
North Carolina, 1945
Number of farms Percentage of total farms
Number of hens
Small Medium Large Small Medium Large
25 or less .......... 18 11 7 17 16 15
26-50 .............. 43 27 17 42 42 35
51-75 .............. 18 9 4 17 14 8
76-100 ............. 9 7 7 9 11 14
101-125 ............ 5 2 4 5 3 8
126-150 ............ 1 4 2 1 6 4
151-175 ............ 2 2 1 2 3 2
176-200 ............ 3 2 3 3 3 6
201 or over ........ 4 1 4 4 2 8

Total ..........103 65 49 100 100 100


PRODUCTION REQUIREMENTS AND RATES OF PRODUCTION
FOR CROPS AND LIVESTOCK WITH PRESENT
AND IMPROVED PRACTICES


Production practices contribute
materially to the farmer's degree
of success. In this area there are
considerable opportunities for in-
creasing crop yields, livestock pro-
duction rates, and net farm income
through the adoption of improved
crop and livestock practices. Ef-
fects of improved practices on rates
of production are discussed in this
section.
"Production requirements" are a
relative concept. They depend up-
on the quality of resources and the
desired level of output. Require-
ments for 1945 are based on the
most common practices followed
and the modal levels of equipment
used by farmers with and with-
out tractors. The improved prac-
tices are based on available experi-
mental data and the experiences of
farmers and agricultural workers
in regard to most efficient fertiliza-
tion, seeding rates, rotations, and
methods of livestock production.

Crops"
Seed and Fertilizer: Table 16
gives present and improved rates
of fertilization and seeding for
'1 In this report it is not practicable to
discuss the complete details on present and
improved practices for each enterprise.
Only sufficient materials basic to an under-
standing of the analysis to follow are in-
cluded. A detailed description of present


principal crops in the Southern
Piedmont. It should be recognized
that practices which must be im-
proved for more efficient produc-
tion are not limited to fertiliza-
tion and.seeding rates. Other prac-
tices include treatments for dis-
ease and insects, better tillage, use
of recommended varieties of seed,
use of lime and phosphate, and
crop rotations.
In the past, cotton held priority
on farmers' fertilizer and its ap-
plication to cotton was more near-
ly in line with the recommended
practice than was true for other
crops. Only 13 per cent of the
farmers reported alfalfa in 1945
and the practices used varied in
different parts of the area. Pas-
ture improvement was not found a
predominant practice. Only 18 per
cent of the farmers had limed any
part of their pastures.
Since 1940 lime has been applied
to cropland on about half of the
farms, but very little of the crop-
practices is covered in the supplementary
report, PRODUCTION PRACTICES AND
PRODUCTION RATES, PRINCIPAL EN-
TERI'RISES ON COTTON FARMS.
SOUTHERN PIEDMONT. NORTH CARO-
LINA, by W. W. McPherson, W. H. Pierce,
and R. E. L. Greene. For detailed recom-
mendations see the IIANIBOOK FOR
AGRICULTURAL WORKERS, prepared by
the North Carolina Agricultural Extension
Service and published annually, and the
publications listed on page 69.









Table 16.-Present and improved annual rates of fertilization and seeding, principal crops,
Southern Piedmont, North Carolina
Fertilizer applications per acre Seeding rates per acre
1945 Improved
Top Top
Planting orside Planting or side 1945 Improved
Crop time dressing time dressing
(4-10-6) (16-0-0)
Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds
Cotton .......600 100 600 125 38 38
Corn .........350 125 400 400 7 10
Wheat .......300 100 300 200 90 75
Oats .........200 100 300 200 80 64
Barley ........ 300 200 96
Lespedeza .... 0 0 0 0 40 40
1 Based on the equivalent of 6-8-6.
2 Based on the equivalent of 16-0-0.
Reported by only 15 per cent of the 217 farmers.

land had been covered sufficiently. produced with present or improved
About one ton of lime per acre, ap- practices compared favorably with
plied every fifth year, was suggest- other sources of feed.
ed for cropland used for general Labor and Power Requirements:"
rotations of cotton-grain-lespedeza. A summary of the hours of man
Yields: Opportunity for increas- labor and power used to produce
ing yields of grain and hay crops
appears to be greater than for rais- 2 For more detailed information on labor
ing the level of cotton yields distribution and power costs, see: Cost and
Utilization of Power and Equipment on
(Table 17). Yields of most crops Farms in the Central Piedmont, by R. E. L.
can be raised from 25 to 100 per Greene. H. Brooks James, and C. G. Daw-
son, North Carolina Agricultural Experi-
cent by improved practices. In ment Station, and the Bureau of Agricul-
terms of total digestible nutrients, tural Economics, USDA, cooperating (N. C.
Agr. Expt. Sta. Tech. Bul. 84); and. Major
corn ranks first among the major Farming System, 1939, and Usual Pro-
feed crops. However, combined duction Practices, Lincoln County, North
Carolina, a preliminary report by R. E. L.
yields of small grain-lespedeza hay Greene and W. W. McPherson.

Table 17.-Average yield per acre, principal crops, 217 farms, Southern Piedmont, North
Carolina'

Yield of total
Yield per acre digestible nutrients
With Percentage
Crop Unit 1945 improved increase 1945 Improved
practices over 1945
Cwt. Cwt.
Cotton: lint .........Pound 498 525 5 *
seed ........ Pound 789 821 5 *
Corn ............... Bushel 25 50 100 13.3 26.7
Wheat .............. Bushel 17 30 76 8.6 15.0
Oats ...............Bushel 33 60 82 7.6 13.7
Barley .............Bushel 2 30 2 11.3
Lespedeza hay ........Ton 1.2 1.5 25 12.3 15.7
Alfalfa hay ...........Ton 3.0 2 30.2
Silage ............... Ton 2 10.0 2 2 37.4
Lespedeza seed,
1st year ......... .Pound 261 300 15 *
Lespedeza seed,
resccded ........ Pound 261 400 53 *
SActual yield for 1915 and yields estimated upon adoption of improved practices.
SInsufficient data available to estimate a yield for 1945.
Item does not apply.


the principle crops is shown in
Tables 18 and 19. These require-
ments are based on the more com-
mon practices followed in 1945.
Tractor hours are based on the
operations more commonly per-
formed by tractors rather than on
conditions under which tractors
were used to the fullest extent.
On farms where tractors were
owned, tractor work generally was
limited to preparation of land.
Tractors also were used for har-
vesting small grain and lespedeza
on farms where combines were
owned. Since less than half the
tractor farmers owned combines,
the more common practice was to
hire small grains and lespedeza
harvested on a custom basis. Disk-
ing land was a more common prac-
tice on farms with tractors than
on non-tractor farms. These dif-
ferences in operations account for
the relatively small variation be-
tween hours of labor and work-
stock used per acre on tractor and
non-tractor farms.
The estimated use under condi-
tions of improved seeding, fertili-
zation, and rotation practices, com-
pared with 1945 circumstances, is


adjusted for changes in yields only,
and not for potential use of trac-
tor equipment. A small proportion
of the farmers are using tractor
equipment for planting and culti-
vating row crops which means a
large reduction in requirement of
man and workstock hours. But the
extent to which present equipment
is adapted to general use in this
area could not be ascertained from
available data. Thus the poten-
tial uses of tractors for more eco-
nomical employment of resources
must be left for further study.

Livestock
Feed, Land, and Labor: Quan-
tities of feed, land and labor need-
ed to support units of principal
classes of livestock are shown in
Table 20. In 1945, 1.6 acres of
cropland, excluding pasture, were
required to produce the home-
grown feed for a dairy cow and 4.1
acres for 100 hens. With improved
practices, less cropland is required
for a unit of livestock even though
the rate of feeding per head is in-
creased. If improved practices for
crops and livestock were followed,


Table 18.-Man labor used per acre, principal crops, on farms with and farms without trac-
tors, Southern Piedmont, North Carolina1
With improved agronomic
With 1945 practices practices2
Crop
Farms with- Farms with Farms with- Farms with
out tractors tractors out tractors tractors
Hours Hours Hours Hours
Cotton ................. 147 144 151 148
Corn .................... 41 33 45 37
W heat ................... 14 7 14 7
Oats, grain .............. 12 8 12 8
Oats, hay ............ 21 18 21 18
Barley ................. 14 7
Lespedeza, 1st year:
Seed ................ 1 1 1 1
Hay ................ 10 10 12 12
Lespedeza, reseeded:
Seed ................ 1 1 1 1
Hay ................ 9 9 11 11
Alfalfa .................. 27 27
Corn silage .............* 49 41
Permanent pasture ....... 0 0 3 3
1 Hours of labor do not include that which is usually hired on a custom basis.
2 Adjusted from 1945 for difference in yields only and not for possible differences in use
of tractor.
Not a common enterprise.









Table 16.-Present and improved annual rates of fertilization and seeding, principal crops,
Southern Piedmont, North Carolina
Fertilizer applications per acre Seeding rates per acre
1945 Improved
Top Top
Planting orside Planting or side 1945 Improved
Crop time dressing time dressing
(4-10-6) (16-0-0)
Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds
Cotton .......600 100 600 125 38 38
Corn .........350 125 400 400 7 10
Wheat .......300 100 300 200 90 75
Oats .........200 100 300 200 80 64
Barley ........ 300 200 96
Lespedeza .... 0 0 0 0 40 40
1 Based on the equivalent of 6-8-6.
2 Based on the equivalent of 16-0-0.
Reported by only 15 per cent of the 217 farmers.

land had been covered sufficiently. produced with present or improved
About one ton of lime per acre, ap- practices compared favorably with
plied every fifth year, was suggest- other sources of feed.
ed for cropland used for general Labor and Power Requirements:"
rotations of cotton-grain-lespedeza. A summary of the hours of man
Yields: Opportunity for increas- labor and power used to produce
ing yields of grain and hay crops
appears to be greater than for rais- 2 For more detailed information on labor
ing the level of cotton yields distribution and power costs, see: Cost and
Utilization of Power and Equipment on
(Table 17). Yields of most crops Farms in the Central Piedmont, by R. E. L.
can be raised from 25 to 100 per Greene. H. Brooks James, and C. G. Daw-
son, North Carolina Agricultural Experi-
cent by improved practices. In ment Station, and the Bureau of Agricul-
terms of total digestible nutrients, tural Economics, USDA, cooperating (N. C.
Agr. Expt. Sta. Tech. Bul. 84); and. Major
corn ranks first among the major Farming System, 1939, and Usual Pro-
feed crops. However, combined duction Practices, Lincoln County, North
Carolina, a preliminary report by R. E. L.
yields of small grain-lespedeza hay Greene and W. W. McPherson.

Table 17.-Average yield per acre, principal crops, 217 farms, Southern Piedmont, North
Carolina'

Yield of total
Yield per acre digestible nutrients
With Percentage
Crop Unit 1945 improved increase 1945 Improved
practices over 1945
Cwt. Cwt.
Cotton: lint .........Pound 498 525 5 *
seed ........ Pound 789 821 5 *
Corn ............... Bushel 25 50 100 13.3 26.7
Wheat .............. Bushel 17 30 76 8.6 15.0
Oats ...............Bushel 33 60 82 7.6 13.7
Barley .............Bushel 2 30 2 11.3
Lespedeza hay ........Ton 1.2 1.5 25 12.3 15.7
Alfalfa hay ...........Ton 3.0 2 30.2
Silage ............... Ton 2 10.0 2 2 37.4
Lespedeza seed,
1st year ......... .Pound 261 300 15 *
Lespedeza seed,
resccded ........ Pound 261 400 53 *
SActual yield for 1915 and yields estimated upon adoption of improved practices.
SInsufficient data available to estimate a yield for 1945.
Item does not apply.


the principle crops is shown in
Tables 18 and 19. These require-
ments are based on the more com-
mon practices followed in 1945.
Tractor hours are based on the
operations more commonly per-
formed by tractors rather than on
conditions under which tractors
were used to the fullest extent.
On farms where tractors were
owned, tractor work generally was
limited to preparation of land.
Tractors also were used for har-
vesting small grain and lespedeza
on farms where combines were
owned. Since less than half the
tractor farmers owned combines,
the more common practice was to
hire small grains and lespedeza
harvested on a custom basis. Disk-
ing land was a more common prac-
tice on farms with tractors than
on non-tractor farms. These dif-
ferences in operations account for
the relatively small variation be-
tween hours of labor and work-
stock used per acre on tractor and
non-tractor farms.
The estimated use under condi-
tions of improved seeding, fertili-
zation, and rotation practices, com-
pared with 1945 circumstances, is


adjusted for changes in yields only,
and not for potential use of trac-
tor equipment. A small proportion
of the farmers are using tractor
equipment for planting and culti-
vating row crops which means a
large reduction in requirement of
man and workstock hours. But the
extent to which present equipment
is adapted to general use in this
area could not be ascertained from
available data. Thus the poten-
tial uses of tractors for more eco-
nomical employment of resources
must be left for further study.

Livestock
Feed, Land, and Labor: Quan-
tities of feed, land and labor need-
ed to support units of principal
classes of livestock are shown in
Table 20. In 1945, 1.6 acres of
cropland, excluding pasture, were
required to produce the home-
grown feed for a dairy cow and 4.1
acres for 100 hens. With improved
practices, less cropland is required
for a unit of livestock even though
the rate of feeding per head is in-
creased. If improved practices for
crops and livestock were followed,


Table 18.-Man labor used per acre, principal crops, on farms with and farms without trac-
tors, Southern Piedmont, North Carolina1
With improved agronomic
With 1945 practices practices2
Crop
Farms with- Farms with Farms with- Farms with
out tractors tractors out tractors tractors
Hours Hours Hours Hours
Cotton ................. 147 144 151 148
Corn .................... 41 33 45 37
W heat ................... 14 7 14 7
Oats, grain .............. 12 8 12 8
Oats, hay ............ 21 18 21 18
Barley ................. 14 7
Lespedeza, 1st year:
Seed ................ 1 1 1 1
Hay ................ 10 10 12 12
Lespedeza, reseeded:
Seed ................ 1 1 1 1
Hay ................ 9 9 11 11
Alfalfa .................. 27 27
Corn silage .............* 49 41
Permanent pasture ....... 0 0 3 3
1 Hours of labor do not include that which is usually hired on a custom basis.
2 Adjusted from 1945 for difference in yields only and not for possible differences in use
of tractor.
Not a common enterprise.









Table 19.-Power used per acre, principal crops, on farms with and without tractors, Southern
Piedmont, North Carolina


With 1945 practices


Farms
without
tractors
Workstock


Hours
Cotton ............43
Corn ..............38
Wheat ..........24
Oats, grain ........18
Oats, hay .........24
Barley ...........
Lespedeza, 1st year:
Seed ........... 1
Hay ...........10
Lespedeza, reseeded:
Seed ........... 1
Hay ...........10
Alfalfa hay ......... *
Corn silage ........ *
Permanent pasture 0


Farms with
tractors2
Workstock Tractor


Hours
29
20
11
12
16


Hours
3.7
3.3
3.4
3.4
3.4


With improved agronomic
practices'
Farms
without Farms with
tractors tractors2
Workstock Workstock Tractor


Hours
43
40
24
18
24


Hours
29
22
11
12
16


Hours
3.7
3.3
3.4
3.4
3.4


24 11 3.4

1 0 1 1 0
10 0 12 12 0

1 0 1 1 0
10 0 12 12 0
* 27 27 0
* 58 40 6.9
0 0 2 2 0


I Adjusted from 1945 for changes in yields only and not for possible dilTerences in use of
tractors.
SExcludes hours for combining small grain and lespedeza seed, which is usually performed
on a custom basis.
Not a common enterprise.


Table 20.-Feed, power, and labor requirements, principal livestock enterprises, Southern
Piedmont, North Carolina
Produced with Produced with
1945 practices improved practices
Item Unit Sow
and
Dairy 100 One hog Dairy 100 100 13
cow hens raised cow hens broilers pigs

Feed
Home-grown:
Corn .............. Bu. 12 60 16 '17 72 7 2201
Oats ............. Bu. 14 0 0 12 18 3 0
Wheat ............. Bu. 0 30 0 0 61 6 0
Hay ............. Ton 1.5 0 0 2.0 0 0 0
Commercial feed ..... Cwt. 10 8 2 5 14 3 10
Land required:
"Total ......... Acre 4.0 4.1 .6 2.7 4.2 .4 8.0
For home-grown crops Acre 1.6 4.1 .6 1.2 3.7 .4 4.0
For pasture ......... Acre 2.4 0 0 1.5 .5 0 4.0
Labor and power
Man: Total ........ Hour 232 412 44 234 386 29 382
To produce feed.... Hour 37 122 24 39 96 9 192
To tend livestock .Hour 195 290 20 195 290 20 190
Workstock:
To produce feed...... Hour 39 132 23 37 109 11 166
Equal pounds of oats or barley may be substituted.
rEqual pounds of ground wheat or barley may be substituted.
SAcreage is adjusted for double-cropping.


1.2 and 3.7 acres of cropland would
be required for one dairy cow and
100 hens, respectively.
Rates of Production: Livestock
production can be increased mate-
rially through adoption of more
efficient practices (Table 21).
These include better breeding,
housing, and sanitation, in addi-


tion to feeding and improvement
in pasture facilities. For more ef-
ficient performance with improved
practices, the quality of livestock
must be raised above present lev-
els. In the case of both milk and
eggs, production could be increased
from 50 to 80 per cent over pres-
ent rates.


Table 21.-Rates of production, principal livestock enterprises, with 1945 practices and
improved practices, Southern Piedmont, North Carolina'
Rates of production
Class of product Unit 1945 Improved Percentage change
practices practices over 1945

Dairy:
Milk per cow ..........Pound 3,952 6,000 52
Veal per cow .......... Pound 75 100 33
Chickens:
Eggs per 100 hens .... Dozen 765 1,400 83
Meat per 100 broilers ..Pound 238 *
HoRs:
! Pigs per sow......... Number 13 *
Pork per hog raised ...Pound 260 215 -17

1 Rates for 1945 based on most common practices; rates for improved practices are based
on estimated production with improved practices.
Insufficient data, not a common enterprise.


PART II. DEVELOPMENT OF

ALTERNATIVE FARMING SYSTEMS


The quantity, quality, and price
of resources, together with market
conditions are important in plan-
ning adjustments that would in-
crease net farm incomes. It is
evident from the preceding dis-
cussion that considerable oppor-
tunities exist for increasing net
farm incomes.
Two factors over which the
farmer has some control are im-


portant in determining the income
from a specific farm: (1) selection
of enterprises and quantity pro-
duced, (2) the degree of efficiency
in the operation. The effect of im-
proved practices on crop yields and
livestock production rates has been
discussed in the previous section.
The problems involved in selecting
and combining enterprises are dis-
cussed in the following section.


SELECTION AND COMBINATION OF FARM ENTERPRISES


For maximum net farm income,
farmers should select for their
main line of production the enter-
prise that will yield the highest net
returns from resources available.
Of particular importance is the
size of enterprise as limited by


family labor and available equip-
ment.
Under present conditions within
the Southern Piedmont, land and
labor are the chief factors to be
considered in examining produc-
tion opportunities. In most cases,









Table 19.-Power used per acre, principal crops, on farms with and without tractors, Southern
Piedmont, North Carolina


With 1945 practices


Farms
without
tractors
Workstock


Hours
Cotton ............43
Corn ..............38
Wheat ..........24
Oats, grain ........18
Oats, hay .........24
Barley ...........
Lespedeza, 1st year:
Seed ........... 1
Hay ...........10
Lespedeza, reseeded:
Seed ........... 1
Hay ...........10
Alfalfa hay ......... *
Corn silage ........ *
Permanent pasture 0


Farms with
tractors2
Workstock Tractor


Hours
29
20
11
12
16


Hours
3.7
3.3
3.4
3.4
3.4


With improved agronomic
practices'
Farms
without Farms with
tractors tractors2
Workstock Workstock Tractor


Hours
43
40
24
18
24


Hours
29
22
11
12
16


Hours
3.7
3.3
3.4
3.4
3.4


24 11 3.4

1 0 1 1 0
10 0 12 12 0

1 0 1 1 0
10 0 12 12 0
* 27 27 0
* 58 40 6.9
0 0 2 2 0


I Adjusted from 1945 for changes in yields only and not for possible dilTerences in use of
tractors.
SExcludes hours for combining small grain and lespedeza seed, which is usually performed
on a custom basis.
Not a common enterprise.


Table 20.-Feed, power, and labor requirements, principal livestock enterprises, Southern
Piedmont, North Carolina
Produced with Produced with
1945 practices improved practices
Item Unit Sow
and
Dairy 100 One hog Dairy 100 100 13
cow hens raised cow hens broilers pigs

Feed
Home-grown:
Corn .............. Bu. 12 60 16 '17 72 7 2201
Oats ............. Bu. 14 0 0 12 18 3 0
Wheat ............. Bu. 0 30 0 0 61 6 0
Hay ............. Ton 1.5 0 0 2.0 0 0 0
Commercial feed ..... Cwt. 10 8 2 5 14 3 10
Land required:
"Total ......... Acre 4.0 4.1 .6 2.7 4.2 .4 8.0
For home-grown crops Acre 1.6 4.1 .6 1.2 3.7 .4 4.0
For pasture ......... Acre 2.4 0 0 1.5 .5 0 4.0
Labor and power
Man: Total ........ Hour 232 412 44 234 386 29 382
To produce feed.... Hour 37 122 24 39 96 9 192
To tend livestock .Hour 195 290 20 195 290 20 190
Workstock:
To produce feed...... Hour 39 132 23 37 109 11 166
Equal pounds of oats or barley may be substituted.
rEqual pounds of ground wheat or barley may be substituted.
SAcreage is adjusted for double-cropping.


1.2 and 3.7 acres of cropland would
be required for one dairy cow and
100 hens, respectively.
Rates of Production: Livestock
production can be increased mate-
rially through adoption of more
efficient practices (Table 21).
These include better breeding,
housing, and sanitation, in addi-


tion to feeding and improvement
in pasture facilities. For more ef-
ficient performance with improved
practices, the quality of livestock
must be raised above present lev-
els. In the case of both milk and
eggs, production could be increased
from 50 to 80 per cent over pres-
ent rates.


Table 21.-Rates of production, principal livestock enterprises, with 1945 practices and
improved practices, Southern Piedmont, North Carolina'
Rates of production
Class of product Unit 1945 Improved Percentage change
practices practices over 1945

Dairy:
Milk per cow ..........Pound 3,952 6,000 52
Veal per cow .......... Pound 75 100 33
Chickens:
Eggs per 100 hens .... Dozen 765 1,400 83
Meat per 100 broilers ..Pound 238 *
HoRs:
! Pigs per sow......... Number 13 *
Pork per hog raised ...Pound 260 215 -17

1 Rates for 1945 based on most common practices; rates for improved practices are based
on estimated production with improved practices.
Insufficient data, not a common enterprise.


PART II. DEVELOPMENT OF

ALTERNATIVE FARMING SYSTEMS


The quantity, quality, and price
of resources, together with market
conditions are important in plan-
ning adjustments that would in-
crease net farm incomes. It is
evident from the preceding dis-
cussion that considerable oppor-
tunities exist for increasing net
farm incomes.
Two factors over which the
farmer has some control are im-


portant in determining the income
from a specific farm: (1) selection
of enterprises and quantity pro-
duced, (2) the degree of efficiency
in the operation. The effect of im-
proved practices on crop yields and
livestock production rates has been
discussed in the previous section.
The problems involved in selecting
and combining enterprises are dis-
cussed in the following section.


SELECTION AND COMBINATION OF FARM ENTERPRISES


For maximum net farm income,
farmers should select for their
main line of production the enter-
prise that will yield the highest net
returns from resources available.
Of particular importance is the
size of enterprise as limited by


family labor and available equip-
ment.
Under present conditions within
the Southern Piedmont, land and
labor are the chief factors to be
considered in examining produc-
tion opportunities. In most cases,









Table 19.-Power used per acre, principal crops, on farms with and without tractors, Southern
Piedmont, North Carolina


With 1945 practices


Farms
without
tractors
Workstock


Hours
Cotton ............43
Corn ..............38
Wheat ..........24
Oats, grain ........18
Oats, hay .........24
Barley ...........
Lespedeza, 1st year:
Seed ........... 1
Hay ...........10
Lespedeza, reseeded:
Seed ........... 1
Hay ...........10
Alfalfa hay ......... *
Corn silage ........ *
Permanent pasture 0


Farms with
tractors2
Workstock Tractor


Hours
29
20
11
12
16


Hours
3.7
3.3
3.4
3.4
3.4


With improved agronomic
practices'
Farms
without Farms with
tractors tractors2
Workstock Workstock Tractor


Hours
43
40
24
18
24


Hours
29
22
11
12
16


Hours
3.7
3.3
3.4
3.4
3.4


24 11 3.4

1 0 1 1 0
10 0 12 12 0

1 0 1 1 0
10 0 12 12 0
* 27 27 0
* 58 40 6.9
0 0 2 2 0


I Adjusted from 1945 for changes in yields only and not for possible dilTerences in use of
tractors.
SExcludes hours for combining small grain and lespedeza seed, which is usually performed
on a custom basis.
Not a common enterprise.


Table 20.-Feed, power, and labor requirements, principal livestock enterprises, Southern
Piedmont, North Carolina
Produced with Produced with
1945 practices improved practices
Item Unit Sow
and
Dairy 100 One hog Dairy 100 100 13
cow hens raised cow hens broilers pigs

Feed
Home-grown:
Corn .............. Bu. 12 60 16 '17 72 7 2201
Oats ............. Bu. 14 0 0 12 18 3 0
Wheat ............. Bu. 0 30 0 0 61 6 0
Hay ............. Ton 1.5 0 0 2.0 0 0 0
Commercial feed ..... Cwt. 10 8 2 5 14 3 10
Land required:
"Total ......... Acre 4.0 4.1 .6 2.7 4.2 .4 8.0
For home-grown crops Acre 1.6 4.1 .6 1.2 3.7 .4 4.0
For pasture ......... Acre 2.4 0 0 1.5 .5 0 4.0
Labor and power
Man: Total ........ Hour 232 412 44 234 386 29 382
To produce feed.... Hour 37 122 24 39 96 9 192
To tend livestock .Hour 195 290 20 195 290 20 190
Workstock:
To produce feed...... Hour 39 132 23 37 109 11 166
Equal pounds of oats or barley may be substituted.
rEqual pounds of ground wheat or barley may be substituted.
SAcreage is adjusted for double-cropping.


1.2 and 3.7 acres of cropland would
be required for one dairy cow and
100 hens, respectively.
Rates of Production: Livestock
production can be increased mate-
rially through adoption of more
efficient practices (Table 21).
These include better breeding,
housing, and sanitation, in addi-


tion to feeding and improvement
in pasture facilities. For more ef-
ficient performance with improved
practices, the quality of livestock
must be raised above present lev-
els. In the case of both milk and
eggs, production could be increased
from 50 to 80 per cent over pres-
ent rates.


Table 21.-Rates of production, principal livestock enterprises, with 1945 practices and
improved practices, Southern Piedmont, North Carolina'
Rates of production
Class of product Unit 1945 Improved Percentage change
practices practices over 1945

Dairy:
Milk per cow ..........Pound 3,952 6,000 52
Veal per cow .......... Pound 75 100 33
Chickens:
Eggs per 100 hens .... Dozen 765 1,400 83
Meat per 100 broilers ..Pound 238 *
HoRs:
! Pigs per sow......... Number 13 *
Pork per hog raised ...Pound 260 215 -17

1 Rates for 1945 based on most common practices; rates for improved practices are based
on estimated production with improved practices.
Insufficient data, not a common enterprise.


PART II. DEVELOPMENT OF

ALTERNATIVE FARMING SYSTEMS


The quantity, quality, and price
of resources, together with market
conditions are important in plan-
ning adjustments that would in-
crease net farm incomes. It is
evident from the preceding dis-
cussion that considerable oppor-
tunities exist for increasing net
farm incomes.
Two factors over which the
farmer has some control are im-


portant in determining the income
from a specific farm: (1) selection
of enterprises and quantity pro-
duced, (2) the degree of efficiency
in the operation. The effect of im-
proved practices on crop yields and
livestock production rates has been
discussed in the previous section.
The problems involved in selecting
and combining enterprises are dis-
cussed in the following section.


SELECTION AND COMBINATION OF FARM ENTERPRISES


For maximum net farm income,
farmers should select for their
main line of production the enter-
prise that will yield the highest net
returns from resources available.
Of particular importance is the
size of enterprise as limited by


family labor and available equip-
ment.
Under present conditions within
the Southern Piedmont, land and
labor are the chief factors to be
considered in examining produc-
tion opportunities. In most cases,








opportunities for adjusting these
two factors are limited, especially
over short periods of time.
Particularly in cotton-producing
areas, the main line or lines of
agricultural production seldom
fully utilize the farm resources.
Hence, for maximum net income the
farmer must add supplementary
enterprises. To do this the opera-
tor must consider the following
factors in addition to apparent
costs and returns: (1) risks of pro-
duction arising from unfavorable
weather, and damage from insects
and diseases, (2) price fluctuations,
(3) conservation of farm resources,
(4) labor and power requirements
and seasonal distribution, (5) in-
terrelationships of alternative en-
terprises, and (6) cost of items
when purchased compared with al-
ternative uses of resources in the
case of products grown for family
consumption or for feed for the
required workstock.
Two or more farm enterprises
reduce risks associated with price
declines and production disasters
common to a one-enterprise sys-
tem. Although prices change con-
tinuously, records show that prices
of dairy and poultry products fluc-
tuate within narrower ranges and
less abruptly than do prices of cot-
ton. Yields also fluctuate from
year to year. From 1936 to 1945,
average cotton yields per acre in
the Southern Piedmont ranged
from 250 to 449 pounds; corn, from
17 to 24 bushels; and wheat, from
10 to 16 bushels. Yields from year
to year on individual farms prob-
ably varied even more.
Many farms have cropland too
steep to be planted in row crops
more often than once in two, three,
or even four years. This means
the acreage of cotton and corn
should be limited accordingly, and
other enterprises added if the land
is to be used profitably. On many
farms, land entirely unsuited for
cotton might be used profitably to
produce pasture or forest products.
The way in which enterprises
fit together-supplement or com-


plement each other-is of major
importance. For example, lespc-
deza in the cropping system offers
several advantages, even though
direct cash returns per acre are
relatively low. It can be grown-
as a second crop on the same land
with small grain without reducing
yields of small grain. Where land
is unsuited to alfalfa, lespedeza is
the best alternative for hay. Les-
pedeza seed may be harvested and
sold and the residue plowed under
as a source of organic matter and
nitrogen. It also may be used for
summer grazing. These alterna-
tives make lespedeza a flexible crop
for combining with other enter-
prises.
Barley might be considered as an
alternative to corn for increasing
the flexibility of the cropping sys-
tem. Although barley alone does
not yield as much feed as corn,
it is a close-growing crop that
has advantages on the rolling or
hilly land of the Piedmont. It can
be tended with the same equipment
used for wheat and oats and with
very little labor. Barley also may
be followed by lespedeza, a com-
bination which yields approximate-
ly the same amount of total di-
gestible nutrients per acre as corn.
Livestock enterprises often can
be combined with crop enterprises
to increase farm income through
fuller utilization of available la-
bor. Even at low hourly returns,
livestock enterprises which utilize
labor that otherwise would be idle
would increase the total net farm
income.
Once a system is established, the
nature of its fixed assets influences
the profitableness of dropping and
adding new enterprises and meth-
ods of operation.
Labor and power requirements,
especially their seasonal distribu-
tion, are a problem. Peak labor
periods for most of the principal
crops in this area occur simultane-
ously. The acreage that a family
can tend is reduced far below what
could be operated if labor patterns
were evenly distributed. Cotton


requires very little or no labor for
about five months of the year. Yet
during peak periods eight to ten
acres takes the labor equivalent
of two men. These extreme varia-
tions lead to periods of consider-
able underemployment. The limit-
ing periods for cotton and corn
are during cultivation and harvest.
When there is not enough labor to
harvest both crops simultaneous-
ly, the corn harvest usually is de-
layed because cotton is more valu-
able and more susceptible to dam-
age.
The main problem with small
grain arises with seeding. The
harvest period for cotton and corn
extends so far into the fall that
it overlaps the period for prepar-
ing land to seed small grain. This
problem becomes more acute when
poor weather conditions interfere.

Relative Costs and Returns
with Present and Improved
Practices
The influence of a change in the
farming system on net income can
be tested by means of a budget
analysis of the complete system,
though an analysis of individual
enterprises helps.
This section shows the effects of
improved practices on relative
costs and returns for different en-
terprises. That rates of production
can be increased through the use
of improved practices has been
clearly demonstrated by experi-
mental work and by results on ac-
tual farms. The effects of any pro-
duction increase on net farm
income, however, depend upon how
much cost is increased to get the
additional production.
On the individual farm, many
items of cost are more or less fixed.
At least their change in response
to a change in output is so small
that it can be disregarded.
On many farms, the operator's
family comprises all or nearly all
of the farm-labor force. In such
cases, labor is not a variable cash
cost. The real problem is how to


employ family labor most profit-
ably.
There are some enterprise fixdc
costs. For this reason the proFE-m
has two phases: (1) selectio:i of
enterprises and (2) scale of opera-
tion once the selections are made.
General farm overhead costs have
little influence on either of these
phases. Enterprise overhead af-
fects the first but not the second
phase of the problem. In terms
of costs the second phase of the
problem involves only the direct
variable costs of the given enter-
prise. Therefore, emphasis is
placed on relative, not absolute,
costs and returns because relative
rather than absolute conditions in-
fluence opportunities for profitable
adjustments.
Costs of getting additional out-
put from a given enterprise varies
with different conditions. But for
purposes of more general applica-
tion, this analysis is based on
modal relationships.
Prices for 1945 were used in the
calculation of specified costs and
returns under conditions of 1945
and under improved practices. A
comparison of 1945 prices with
1935-39 averages is shown in Table
22.
Crops: The effects that im-
proved practices would have on
specified cash costs are shown in
Table 23. These items of expense
include only direct cash items that
are usually variable in nature.
These costs must be paid during
the production period. They are
most directly affected when the
volume of the particular enterprise
is expanded or reduced, or when
an enterprise is added to or
dropped from the farm business.
Relatively fixed overhead farm ex-
penses, which normally have little
effect upon the relative profitable-
ness of alternative enterprises, are
not included in this phase of the
analysis. Items of expense are
based upon production with equip-
ment most frequently found on
farms included in the sample.









Table 22.-Prices received by farmers, principal products sold, Southern Piedmont, North
Carolina, 1945 and average 1935-391


Product Unit


Cotton ..................... .... Lb.
Cottonseed ...................... Ton
Corn ............................ B u.
W heat .......................... Bu.
O ats ............................ B u.
Barley ........................ Bu.
Lespedeza seed:
Korean ..................... Lb.
K obe ..................... .. Lb.
All hay ................... ..... Ton
Sweet potatoes ................. Bu
Beef ...................... Cw t.
V eal ........................... Cw t.
Pork ..................... ..... Cw t.
Chickens ..................... Lb.
Broilers ......................... Lb.
Eggs .......................... Doz.
Butter ........................Lb.
Butterfat ....................... Lb.
Milk, wholesale grade A ........Cwt.
M ilk, retail ...................... Qt.
Milk, wholesale unclassified ...... Cwt.


Prices
Average
1945 1935-39
Dollars Dollars
0.225 0.103
48.00 26.06
1.46 .76
1.65 1.00
.90 .51
1.37 .79


.081
.132
30.12
2.03
10.50
13.30
13.90
.288
.322
.404
.41
.44
4.85
.151
2.80


.042
.068
14.27
.74
5.30
7.16
8.52
.157
.181
.224
.24
.26
2.73
.117
1.58


Source: Federal-State Crop Reporting Service; prices are those available for District 8
and North Carolina prices for all other commodities.


Table 23.-Soccified annual direct cash costs per acre, principal crops, with 1945 practices
and improved practices, Southern Piedmont, North Carolina
Produced with 1945 practices' Produced with improved practices
Crop lHarvest, Harvest,
All Gin, and All Gin, and
fertilizer Seed2 clean Total fertilizer Seed2 clean Total
Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars
Cotton .....12.16 1.15 6.77 20.08 12.74 1.50 7.09 21.33
Corn ....... 8.61 .18 0 8.79 15.89 1.70 0 17.59
Wheat ...... 7.22 2.78 4.00 14.00 9.64 3.44 4.00 17.08
Oats ........ 5.57 2.75 4.00 12.32 9.64 3.26 4.00 16.90
Barley ..... 9.64 4.00 4.00 17.64
Lespedeza, 1st year:
Seed ..... 0 3.38 10.57 13.95 0 3.80 11.62 15.42
Hay ...... 0 3.38 0 3.38 0 3.80 0 3.80
Reseeded lespedeza:
Seed ..... 0 0 10.57 10.57 0 0 16.20 16.20
Hay ...... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Alfalfa hay.. 7.77 2.55 0 10.32
Corn silage .. 15.89 2.05 4.00 21.94
Permanent
pasture' .. *' 4.77"- 1.24 6.01

1 Based on most common practices.
2 Includes seed treatment where applicable.
s Includes annual pro-rata share of establishing and maintaining these enterprises.
Not a common enterprise or practice.


On farms where a combine is
owned harvesting costs for small
grains and lespedeza seed would
depend upon the cost of operating
the tractor and combine instead of
custom rates. For purposes of
comparison, in each enterprise,
seeds are charged as a cash ex-
pense. Consequently they are not
deducted from the value of the
product although it is customary
to plant home-grown seed in many
cases. For those crops that re-
quire abnormal outlays at inter-
vals, such as alfalfa and pastures,
the expense represents the annual
average for a five-year period.
For comparison of costs and re-
turns among enterprises the small
grain-lespedeza combination should
be considered as a single enter-
prise.
Table 24 shows net returns over
specified items of cost for princi-
pal crops with present and im-
proved practices. Net cash returns
per acre with improved practices
would increase $6 for cotton and


$28 for corn. For most enterprises,
net cash returns can be increased
50 to 100 per cent by the use of
improved practices. Cotton shows
less potential increase than other
enterprises because present prac-
tices on this crop are more nearly
in line with improved practices.
Livestock: Costs that are af-
fected most by changes in live-
stock enterprises produced with
1945 and with improved practices,
are presented in Table 25. For
purposes of comparison among en-
terprises, pertinent enterprise
overhead expenses are included.
Therefore, costs per animal unit
would vary with different scales
of operation. This is particularly
true in production of eggs and
of Grade A milk, primarily because
of the relation of size of enter-
prise to efficiency in the use of
equipment. Figures shown for
these two enterprises were based
on a flock of 250 hens and a herd
of 20 dairy cows. The equipment
could not be used as efficiently on


Table 24.-Value of production and specified direct costs per acre, principal crops, with
1945 practices and improved practices, Southern Piedmont, North Carolina
Specified Value Labor Returns
Value of direct less and less
Crop product5 cash specified power specified
costs' cash costs costs' costs'
Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars
1945 practices
Cotton ............. 131.00 20.08 110.92 58.48 52.44
Corn ............... 36.00 8.79 27.21 23.23 3.98
Wheat ............. 28.00 14.00 14.00 10.86 3.14
Oats ............... 30.00 12.32 17.68 8.62 9.06
Lespedeza seed,
1st year ......... 21.00 13.95 7.05 .59 6.46
Reseeded ......... 21.00 10.57 10.43 .59 9.84
Lespedeza hay ...... 36.00 3.38 32.62 5.92 26.70
With improved fertilization and seeding practices
Cotton ............. 138.00 21.33 116.67 59.76 56.91
Corn ............... 73.00 17.59 55.41 25.04 30.37
Barley ............. 41.00 17.64 23.36 10.86 12.50
Wheat ............. 50.00 17.08 32.92 10.86 22.06
Oats ............... 54.00 16.90 37.10 8.62 28.48
Lespedeza seed,
1st year .......... 24.00 15.42 8.58 .59 7.99
Reseeded ......... 32.00 16.20 15.80 .59 15.21
Lespedeza hay ...... 45.00 3.80 41.20 7.03 34.17
Alfalfa hay ........ 90.00 10.32 79.68 15.82 63.86
1 Based on 1945 prices and the rates of production shown in Table 17.
See Table 23.
S Man labor ~' $0.31 per hour and workstock (i $0.266 hour. (See Tables 18 and 19).
4 Value of product less specified cash and labor and power costs.








Table 25.-Specified annual direct costs, principal classes of livestock, with 1945 practices
and improved practices, Southern Piedmont, North Carolina
Produced with 1945 practices Produced with improved practices
Milk, wholesale
Item Milk (per cow) Pork
unclassi- Eggs Pork Eggss Broilers (1 sow
fled (100 (per Grade Unclassi. (100 (100 and 13
(per cow) hens) hog) A' fied2 hens) chicks) pigs)
Home-grown
feed' ....... 75 137 23 96 96 222 23 293
Pasture (cash) 0 0 0 9 9 3 0 24
Purchased feed 29 31 6 15 15 59 11 27
Depreciation or
purchase
(livestock) 3 24 10 5 5 20 13 0
Equipment and
building
(cash) ...... 2 2 0 12 4 8 6 0
Miscellaneous 4 0 0 9 8 5 2 2

Total .......$113 $194 $39 $146 $137 $317 $55 $346
SBased on a herd of 20 cows.
SHased on a minimum of 5 cows.
Based on a flock of 250 hens.
4 Home-grown feed charged at farm value.
5 Includes breeding fee, feed grinding, salt, and veterinary expenses.

a smaller scale. This problem dif- For hens the increase was $1.34
fers somewhat from that of un- per hen.
classified milk. Because of differ- Since, in making these calcu-
ences in equipment requirements, nations, home-grown feed was
this enterprise is more flexible charged at farm value, the speci-
than is production of either Grade fled cost for livestock includes
A milk or eggs. value of home-grown feed, pur-
Returns for various livestock en- chased feed, and other cash costs
terprises are shown in Table 26. connected with the enterprise. (An
With improved practices, value of alternative approach that can be
product less specified costs per cow made from the given figures would
for unclassified milk increased $36. be to consider the combination of


Table 26.-Value of production and specified direct costs, principal livestock enterprises,
Southern Piedmont, North Carolina

Value Direct Value less
Enterprises TUnit


.. s pecilied specined
product' costs2 costs
Dollars Dollars Dollars
1945 practices
Unclassified milk ...... Per cow 121 113 8
Eggs ................ 100 hens 309 194 115
Pork ................. 1 hog raised 36 39 -33


Unclassified milk .......... Per cow
Grade-A milk ............ Per cow
Eggs ................... .100 hens
Broilers .............. 100 chicks
Pork ........... . 1 sow, 13 pigs


Improved practices
137
146
317
55
346


home-grown feed and livestock as
an enterprise.) Therefore, these
data show the relative profit in
feeding home-grown feed to live-
stock compared with selling it di-
rect. In 1945 the difference was
only $8 in the case of unclassified
milk when feed was fed to dairy
cows. This means that the farm-
er received only $8 in return for
his additional labor and risk by
marketing the feed through cows
in contrast to direct sales.
Eggs compared more favorably
as a channel for marketing feed.
In the case of pork, when hogs
were bought and raised, there was
a loss of $3 when the feed was fed
compared with direct sale of feed.
However, almost all of the pork
was grown for home use. If the
farmer had bought the meat he
would have had to pay retail prices,
whereas these calculations have
been made in terms of prices re-
ceived by farmers.


Gains from marketing feed
through livestock would be much
greater under improved practices
compared with 1945 conditions. For
unclassified milk, the gain would
be $44 per cow instead of $8 as
under 1945 practices. Apparently
little would be gained in terms of
increased value in marketing grain
through pork in excess of family
needs, at 1945 prices.
Better practices for crops and
livestock result in a two-way in-
crease in the advantage to live-
stock. Not only is the return per
unit of livestock increased, but
with higher yields of feed crops,
a greater number of units of live-
stock can be kept on a given acre-
age of land. It is evident, however
that the quality of livestock must
be improved in order to gain much
advantage in terms of net returns,
when feed is marketed through
livestock rather than sold for cash.


PRESENT AND ALTERNATIVE FARMING SYSTEMS


Data presented in previous sec-
tions indicate that practices, rates
of production, and resources on
farms in the Southern Piedmont
vary widely. Relative to potential
levels, farm incomes are low, and
conservation of resources is poor.
However, there are significant op-
portunities for improving present
farming systems and, consequent-
ly, net farm incomes by incorporat-
ing improved practices and adjust-
ing wisely the present enterprise
combinations for more effective
utilization of land, labor, and oth-
er resources of production.
Farms, representative of the pre-
dominate situations, are used to
illustrate means of raising net
farm incomes consistent with
proper conservation of farm re-
sources. In the analysis, compari-
sons are made between organiza-
tions as they existed in 1945 in-
cluding present practices, and al-
ternative organizations in which
improved practices are incorporat-
ed. In the analysis of alterna-


tive organizations, "representa-
tive farms" were developed. These
are actual farms adjusted in view
of modal tendencies in the area.
These adjustments required only
minor changes in actual organiza-
tions and practices. Soils maps of
actual farms representative of
each size were selected and used
in the appraisal of adjustment op-
portunities. The basic factor for
classification in this analysis is
acreage of cropland, as the other
factors are generally more flexible
in relation to potential scale of
operation.
The most profitable farming sys-
tem depends upon many variables.
One of these is the relative re-
turns as influenced by yields which
in turn are affected by soil condi-
tions. Another variable is the
price relationships, which depend
upon conditions of supply and de-
mand for the commodities. But
the influence of one farmer's pro-
duction on total supply is neg-
ligible. Therefore, the approach in


1 Based on 1945 prices and rates of production as shown in Table 21.
2 Sec Table 25 for items included.
l Represents a loss8 of $3.








Table 25.-Specified annual direct costs, principal classes of livestock, with 1945 practices
and improved practices, Southern Piedmont, North Carolina
Produced with 1945 practices Produced with improved practices
Milk, wholesale
Item Milk (per cow) Pork
unclassi- Eggs Pork Eggss Broilers (1 sow
fled (100 (per Grade Unclassi. (100 (100 and 13
(per cow) hens) hog) A' fied2 hens) chicks) pigs)
Home-grown
feed' ....... 75 137 23 96 96 222 23 293
Pasture (cash) 0 0 0 9 9 3 0 24
Purchased feed 29 31 6 15 15 59 11 27
Depreciation or
purchase
(livestock) 3 24 10 5 5 20 13 0
Equipment and
building
(cash) ...... 2 2 0 12 4 8 6 0
Miscellaneous 4 0 0 9 8 5 2 2

Total .......$113 $194 $39 $146 $137 $317 $55 $346
SBased on a herd of 20 cows.
SHased on a minimum of 5 cows.
Based on a flock of 250 hens.
4 Home-grown feed charged at farm value.
5 Includes breeding fee, feed grinding, salt, and veterinary expenses.

a smaller scale. This problem dif- For hens the increase was $1.34
fers somewhat from that of un- per hen.
classified milk. Because of differ- Since, in making these calcu-
ences in equipment requirements, nations, home-grown feed was
this enterprise is more flexible charged at farm value, the speci-
than is production of either Grade fled cost for livestock includes
A milk or eggs. value of home-grown feed, pur-
Returns for various livestock en- chased feed, and other cash costs
terprises are shown in Table 26. connected with the enterprise. (An
With improved practices, value of alternative approach that can be
product less specified costs per cow made from the given figures would
for unclassified milk increased $36. be to consider the combination of


Table 26.-Value of production and specified direct costs, principal livestock enterprises,
Southern Piedmont, North Carolina

Value Direct Value less
Enterprises TUnit


.. s pecilied specined
product' costs2 costs
Dollars Dollars Dollars
1945 practices
Unclassified milk ...... Per cow 121 113 8
Eggs ................ 100 hens 309 194 115
Pork ................. 1 hog raised 36 39 -33


Unclassified milk .......... Per cow
Grade-A milk ............ Per cow
Eggs ................... .100 hens
Broilers .............. 100 chicks
Pork ........... . 1 sow, 13 pigs


Improved practices
137
146
317
55
346


home-grown feed and livestock as
an enterprise.) Therefore, these
data show the relative profit in
feeding home-grown feed to live-
stock compared with selling it di-
rect. In 1945 the difference was
only $8 in the case of unclassified
milk when feed was fed to dairy
cows. This means that the farm-
er received only $8 in return for
his additional labor and risk by
marketing the feed through cows
in contrast to direct sales.
Eggs compared more favorably
as a channel for marketing feed.
In the case of pork, when hogs
were bought and raised, there was
a loss of $3 when the feed was fed
compared with direct sale of feed.
However, almost all of the pork
was grown for home use. If the
farmer had bought the meat he
would have had to pay retail prices,
whereas these calculations have
been made in terms of prices re-
ceived by farmers.


Gains from marketing feed
through livestock would be much
greater under improved practices
compared with 1945 conditions. For
unclassified milk, the gain would
be $44 per cow instead of $8 as
under 1945 practices. Apparently
little would be gained in terms of
increased value in marketing grain
through pork in excess of family
needs, at 1945 prices.
Better practices for crops and
livestock result in a two-way in-
crease in the advantage to live-
stock. Not only is the return per
unit of livestock increased, but
with higher yields of feed crops,
a greater number of units of live-
stock can be kept on a given acre-
age of land. It is evident, however
that the quality of livestock must
be improved in order to gain much
advantage in terms of net returns,
when feed is marketed through
livestock rather than sold for cash.


PRESENT AND ALTERNATIVE FARMING SYSTEMS


Data presented in previous sec-
tions indicate that practices, rates
of production, and resources on
farms in the Southern Piedmont
vary widely. Relative to potential
levels, farm incomes are low, and
conservation of resources is poor.
However, there are significant op-
portunities for improving present
farming systems and, consequent-
ly, net farm incomes by incorporat-
ing improved practices and adjust-
ing wisely the present enterprise
combinations for more effective
utilization of land, labor, and oth-
er resources of production.
Farms, representative of the pre-
dominate situations, are used to
illustrate means of raising net
farm incomes consistent with
proper conservation of farm re-
sources. In the analysis, compari-
sons are made between organiza-
tions as they existed in 1945 in-
cluding present practices, and al-
ternative organizations in which
improved practices are incorporat-
ed. In the analysis of alterna-


tive organizations, "representa-
tive farms" were developed. These
are actual farms adjusted in view
of modal tendencies in the area.
These adjustments required only
minor changes in actual organiza-
tions and practices. Soils maps of
actual farms representative of
each size were selected and used
in the appraisal of adjustment op-
portunities. The basic factor for
classification in this analysis is
acreage of cropland, as the other
factors are generally more flexible
in relation to potential scale of
operation.
The most profitable farming sys-
tem depends upon many variables.
One of these is the relative re-
turns as influenced by yields which
in turn are affected by soil condi-
tions. Another variable is the
price relationships, which depend
upon conditions of supply and de-
mand for the commodities. But
the influence of one farmer's pro-
duction on total supply is neg-
ligible. Therefore, the approach in


1 Based on 1945 prices and rates of production as shown in Table 21.
2 Sec Table 25 for items included.
l Represents a loss8 of $3.









this study of individual farms was
to analyze the opportunities in ac-
cordance with 1945 price relation-
ships (exception was made for a
few items whose prices for that
year appeared to be out of line
with the most common pattern);
to supplement this with an analy-
sis of opportunities for adjustment
in the event of price changes; and
to show incomes and expenses in
terms of 1935-39 average prices."
In an area-wide program, the ef-
fect of production changes upon
price relationships should be care-
fully considered.
In developing cropping systems
and other plans for "representa-
tive farms" certain basic principles
have been followed. Crop rotations
are recommended (1) for the most
economical utilization of commer-
cial fertilizers; (2) as a factor in
preventing erosion and depletion
of the soil, in maintaining or in-
creasing the organic matter in the
soil, and in improving soil texture;
and (3) as a factor in reducing
losses caused by plant diseases.
A very close relationship was
noted between degrees of field
slopes and erosion conditions.
(This relationship was probably
caused, to a large extent, by the
high degree of similarity in crop-
ping systems.) In view of this sit-
uation soils, as they occurred on
the farms mapped, were classified
into five groups as a basis for de-
veloping rotations. The most in-
tensive crop rotations adopted for
each group were worked out by
t he technicians in agronomy"
'' 1935-39 prices: Prices received by
farmers-average of crop reporting District
8 for those prices available by district.
North Carolina average for all others; farm
privileges-60 per cent of 1945 value; prices
paid were adjusted by index of 1945 prices-
69.4 per cent for cash expenses and 90
per cent for non cash expenses.
In following these rotations one should
keep in mind that the sequence of crops
and. consequently, the intensity of n de-
sirable rotation are influenced and often
limited by the nature of the soil, the pres-
ent degree of erosion, the steepness of the
field slopes, the seasons, and the length
of the growing periods of the crops. On
slopes, where the degree of erosion is more
severe than that described, the intensity of
the rotation should be reduced accordingly.
Also, rotations may be adjusted to fit the


(Table 27). Rotations for individ-
ual farms were modified in accord-
ance with specific conditions on the
particular farm.
Production requirements for al-
falfa, pastures, and lespedeza are
influenced more by the soils than
are the requirements for cotton
and grain crops. Kobe variety of
lespedeza is best adapted to the
White Store-Creedmoor, Appling,
Durham, and the sandy loam soils,
and Korean variety is more suit-
able on the clay loam and clay
soils. The White Store-Creedmoor
soils group, Mecklenburg, that is
not well-drained, and the shallower
and more eroded phases of the
slate soils, such as Alamance,
Orange, and Herndon, generally
are not suited to production of al-
falfa. Davidson, Lloyd, and Cecil
soils are best adapted to this crop.
Ladino and White clovers in pas-
ture mixtures are not adapted
generally to White Store-Creed-
moor and sandy loams of the
Cecil-Appling-Durham group.

Small Farms15
Present and Alternative Systems
of the "Representative Farms."
The 1945 organization and a reor-
ganization of a representative
small farm are shown in Table 28.
The land consists of 56 acres-37
acres of cropland, two acres of
open permanent pasture, 11 acres

particular requirements of different farm
plans so long as the adjustment does not
increase the intensity of cultivation. Cot-
ton and corn or other row crops may be
interchanged. The most important points
to be considered are the frequency rates
of breaking the land and plowing under
legumes; and the frequency of the occur-
rence of different types of cover-whether
intertilled. close-growing, or sod crops.
These rotations were based upon the as-
sumption that fields would be properly ter-
raced and cultivated in accordance with
field contours. This would necessitate va-
rious degrees of terrace work, varying from
terracing complete farm units in some
cases to completing the job already started
on others, or merely to maintaining the
terraces on those farms where the entire
unit is completely and properly terraced.
Soils should be tested and analyzed every
3 or 4 years to determine lime and fer-
tilizer requirements.
See Appendix Tables I and II for de-
tailed account of income and expense of
farming systems presented in this section.


Table 27.-Most intensive crop rotations adapted to specified soil conditions, Southern Pied-
mont, North Carolina
Condition of field slope and soil erosion Most intensive adapted rotation

0- to 2 per cent slope and no ap- Intertilled crop each year; break
parent erosion land each year
2- to 7 per cent slope and slight Intertilled crop followed by close-
to moderate sheet erosion growing crop; break land each
year
7- to 10 per cent slope and mod- Intertilled crop followed by close-
crate sheet erosion with occa- growing crop with lespedeza, les-
sional gullies pedeza permitted to reseed; break
land 2 out of 3 years
10- to 14 per cent slope and mod- Intertilled crop followed by close-
erate to severe sheet erosion growing crop and lespedeza, les-
with occasional to frequent gul- pedeza reseeded; close-growing
lies crop and lespedeza, lespedeza re-
seeded; break land 3 out of 5
years
15 per cent or steeper slope, se- Seeded to permanent sod or re-
vere sheet erosion with very fre- forested
quent gullies


of woods pastured, and six acres
of woods and other land. The soil
is predominantly Cecil sandy loam
with several fields containing Cecil
clay loam. Slopes of the fields
range from 2 to 14 per cent and a
large proportion of the wooded
area is much steeper, ranging .be-
tween 14 and 25 per cent (Table
29).
Erosion conditions of the crop-
land vary from moderate to severe
sheet erosion, accompanied by oc-
casional gullies. About five acres
of the woodland pasture is suit-
able for permanent pasture if it
is properly developed. Results of
soil analyses in 1946 indicate that
the PH values of the soil ranged
from 5.2 to 6.0; calcium, from low
minus to low plus; magnesium,
from medium to high; phosphorus,
from low to high plus; potassium,
from medium to very high; organic
matter, from 0.88 per cent to 1.20
per cent.
In the 1945 system, 82 per cent
of the cash income was derived
from cotton. Forty-seven per cent
of the cropland was devoted to row
crops; a legume was plowed back
into the soil on only 21 per cent


of the cropland; and the cropping
plan generally was conducive to a
rapid rate of erosion. Five acres
of cropland were idle. Farm re-
sources not utilized in the produc-
tion of cotton were not very effec-
tively used. Yields of feed crops
and livestock production rates were
low compared with potential yields
in line with technical and economic
conditions. Only 61 per cent of
the available family labor was
utilized in direct farm work (Fig-
ure 12). This figure does not in-
clude labor used in overhead or
general farm upkeep.
Based on 1945 prices, the net
cash income to the operator and
his family amounted to $621; net
income was $958 (Table 30). On a
per hour direct-work basis, net
cash income was 25 cents and net
income, 39 cents.
Annual acreage of intertilled
crops that are consistent with con-
servation of the soil and that can
be grown continuously is limited
to about one-third of the cropland,
or 13 acres. Therefore, the maxi-
mum cotton acreage would be lim-
ited to eight acres as five acres
would be needed to grow sufficient









corn for the minimum number of
livestock required to feed the fami-
ly and to provide the farm power.
In this plan, the remainder of the
cropland would be devoted to small
grains, followed by lespedeza to be
harvested for seed or hay or
plowed under for soil improvement.
The steeper and more eroded land
would be allowed to reseed to les-


Table 28.-Organizations of representative small farm, 1945 and reorganized system,
Southern Piedmont, North Carolina

Item Representative farm
Item
1945 Reorganized
Acres Acres
Land and crops:
Cotton ...... ..... ................ .. 8.5 8.5
Corn ..................7.9 5.0
W heat ......... .......................... 6.1 7.4
Oats ...................... ............. 4.1 2.8
Barley ................. .................. 0 2.0
A lfalfa .................................. 0 3.1
Lespedeza: seed ........................... 0 19.2'
hay .......................... 6.7 0
cover ........................... 7.7
Garden ... ............................. 1.0 1.0

Total ................... .............. 42.0 49.0
Double-cropped .............................. 10.2 12.2
Used for crops ............................ 31.8 36.8
Idle ................................... 5.0 0

Cropland ................................. 36.8 36.8
Open pasture .............................. 2.0 7.0
W oods and other ........................... 17.2 12.2

Total land .............................. 56.0 56.0
Productive livestock: Number Number
Dairy cow s ........................... 2 2
H ens ................................... 40 200
H ogs raised .............................. 2 3
W orkstock ................................. 2 2
Labor on farm:
Total fam ily .............................. 4 4
M en full tim e ........................... 1 1
Investment: Dollars Dollars
Real estate ............................. .. 4,44 38 5,133
M machinery .............................. 388 388
W orkstock .............................. 410 410
Productive livestock ........................ 212 590

Total investment .................. .. 5,448 6,521
1 The relative quantity of the lespcdeza crop used for seed, hay, and cover would depend,
in part. on the relative prices, preferences of the farmer, and individual conditions.
2 Residue from combined seed left on land.


Table 29.-Summary of major land use capabilities, representative small form, Southern
Piedmont, North Carolina


Soil condition
Percent Degree of
Slope erosion


Number of
Acres'


pedeza and the soil would not be
plowed for one year.
In this reorganized plan, cotton
acreage is the same as it was in
the 1945 system. Alfalfa has been
added for hay so that the lespedeza
can be harvested for seed and the
residue plowed under for soil im-
provement. The number of hens
has been increased from 40 to 200.


Per cent
of total


22.3
17.7
16.0

12.5
31.5

100.0

21.4
7.2
71.4

100.0

5.7
94.3

100.0


Feed for such an increase is ob-
tained from increased yields per
acre which are attributed to bet-
ter seeding and fertilization prac-
tices and to a larger acreage of
legumes turned under for soil im-
provement.
Other changes that would be
carried out under this system in-
clude improvement of the present
permanent pasture plus develop-
ment of an additional five acres
from what is now scattered woods;
construction of a laying house,
brooder house, and grannary; ter-
racing about 50 per cent of the
cropland and pasture and repair-
ing the present terraces on the
other half; and applying lime to a
fifth of the cropland each year.
Under the reorganized plan, it
is estimated that total cash income
would be increased from $1,339 to
$3,246, of which cotton would con-
tribute less than one third (Table
30). Cash farm expenses would
more than double, with total ex-
penses increasing from $1,043 to


$1,898. Net income would increase
from $958 to $2,072. Utilization of
family labor would increase by 11
per cent. Net cash income per
hour of direct family labor would
be 61 cents and net income 71 cents.
These figures are more than dou-
ble what they were under the 1945
system.
The alternative opportunities
that exist for this farm are lim-
ited. If the acreage of cotton is
devoted to production of feed it
would be possible to add only 200
laying hens to the organization.
Under 1945 prices this would re-
duce the net cash income of the
farm about $340 below that de-
scribed in the reorganized system.
The price of cotton would have to
drop about 16 cents, a reduction
of 30 per cent with prices of eggs
remaining at the 1945 level of
40.4 cents a dozen, before egg pro-
duction could profitably replace
cotton on a unit of this size. Milk
cows might be added in place of
cotton. However, additional pas-


Cropland
2 to 7 Moderate sheet .................... 8.2
2 to 7 Severe sheet ....................... 6.5
7 to 10 Moderate to severe sheet erosion .... 5.9
7 to 10 Severe sheet erosion
with occasional gullies ........... 4.6
10 to 14 Occasional gullies .................. 11.6

Total cropland ............................... 36.8
Permanent pasture
2 to 7 Some alluvial deposit .............. 1.5
7 to 10 Occasional gullies ................. .5
10 to 14 Occasional gullies ................ 5.0

Total pasture ............................. 7.0
Other land
2 to 14 Some alluvial deposit .............. .7
10 to 14 Occasional gullies .................. 11.6

Total other land ............................. 12.3


1Difference from 1945 use: 5 acres pasture developed from land in scattered woods; use
of cropland adjusted to soil conditions.









this study of individual farms was
to analyze the opportunities in ac-
cordance with 1945 price relation-
ships (exception was made for a
few items whose prices for that
year appeared to be out of line
with the most common pattern);
to supplement this with an analy-
sis of opportunities for adjustment
in the event of price changes; and
to show incomes and expenses in
terms of 1935-39 average prices."
In an area-wide program, the ef-
fect of production changes upon
price relationships should be care-
fully considered.
In developing cropping systems
and other plans for "representa-
tive farms" certain basic principles
have been followed. Crop rotations
are recommended (1) for the most
economical utilization of commer-
cial fertilizers; (2) as a factor in
preventing erosion and depletion
of the soil, in maintaining or in-
creasing the organic matter in the
soil, and in improving soil texture;
and (3) as a factor in reducing
losses caused by plant diseases.
A very close relationship was
noted between degrees of field
slopes and erosion conditions.
(This relationship was probably
caused, to a large extent, by the
high degree of similarity in crop-
ping systems.) In view of this sit-
uation soils, as they occurred on
the farms mapped, were classified
into five groups as a basis for de-
veloping rotations. The most in-
tensive crop rotations adopted for
each group were worked out by
t he technicians in agronomy"
'' 1935-39 prices: Prices received by
farmers-average of crop reporting District
8 for those prices available by district.
North Carolina average for all others; farm
privileges-60 per cent of 1945 value; prices
paid were adjusted by index of 1945 prices-
69.4 per cent for cash expenses and 90
per cent for non cash expenses.
In following these rotations one should
keep in mind that the sequence of crops
and. consequently, the intensity of n de-
sirable rotation are influenced and often
limited by the nature of the soil, the pres-
ent degree of erosion, the steepness of the
field slopes, the seasons, and the length
of the growing periods of the crops. On
slopes, where the degree of erosion is more
severe than that described, the intensity of
the rotation should be reduced accordingly.
Also, rotations may be adjusted to fit the


(Table 27). Rotations for individ-
ual farms were modified in accord-
ance with specific conditions on the
particular farm.
Production requirements for al-
falfa, pastures, and lespedeza are
influenced more by the soils than
are the requirements for cotton
and grain crops. Kobe variety of
lespedeza is best adapted to the
White Store-Creedmoor, Appling,
Durham, and the sandy loam soils,
and Korean variety is more suit-
able on the clay loam and clay
soils. The White Store-Creedmoor
soils group, Mecklenburg, that is
not well-drained, and the shallower
and more eroded phases of the
slate soils, such as Alamance,
Orange, and Herndon, generally
are not suited to production of al-
falfa. Davidson, Lloyd, and Cecil
soils are best adapted to this crop.
Ladino and White clovers in pas-
ture mixtures are not adapted
generally to White Store-Creed-
moor and sandy loams of the
Cecil-Appling-Durham group.

Small Farms15
Present and Alternative Systems
of the "Representative Farms."
The 1945 organization and a reor-
ganization of a representative
small farm are shown in Table 28.
The land consists of 56 acres-37
acres of cropland, two acres of
open permanent pasture, 11 acres

particular requirements of different farm
plans so long as the adjustment does not
increase the intensity of cultivation. Cot-
ton and corn or other row crops may be
interchanged. The most important points
to be considered are the frequency rates
of breaking the land and plowing under
legumes; and the frequency of the occur-
rence of different types of cover-whether
intertilled. close-growing, or sod crops.
These rotations were based upon the as-
sumption that fields would be properly ter-
raced and cultivated in accordance with
field contours. This would necessitate va-
rious degrees of terrace work, varying from
terracing complete farm units in some
cases to completing the job already started
on others, or merely to maintaining the
terraces on those farms where the entire
unit is completely and properly terraced.
Soils should be tested and analyzed every
3 or 4 years to determine lime and fer-
tilizer requirements.
See Appendix Tables I and II for de-
tailed account of income and expense of
farming systems presented in this section.


Table 27.-Most intensive crop rotations adapted to specified soil conditions, Southern Pied-
mont, North Carolina
Condition of field slope and soil erosion Most intensive adapted rotation

0- to 2 per cent slope and no ap- Intertilled crop each year; break
parent erosion land each year
2- to 7 per cent slope and slight Intertilled crop followed by close-
to moderate sheet erosion growing crop; break land each
year
7- to 10 per cent slope and mod- Intertilled crop followed by close-
crate sheet erosion with occa- growing crop with lespedeza, les-
sional gullies pedeza permitted to reseed; break
land 2 out of 3 years
10- to 14 per cent slope and mod- Intertilled crop followed by close-
erate to severe sheet erosion growing crop and lespedeza, les-
with occasional to frequent gul- pedeza reseeded; close-growing
lies crop and lespedeza, lespedeza re-
seeded; break land 3 out of 5
years
15 per cent or steeper slope, se- Seeded to permanent sod or re-
vere sheet erosion with very fre- forested
quent gullies


of woods pastured, and six acres
of woods and other land. The soil
is predominantly Cecil sandy loam
with several fields containing Cecil
clay loam. Slopes of the fields
range from 2 to 14 per cent and a
large proportion of the wooded
area is much steeper, ranging .be-
tween 14 and 25 per cent (Table
29).
Erosion conditions of the crop-
land vary from moderate to severe
sheet erosion, accompanied by oc-
casional gullies. About five acres
of the woodland pasture is suit-
able for permanent pasture if it
is properly developed. Results of
soil analyses in 1946 indicate that
the PH values of the soil ranged
from 5.2 to 6.0; calcium, from low
minus to low plus; magnesium,
from medium to high; phosphorus,
from low to high plus; potassium,
from medium to very high; organic
matter, from 0.88 per cent to 1.20
per cent.
In the 1945 system, 82 per cent
of the cash income was derived
from cotton. Forty-seven per cent
of the cropland was devoted to row
crops; a legume was plowed back
into the soil on only 21 per cent


of the cropland; and the cropping
plan generally was conducive to a
rapid rate of erosion. Five acres
of cropland were idle. Farm re-
sources not utilized in the produc-
tion of cotton were not very effec-
tively used. Yields of feed crops
and livestock production rates were
low compared with potential yields
in line with technical and economic
conditions. Only 61 per cent of
the available family labor was
utilized in direct farm work (Fig-
ure 12). This figure does not in-
clude labor used in overhead or
general farm upkeep.
Based on 1945 prices, the net
cash income to the operator and
his family amounted to $621; net
income was $958 (Table 30). On a
per hour direct-work basis, net
cash income was 25 cents and net
income, 39 cents.
Annual acreage of intertilled
crops that are consistent with con-
servation of the soil and that can
be grown continuously is limited
to about one-third of the cropland,
or 13 acres. Therefore, the maxi-
mum cotton acreage would be lim-
ited to eight acres as five acres
would be needed to grow sufficient



















4-,




Io
N



44
34























0






1 L
0









= o
C)


C
a
E
*a

a
O



















S a
S5









a
Si-
.<



g "

o
a


3
0r
C
a








c:
0



-o






a E

ia 3



g o
0 3
01
iZ


I


Table 30.-Summary of income and expenses, based on two price levels, representative small
farm, 1945 and reorganized system, Southern Piedmont, North Carolina'
1945 prices 1935-39 prices
Item
1945 Reorganized 1945 Reorganized
Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars
1. Cash receipts .......... .1,39 3,246 664 1,700
2. Family privileges ...... (;62 724 397 434
:1. Total income 1+2).... .2,001 3,970 1,01l 2,143
4. Cash expenses ......... 718 1,468 498 1,019
5. Noncash expenses ...... .325 430 292 387
6. Total expenses (4+5)..1,043 1,898 790 1,406
7. Net cash income (-4)2.. 621 1,778 166 681
8. Net income (3-6)3 ...... 958 2,072 271 728
1 Details of production, income and expenses are shown in Appendix Tables I and II.
2 Net cash income to the operator for the family's labor, management, and investment.
3 Net income to the operator for the family's labor and management.


ture would mean a reduction in
cropland. Under these conditions
the cotton acreage, if used for pas-
ture and feed production, would
support only three additional cows.
A substitution of this kind would
reduce net cash income of the re-
orkanized system, under 19 4 5
prices, by $796. This indicates that
cotton prices would have to drop
about 67 per cent, or about 7.5
cents per pound, with prices of
milk at the 1945 level, before this
change would be profitable. How-
ever, if conditions were such that
the pasture could be expanded into
land other than that used for crops,
then 7 cows could be added in place
of the cotton. Under these condi-
tions net cash income of the farm
would be reduced about $300; or
with milk prices remaining at the
1945 level this change could be
made profitably if cotton were to
drop 25 per cent or more-to 17
cents per pound or less. If no land
were suited to alfalfa, opportuni-
ties for further expanding the
dairy enterprise would be limited.
The hay would have to be harvest-
ed from the lespedeza crop. This
would necessitate a larger acreage
of second-year lespedeza and a re-
duction in acreage of grain crops.
Variations in Land Capability:
The preceding analysis is based on
a small farm with average land
capabilities. Many farms of this
size have land capabilities above
or below this level. The opportuni-


ties might differ on a farm of
similar size but with land that
would support a crop rotation of
different intensity. If the nature
of the land were such that it
would support a system in which
50 per cent of the cropland would
be intertilled each year, without
loss of soil or without causing a
reduction in yields, the acreage
planted to cotton could be increased
to about 14 acres or to the limit of
available labor, whichever would
be reached first (Table 31). This
increase would be made at the
expense of second-year lespedeza.
Consequently, the net cash income
with 1945 prices would be about
$500 higher than on the farm
where cotton acreage was limited
to 8.5 acres.
On steeper or more severely
eroded land the net cash income
would be reduced. Suppose, for
example, that only 25 per cent of
the cropland could be planted an-
nually to intertilled crops. Cotton
would then be limited to about 4
acres. At 1945 prices, the net cash
income of the farm would be ap-
proximately $450, below that pro-
duced by the reorganized system
with 8.5 acres of cotton.

Medium-Size Farms"
Present and Alternative Systems
of the "Representative Farm":
See Appendix Tables III and IV for
detailed accounts of income and expenses of
farming systems discussed in this section.


0 0 0 0
u) 0 to 0
C C0 r-1



















4-,




Io
N



44
34























0






1 L
0









= o
C)


C
a
E
*a

a
O



















S a
S5









a
Si-
.<



g "

o
a


3
0r
C
a








c:
0



-o






a E

ia 3



g o
0 3
01
iZ


I


Table 30.-Summary of income and expenses, based on two price levels, representative small
farm, 1945 and reorganized system, Southern Piedmont, North Carolina'
1945 prices 1935-39 prices
Item
1945 Reorganized 1945 Reorganized
Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars
1. Cash receipts .......... .1,39 3,246 664 1,700
2. Family privileges ...... (;62 724 397 434
:1. Total income 1+2).... .2,001 3,970 1,01l 2,143
4. Cash expenses ......... 718 1,468 498 1,019
5. Noncash expenses ...... .325 430 292 387
6. Total expenses (4+5)..1,043 1,898 790 1,406
7. Net cash income (-4)2.. 621 1,778 166 681
8. Net income (3-6)3 ...... 958 2,072 271 728
1 Details of production, income and expenses are shown in Appendix Tables I and II.
2 Net cash income to the operator for the family's labor, management, and investment.
3 Net income to the operator for the family's labor and management.


ture would mean a reduction in
cropland. Under these conditions
the cotton acreage, if used for pas-
ture and feed production, would
support only three additional cows.
A substitution of this kind would
reduce net cash income of the re-
orkanized system, under 19 4 5
prices, by $796. This indicates that
cotton prices would have to drop
about 67 per cent, or about 7.5
cents per pound, with prices of
milk at the 1945 level, before this
change would be profitable. How-
ever, if conditions were such that
the pasture could be expanded into
land other than that used for crops,
then 7 cows could be added in place
of the cotton. Under these condi-
tions net cash income of the farm
would be reduced about $300; or
with milk prices remaining at the
1945 level this change could be
made profitably if cotton were to
drop 25 per cent or more-to 17
cents per pound or less. If no land
were suited to alfalfa, opportuni-
ties for further expanding the
dairy enterprise would be limited.
The hay would have to be harvest-
ed from the lespedeza crop. This
would necessitate a larger acreage
of second-year lespedeza and a re-
duction in acreage of grain crops.
Variations in Land Capability:
The preceding analysis is based on
a small farm with average land
capabilities. Many farms of this
size have land capabilities above
or below this level. The opportuni-


ties might differ on a farm of
similar size but with land that
would support a crop rotation of
different intensity. If the nature
of the land were such that it
would support a system in which
50 per cent of the cropland would
be intertilled each year, without
loss of soil or without causing a
reduction in yields, the acreage
planted to cotton could be increased
to about 14 acres or to the limit of
available labor, whichever would
be reached first (Table 31). This
increase would be made at the
expense of second-year lespedeza.
Consequently, the net cash income
with 1945 prices would be about
$500 higher than on the farm
where cotton acreage was limited
to 8.5 acres.
On steeper or more severely
eroded land the net cash income
would be reduced. Suppose, for
example, that only 25 per cent of
the cropland could be planted an-
nually to intertilled crops. Cotton
would then be limited to about 4
acres. At 1945 prices, the net cash
income of the farm would be ap-
proximately $450, below that pro-
duced by the reorganized system
with 8.5 acres of cotton.

Medium-Size Farms"
Present and Alternative Systems
of the "Representative Farm":
See Appendix Tables III and IV for
detailed accounts of income and expenses of
farming systems discussed in this section.


0 0 0 0
u) 0 to 0
C C0 r-1









The 1945 organization and a reor-
ganization of a representative
medium-size farm are shown in
Table 32. Total land consists of
120 acres, 54.5 acres of which were
in crops, 9.6 in permanent pasture,
and 53.9 in woods and farmsteads.
Predominant soils are Cecil fine
sandy loam and Cecil clay loam.
Of the cropland 30 per cent is on
slopes of less than 7 per cent, 57
per cent ranges between 7 and 10
per cent, and 13 per cent of the
acreage is steeper than 10 per cent
(Table 33). On all except the more
level cropland, erosion has reached
the stage described as moderate

Table 31.-Alternative enterprise combinations
and below average in land capability, Southern


sheet erosion with occasional gul-
lies. Pasture land is generally
steeper and more severely eroded,
and in its present condition it is
not considered suitable for crop-
land. The soils analyses indicate
PH values ranging between 5.5 and
6.7, mostly 5.8 or less; calcium,
low minus to medium plus; mag-
nesium, medium minus to high
minus; phosphorus, medium minus
to high minus; potassium, low plus
to high. Organic matter ranged
from .70 per cent to 1.36 per cent.
In the 1945 system, 10.3 acres
were in cotton, 12.3 in corn, 20.3
in small grains, and 30.6 acres in

and resulting incomes, small farms above
Piedmont, North Carolina


Item Farms above Farms below
average' average2
Acres Acres
Land and crops:
C otton ................................ 14.0 4.0
Corn ................................... 5.0 5.0
W heat ............... ................. 8.9 7.4
O ats ................................... 2.8 2.8
B arley ................................. 2.0 2.0
Alfalfa ................ 3.1 3.1
Lespedeza seed ............................ 13.7 23.7
G arden ................................. 1.0 1.0

T otal .................. .......... . 50.5 49.0
Double-cropped ............................ 13.7 12.2
Used for crops .......................... 36.8 36.8
Open pasture ........................... 7.0 7.0
W oods and other ..... ............... 12.2 12.2
Total land ......................... 56.0 56.0
Productive livestock: Number Number
Dairy cow s ............................... 2 2
H ens ................................. 200 200
H ogs raised ............................... 3 3
Income summary: Dollars Dollars
1945 prices:
Cash income ........................... 3,917 2,752
Cash expenses .......................... 1,634 1,445

Net cash income .......................2,283 1,307
1935-39 prices:
Cash income ..................... .. 2,001 1,484
Cash expenses ........................... 1,134 1,003

Net cash income ................... 867 481
1 Cropland that would support 50 per cent in intertilled crops annually and maintain soil
fertility and yields.
2 Cropland that would support 25 per cent in intertilled crops annually and maintain soil
fertility and yields.

(46)


lcspedeza that was harvdsted for
hay or seed, or left for soil im-
provement. About 46 per cent of
the land used for crops was inter-
tilled and 2 acres of cropland were
idle.
The rotation was not well adapt-
ed to the land. Resources, other
than those devoted to production
of cotton, were under utilized.
Yields of feed crops and rates of
production of livestock were below
the most economical rates. Only
62 per cent of the available family


labor was utilized in direct farm
work (Figure 13).
Fifty-five per cent of the cash
income was from cotton and about
80 per cent, from crops. The sale
of milk was the main source of in-
come from livestock. The net cash
income in 1945 was $1,300 (Table
34). This amounted to a return
of 39 cents per hour of family
labor worked, excluding general
farm overhead jobs.
In view of long-term conserva-
tion of the soil, row crops on this


Table 32.-Organization of representative medium-size farm, 1945 and reorganized system,
Southern Piedmont, North Caroina
Representative farm
Item 1945 Reorganized
Acres Acres
Land and crops:
Cotton ................................... 10.3 10.3
Corn ..................................... 12.3 10.0
Wheat ........ ......................... 11.9 10.7
Oats .................................. 8.4 6.0
Alfalfa hay .............................. 0 7.7
Lespedeza seed ............................ 10.2 24.4
hay ........................ 10.8 2.0
cover .......................... 9.6
Garden and other .......................... 2.3 1.0
Total .................... ........... 75.8 72.1
Double-cropped ........................ 21.3 16.7
Used for crops ............ 54.5 55.4
Idle ..................................2.0 0
Cropland ......... ................. 56.5 55.4
Open pasture ............................ 9.6 23.0
Woods and other ................. ..... 53.9 41.6
Total land ............................ 120.0 120.0
Productive livestock: Number Number
Dairy cows ................... ..... ...... 4 10
Hogs raised ....................... .......... 2 3
H ens ............................... .... 42 300
Workstock .. ............................. 2 2
Labor on farm:
Total fam ily ......... ... .... .. ........ 5 5
M en full tim e ....................... 1 1
Investment: Dollars Dollars
Real estate .......................... 7,070 8,323
M machinery ............................. 496 496
W orkstock ............................ 410 410
Productive livestock ................... 378 2,110

Total investment ........................ 8,354 11,339
I Residue from lespedeza seed left on land.

(47)









farm should be limited to ap-
proximately 20 acres annually. A
maximum of 15 acres could be de-
voted to cotton and the remaining
land would be sufficient to grow
corn for the number of livestock
needed to provide the family food.
With ten acres of pasture available
and the possibility of developing
an additional 13 acres, the most
profitable use of resources would
be made by increasing both poul-
try and dairy enterprises. This is
also true in view of the fact that
the labor supply is insufficient to
handle a larger cotton acreage.
Under this reorganized system,
acreage of cotton would not be
changed. Acreage of corn would
be reduced slightly and that of
small grains and lespedeza would
be held at approximately present


levels. Alfalfa for hay would be
added so that more of the lespe-
deza could be harvested for seed
and the residue left on the land.
The number of cows would be in-
creased from four to ten and the
number of hens from 42 to 300.
Estimtaed cash receipts for the
reorganized system are $5,733, or
an increase of 136 per cent over
the actual 1945 business. In this
reorganized system cotton would
contribute only about 20 per cent
of the total cash income, and live-
stock, about 60 per cent. Cash
expenses would be $2,491. Net
cash income would be $3,262 as
compared with $1,300 under the
1945 system of farming. Utiliza-
tion of family labor would be in-
creased about 30 per cent as a re-
sult of more efficient distribution


Table 33.-Summary of major land use capabilities, representative medium-size farm,
Southern Piedmont, North Carolina
Soil condition
Number of Per cent
Per cent Acres' of total
slope Degree of Erosion

Cropland
0 to 2 Recent alluvial deposit .......... .. 4. 8.3
2 to 7 Moderate sheet erosion ............ 10.7 19.3
2 to 7 Severe sheet erosion ............. 1.5 2.7
7 to 10 Moderate sheet erosion and
occasional gullies ................ 31.5 56.9
10 to 14 Moderate to severe sheet erosion
and occasional gullies ............ 5.6 10.1
14 to 25 Moderate to severe sheet erosion
and occasional gullies ............ 1.5 2.7

Total cropland .............................. 55.4 100.0

Pasture
0 to 2 Recent alluvial deposit ............ 3.1 13.5
2 to 7 Recent alluvial deposit ............. .5 2.2
2 to 7 Occasional gullies ................. 2.0 8.7
7 to 10 Moderate to severe sheet erosion
and occasional gullies ............ 1.5 6.5
10 to 14 Slight to severe sheet erosion;
occasional to frequent gullies .... 6.9 30.0
14 to 25 Slight to severe sheet erosion;
occasional to frequent gullies .... 9.0 39.1

Total pasture .............................. 23.0 100.0

Other land
10 to 25 Slight to severe sheet erosion with
occasional to frequent gullies .... 41.6 100.0
Difference from 1945 use: 1.1 acres cropland changed to pasture; 12.3 acres of brushland
and scattered woods developed for pasture.


-I I I I f


E



a




a
S5
a















.10
-













0.


a
C a



() -o


0
-I



.2


0








.C
-0












z


gC


u. 0.









of labor requirements (Figure 13).
To accomplish these adjustments,
a 36 per cent increase in capital
investment, chiefly in livestock,
would be required. A milking shed,
laying house, and brooder house
would need to be added to the
present buildings. Other improve-
ments would include terraces, per-
manent pasture, and establishment
of alfalfa.
Variations in Land Capability:
The preceding discussion is based
on a farm with land of average
capability. Many farms of this
size are made up of land that is
above or below this level of pro-
ductivity. Obviously, production
opportunities would be greater in
cases where the land would sup-
port a more intensive cropping sys-
tem without damage to soil or a
reduction in yields. If acreage of
corn and small grains were in-
creased at the expense of second-
year lespedeza, production of feed
could be stepped up sufficiently to
add 200 hens, or a sow and 13 pigs
if the price received for eggs should
become less favorable (Table 35).
In cases where cropping systems
would need to be less intensive, in
order to maintain soil productivity
and yields (about 25 per cent of
the cropland in intertilled crops)
it would matter little from the
standpoint of net income under
1945 prices, whether the resources


of production were concentrated
upon cotton or upon dairy and
poultry products.
With farms of similar size but
on soils unsuited to production of
alfalfa, the relative advantages of
dairy cows would be decreased be-
cause of the larger acreage that
would be required to produce hay.

Large Farm"
On large farms the relative ad-
vantages of livestock and grains,
extensive type enterprises in com-
parison with cotton, are greater
than on farms of the other two
groups. In these cases, available
labor supply is the limiting factor
more frequently than land, par-
ticularly in the production of cot-
ton. On many of the large farms
the land would support as much
cotton as the available labor force
could tend, even on farms with
steeper lands. Thus, the farming
systems discussed here deal prin-
cipally in terms of the different
alternatives with the most com-
mon size of labor force, and also,
the opportunities for production
with different volumes and sources
of labor supply.
Land resources of the represent-
ative large farm in 1945 included:
I See Appendix Tables V, VI, and VII
for detailed accounts of income and ex-
penses for farming systems discussed in this
section.


Table 34.-Summary of income and expenses, based on two price levels, representa-
tive medium-size form, 1945 and reorganized system, Southern Piedmont, North Carolina'

1945 prices 1935-39 prices
Item
1945 Reorganized 1915 Reorganized
Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars
1. Cash receipts ......... 2,435 5,753 1,265 3,090
2. Family privileges ...... 674 882 404 529

3. Total income (1+2)..3,109 6,6(5 1,669 3,619
4. Cash expenses ........1,135 2,491 788 1,729
5. Noncash expenses ...... 494 742 445 668

6. Total expenses (4+5) .1,629 3,233 : 1,233 2,397
7. Net cash income 1-4)2. .1,300 3,262 477 1,361
8. Net income (3-6)'..... 1,480 3,402 436 1,222
SDetails of production, income and expenses are shown in Appendix Tables III and IV.
Net cash income to the operator for the family's labor, management and investment.
3 Net income to the operator for the family's labor and management.


Table 3S.Alternative enterprise combinations and resulting incomes, medium-size farms
above and below average in land capability, Southqrn Piedmont, North Carolina


Item


Farm
above
average'


Acres
Land and crops:
Cotton ...................... 10.3
Corn ....................... 14.0
W heat ..................... 16.4
O ats ......................... 6.0
Barley ....................... 0
Alfalfa ...................... 7.7
Lespedeza hay ................ 2.0
seed ............... 20.4
Garden ...................... 1.0

Total crops ............. 77.8
Double-cropped ............ 22.4
Cropland ................... 55.4
Permanent pasture .......... 23.0
Woods and other ........... 41.6

Total farm ............... 120.0
Ljvestock: Number
Dairy cows' .................. 10
H ens ........................ 500
I ogs raised .................. 3
Income summary: Dollars
1945 prices:
Cash income ................ 6,901
Cash expenses .............. 2,791

Net cash income .........4,110


Farms oelow average
With No
cotton cotton


Acres

9.3
4.0
11.1
3.0
4.0
3.0
0
41.1
1.0

76.5
21.1
55.4
7.0
57.6

120.0
Number
2
200
3
Dollars

4,164
1,944

2,220


1935-39 prices:
Cash income ...............3,788 2,177 2,586
Cash expenses ..............1,937 1,349 1,569

Net cash income ..........1,851 828 1,017
x Cropland that will support 50 per cent in intertilled crops and maintain soil fertility and
ilCropland that will support 25 per cent in intertilled crops and maintain soil fertility and
yields.
SUnclassified milk.


122 acres of cropland; 23 acres of
permanent pasture, five of which
would be suitable for more inten-
sive culture; and 93 acres of woods
and other land, of which nearly all
would be suitable for permanent
pasture and eventually for crop-
land if properly developed. The
soils are practically all silt loams
of the Herndon-Georgeville and
Alamance series. The slopes of al-
most all the land are between 2
and 7 per cent, and erosion con-


editions are generally described as
slight to moderate degrees of
sheet erosion (Table 36). Soils
analysis indicated PH values rang-
ing between 5.6 and 6.9 (practical-
ly all cropland and pasture of this
particular farm received one ton
or more of lime per acre during the
preceding five years); calcium,
medium minus to high; magnesium,
medium minus to high minus;
phosphorus, low minus to high
minus, mostly high minus; potas-


(51) I


Acres

0
10.0
11.0
6.0
0
7.7
2.0
34.7
1.0

72.4
17.0
55.4
23.0
41.6

120.0
Number
10
300
3
Dollars

4,640
2,261

2,379









of labor requirements (Figure 13).
To accomplish these adjustments,
a 36 per cent increase in capital
investment, chiefly in livestock,
would be required. A milking shed,
laying house, and brooder house
would need to be added to the
present buildings. Other improve-
ments would include terraces, per-
manent pasture, and establishment
of alfalfa.
Variations in Land Capability:
The preceding discussion is based
on a farm with land of average
capability. Many farms of this
size are made up of land that is
above or below this level of pro-
ductivity. Obviously, production
opportunities would be greater in
cases where the land would sup-
port a more intensive cropping sys-
tem without damage to soil or a
reduction in yields. If acreage of
corn and small grains were in-
creased at the expense of second-
year lespedeza, production of feed
could be stepped up sufficiently to
add 200 hens, or a sow and 13 pigs
if the price received for eggs should
become less favorable (Table 35).
In cases where cropping systems
would need to be less intensive, in
order to maintain soil productivity
and yields (about 25 per cent of
the cropland in intertilled crops)
it would matter little from the
standpoint of net income under
1945 prices, whether the resources


of production were concentrated
upon cotton or upon dairy and
poultry products.
With farms of similar size but
on soils unsuited to production of
alfalfa, the relative advantages of
dairy cows would be decreased be-
cause of the larger acreage that
would be required to produce hay.

Large Farm"
On large farms the relative ad-
vantages of livestock and grains,
extensive type enterprises in com-
parison with cotton, are greater
than on farms of the other two
groups. In these cases, available
labor supply is the limiting factor
more frequently than land, par-
ticularly in the production of cot-
ton. On many of the large farms
the land would support as much
cotton as the available labor force
could tend, even on farms with
steeper lands. Thus, the farming
systems discussed here deal prin-
cipally in terms of the different
alternatives with the most com-
mon size of labor force, and also,
the opportunities for production
with different volumes and sources
of labor supply.
Land resources of the represent-
ative large farm in 1945 included:
I See Appendix Tables V, VI, and VII
for detailed accounts of income and ex-
penses for farming systems discussed in this
section.


Table 34.-Summary of income and expenses, based on two price levels, representa-
tive medium-size form, 1945 and reorganized system, Southern Piedmont, North Carolina'

1945 prices 1935-39 prices
Item
1945 Reorganized 1915 Reorganized
Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars
1. Cash receipts ......... 2,435 5,753 1,265 3,090
2. Family privileges ...... 674 882 404 529

3. Total income (1+2)..3,109 6,6(5 1,669 3,619
4. Cash expenses ........1,135 2,491 788 1,729
5. Noncash expenses ...... 494 742 445 668

6. Total expenses (4+5) .1,629 3,233 : 1,233 2,397
7. Net cash income 1-4)2. .1,300 3,262 477 1,361
8. Net income (3-6)'..... 1,480 3,402 436 1,222
SDetails of production, income and expenses are shown in Appendix Tables III and IV.
Net cash income to the operator for the family's labor, management and investment.
3 Net income to the operator for the family's labor and management.


Table 3S.Alternative enterprise combinations and resulting incomes, medium-size farms
above and below average in land capability, Southqrn Piedmont, North Carolina


Item


Farm
above
average'


Acres
Land and crops:
Cotton ...................... 10.3
Corn ....................... 14.0
W heat ..................... 16.4
O ats ......................... 6.0
Barley ....................... 0
Alfalfa ...................... 7.7
Lespedeza hay ................ 2.0
seed ............... 20.4
Garden ...................... 1.0

Total crops ............. 77.8
Double-cropped ............ 22.4
Cropland ................... 55.4
Permanent pasture .......... 23.0
Woods and other ........... 41.6

Total farm ............... 120.0
Ljvestock: Number
Dairy cows' .................. 10
H ens ........................ 500
I ogs raised .................. 3
Income summary: Dollars
1945 prices:
Cash income ................ 6,901
Cash expenses .............. 2,791

Net cash income .........4,110


Farms oelow average
With No
cotton cotton


Acres

9.3
4.0
11.1
3.0
4.0
3.0
0
41.1
1.0

76.5
21.1
55.4
7.0
57.6

120.0
Number
2
200
3
Dollars

4,164
1,944

2,220


1935-39 prices:
Cash income ...............3,788 2,177 2,586
Cash expenses ..............1,937 1,349 1,569

Net cash income ..........1,851 828 1,017
x Cropland that will support 50 per cent in intertilled crops and maintain soil fertility and
ilCropland that will support 25 per cent in intertilled crops and maintain soil fertility and
yields.
SUnclassified milk.


122 acres of cropland; 23 acres of
permanent pasture, five of which
would be suitable for more inten-
sive culture; and 93 acres of woods
and other land, of which nearly all
would be suitable for permanent
pasture and eventually for crop-
land if properly developed. The
soils are practically all silt loams
of the Herndon-Georgeville and
Alamance series. The slopes of al-
most all the land are between 2
and 7 per cent, and erosion con-


editions are generally described as
slight to moderate degrees of
sheet erosion (Table 36). Soils
analysis indicated PH values rang-
ing between 5.6 and 6.9 (practical-
ly all cropland and pasture of this
particular farm received one ton
or more of lime per acre during the
preceding five years); calcium,
medium minus to high; magnesium,
medium minus to high minus;
phosphorus, low minus to high
minus, mostly high minus; potas-


(51) I


Acres

0
10.0
11.0
6.0
0
7.7
2.0
34.7
1.0

72.4
17.0
55.4
23.0
41.6

120.0
Number
10
300
3
Dollars

4,640
2,261

2,379








sium, extreme variations from low
to very high (probably influenced
by heavy cotton fertilization). The
organic matter ranged between 1
and 2 per cent.
The representative organization
in 1945 and alternatives are shown
in Table 37. In 1945, 55 per cent
of cash receipts were from the sale
of cotton and cottonseed. Cash re-
ceipts include the cropper's share
of the crops. Cash farm expenses
totaled $3,057 (Table 38). Of this
amount, $1,115 was the net cash
income to the croppers or cost of
cropper labor. In addition to this
the cropper usually received use of
a dwelling, land for a garden, wood
for home use, and pasture priv-
ileges for his livestock.
In 1945, labor efficiency on the
large farms differed very little
from that on smaller units. The


pattern of requirements was a very
influential factor Figure 14). Ex-
clusive of overhead jobs, 63 per
cent of family labor and only 54
per cent of the cropper labor was
utilized in farm work. For the
operator's family, net cash income
per hour of direct work on enter-
prises amounted to 86 cents and
net income, 71 cents. Adjusted to
the 1935-39 prices, corresponding
returns to the operator's family
would amount to only 23 cents and
one cent, respectively. Net cash
income to cropper labor, based on
1945 prices, was 30 cents per hour
worked.
In terms of physical capabilities
of land resources, this farm would
support a maximum of 40 acres of
cotton or about 30 dairy cows. The
cotton-livestock (Table 37) system
combines the production of cotton


Table 36.-Summory of major land use capabilities, representative large form, Southern
Piedmont, North Carolina

Soil condition
Number of Per cent
Per cent acres' of total
slope Degree of erosion

Cropland
0-2 Slight sheet erosion ................... 2.4 1.9
2-7 Slight sheet erosion .. .............. 4.0 3.2
2-7 Very moderate sheet erosion ............ 100.9 79.4
2-7 Slight sheet erosion and
occasional gullies .................... 5.0 3.9
2-7 Moderate sheet erosion ................. 12.7 10.0
7-10 Slight sheet erosion .................... 2.0 1.6

Total cropland ............................. 127.0 100.0

Pasture
0-2 Recent alluvial deposit .................. 8.0 7.9
2-7 Slight sheet erosion ................... 71.8 70.7
2-7 Slight sheet erosion and
occasional gullies .................... 9.5 9.4
7-10 Slight sheet erosion and
occasional gullies .................... 1.8 1.8
7-10 Moderate sheet erosion ................. 10.4 10.2

Total pasture .............................101.5 100.0

Other land
2-7 Slight sheet erosion .................... 3.1 33.0
7-10 Slight sheet erosion .................... 6.3 67.0

Total other land ............................. 9.4 100.0

1 Differences from 1945 use: 5 acres of pasture could be used for cropland; 83.6 acres of
wood could be developed for pasture and eventually used for cropland if needed.

(52)


and livestock products for most
efficient use of the available labor,
coupled with sound land use and
minimum risks from adverse con-
ditions that might result from
causes beyond control of the farm-


Item


Land and crops:
Cotton ............
Corn, grain .........
Corn, silage .........
W heat ..............
O ats ...............
Alfalfa hay .........
Lespedeza hay ......
seed .....
cover ....
Garden and other ....

Total crops .......
Double-cropped .....
Cropland .........
Open pasture .....
Woods and other ..

Total land ......
Livestock:
Dairy cows .........
Brood sows .........
Hogs raised .........
H ens ..............
Power:
Workstock .........
Tractors ............
Labor:
Operator family: all..
Full time men .....
Cropper labor: all ...
Full time men .....


er. In this system, about 88 per
cent of the labor force living on
the farm would be utilized in di-
rect enterprise work. With 1945
prices, returns to the operator's
family would amount to: Net cash,


1945 Cotton- Cotton- Livestock-
livestock small grains small grains
Acres Acres Acres Acres

22.0 16.0 36.4 0
24.0 19.0 5.0 9.0
0 6.4 0 0
14.0 30.2 47.6 74.0
27.0 10.6 5.0 5.0
0 17.3 0 8.0
20.0 0 8.0 0
26.0 60.3 74.6 109.0
26.0 0 0 0
4.0 3.0 3.0 1.0

163.0 162.8 179.6 206.0
41.0 40.8 52.6 79.0
122.0 122.0 127.0 127.0
23.0 48.0 9.0 18.0
93.0 68.0 102.0 93.0

238.0 238.0 238.0 238.0
Number Number Number Number
4 20 2 10
0 1 0 0
3 13 3 3
54 500 50 200


4
1

4
1
6
2


Hours
Seasonal labor ........ 0
Investment: Dollars
Real estate ........13,200
Machinery .......... 1,330
Workstock ..........820
Productive livestock .. 393

Total investment ..15,743


3
1

4
1
6
2
Hours
490
Dollars
15,481
2,082
615
4,623

22,801


4 4
1 1
6 0
2 0
Hours Hours
210 310
Dollars Dollars
14,000 15,000
2,082 2,082
615 410
450 2,450

17,147 19,942


Table 37.-Organization of representative large farm, 1945 and alternative systems,
Southern Piedmont, North Carolina
Representative farms
Alternative systems










$1.39 per hour; net income, $1.12
per hour. At the 1935-39 prices
these figures would drop to 47
and 17 cents respectively. At the
1945 level, the net cash returns
to cropper labor would be 35 cents
per hour worked. This would be
higher, even excluding farm priv-
ileges furnished by the farmer,
than the prevailing rates paid to
wage hands. Due to the fact that
the family income includes re-
turns to functions of production,
other than labor, that are contrib-
uted by the operator, returns to
the cropper are not comparable to
the returns of the operator. Items
of expense and income differ in
the two cases. These differences
account for the greater influence
of the specified price changes on
the operator's income compared
with that of the cropper.
The principal items of addition-
al investment would include a com-
bine, dairy cows, hens, fences, and
terraces. Total investment would
amount to $22,801, an increase of
$7,058 over the 1945 investment.


A system in which the livestock
would be omitted and acreage of
cotton would be raised to the
maximum that could be handled
with the labor available (cotton-
small-grains system) would return
a net cash income of $5,196 to the
operator-$265 higher than the
cotton-livestock system; but the
cropper's income would be reduced
$506. This system lacks some of
the long-run advantages of the
cotton-livestock system. Also, this
system would be subject to great-
er risks, although problems of man-
agement would be less.
The possibility of operating a
unit of this size with only the la-
bor of the operator and his family
is illustrated by the livestock-small
grain system. In this case, the
livestock enterprises would be lev-
eled near the maximum that the
family could tend and the remain-
der of the land would be used for
growing small-grains-lespedeza, a
combintaion with extremely low
labor requirements, especially when
handled with tractor equipment.


Table 38.-Income and expenses, based on two price levels, representative large farm,
1945 and alternative systems, Southern Piedmont, North Carolina

Systems of farming
Item and price level Cotton- Cotton- Livestock-
1945 livestock small grains small grains
Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars
1945 prices:
1. Cash receipts .............. 5,237 11,596 9,748 9,364
2. Family privileges .......... 691 794 794 794
3. Total income (1+2)...... 5,928 12,390 10,542 10,158
4. Cash expenses ............ 3,057 6,665 4,552 3,362
5. Noncash expenses .......... 1,074 1,746 1,358 1,254
6. Total expenses (4+5)1 ..... 4,131 8,411 5,910 4,716
7. Net cash income (1-4)2 ..... 2,180 4,931 5,196 6,002
8. Net income (3-6) .......... 1,797 3,979 4,632 5,442
1935-39 prices:
1. Cash receipts .............. 2,700 6,314 5,142 5,333
2. Family privileges .......... 415 476 .- 476 476
3. Total income 1+2) ....... 3,115 6,790 5,618 5,809
4. Cash expenses ............ 2,122 4,626 3,159 2,333
5. Noncash expenses .......... 967 1,571 1,222 1,218
6. Total expenses (4+5)1. .... 3,089 6,197 4,381 3,551
7. Net cash income (1-4).) .... 578 1,688 1,983 3,000
8. Net income (3-6) .......... 26 593 1,237 2,258
1Details of farm expenses shown in Appendix Table VII.
2Net cash income to operator for the family labor, management, and investment.
Net income to the operator for the family labor and management.


: :.!.!:;:!:;;::i













0
Pa

r4

H

0)

0









toE-4 r-
S 8 co
o o

















E





1r










08 8 8
SC C- CDto


0 0 0 0
0. 0 0 0
U) to W H


0






.OJ
a'
0




-J
a














:- a
U.






a



o

-.J
0




o .o






U) 0

-I



.2: C




-p .u
.. aP -
-or

a










Apparently, under this system the
farm operator's income would be
maintained near, or even raised
above, the systems in which crop-
per labor would be employed to
produce cotton.
Recent developments indicate
that in the future it may become
feasible to mechanize cotton pro-
duction more completely, especial-
ly on farms of this size.'" Cultiva-

2 The Use of Mechanical Cotton Har-
vesters in North Carolina, By McPherson,
W. W., and Greene, R. E. L., Progress
Report, Dept. of Agr. Econ. AE-Infor-
mation Series No. 13 Agr. Expt. Sta. in
cooperation with Bur. Agr. Econ. July
1947. Mechanical Harvesting of Cotton in
North Carolina, 1947 by Sutherland, J. G.,
and James, H. B., Progress Report. Dept.
of Agr. Econ. AE-Information Series No.


tors, hoeing, and harvesting limit
the acreage a family can tend, un-
der present production methods, to
only a few acres. If it proves eco-
nomical to perform these tasks
with tractor equipment, one fami-
ly would be able to tend a much
larger acreage. This would raise
the relative advantage of cotton
under current and historical price
relationships, compared with al-
ternatives on large farms. Under
such conditions, about 34 acres of
cotton could be substituted for an
equal acreage of small grain-les-
pedeza in the livestock-small grain
system.
20. N. C. Agr. Expt. Sta. in cooperation
with Bur. Agr. Econ. Dec. 1948.


FARM SIZE, PRODUCTION EFFICIENCY, AND INCOMES


In cases where management is
not the limiting factor many farms
of the Southern Piedmont are too
small in land area for achieve-
ment of maximum efficiency in the
use of the other resources. How-
ever, where management is the
limiting factor, a larger scale of
operation would not increase net
incomes. Instead, employment of
larger quantities of other re-
sources would tend to lower their
efficiency level. Also, in many
cases, farms provide an occupation
that is secondary to off-farm em-
ployment for farmers.
In addition to economic prob-
lems involved, physical and insti-
tutional limitations to farm en-
largement must be considered.
These limitations are due mainly
to location and ownership patterns.
In cases where adjustments in the
combination of land and labor and
improvements in managerial ca-
pacities are feasible, a period of
time generally will be required for
accomplishing such changes. In
view of these conditions, opportuni-
ties for increasing net incomes on
farms with their present acreages
of land need to be examined in ad-
dition to a study of the opportuni-
ties for adjustments in the com-
bination of productive factors and


scales of operation that require a
longer period of time.
In the predominate farming sys-
tems of 1945, the labor, land, pow-
er, and equipment on large farms
were used very little more effi-
ciently than those on smaller
farms. The problems of the most
effective employment of labor liv-
ing on farms were aggravated by
the extreme fluctuations or peak
periods in labor requirements.
Based on semi-monthly periods
production of cotton required about
20 hours an acre during peak pe-
riods, but during ten periods of
the year it required less than one
hour per acre. The problem was
complicated further by the fact
that critical periods for corn and
small grains occurred almost sim-
ultaneously with cotton. Labor re-
quirements for livestock were
distributed relatively evenly
throughout the year. To a limited
extent livestock did not compete
with the major crops. Livestock
chores on small enterprises were
performed before and after the
field work. On the other hand,
larger livestock enterprises would
reduce the labor available for field
work. To some extent, the avail-
able labor, influenced by members
of the operator's family of school


Table 39.-Proportion of labor living on forms utilized in productive work, representative
forms, 1945 and reorganized systems, Southern Piedmont, North Carolina

System and size of farm Percentage of available
labor used

1945:
Small .................. ......................... 61
Medium size ......... ............................ 62
Large:
Total farm 57
Family labor .......... ....... ................ 63
Cropper labor ................... .................. 54
Reorganized systems:
Small .............................. .. ........ 72
Medium size ........ ............................ 93
Large (cotton-livestock)
Total farm ................... .............. ... 88
Family labor ....... ................... ....... 87
Cropper labor ......... .......................... 88
Large (livestock-small grains) ................... 95


age who were available during the farms (Table 39). In terms of la-
cultivating and harvesting seasons, bor returns per unit, there were
varied directly with labor require- some differences; but these were
ments. relatively small (Table 40). Acre-
In 1945, there was very little age of cotton per unit of labor was
difference in labor efficiency, meas- fairly constant throughout the
ured by the proportion used, on range of farm sizes.
the three predominant sizes of Use of power and equipment was

Table 40.-Returns per unit of lobor on representative farms, 1945 and reorganized
systems, Southern Piedmont, North Carolina'

Per hour of labor Per man equivalent
Price level and used directly2 of labor available
size of farm
1945 Reorganized 1945 Reorganized
Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars
1945 prices:
Small ................. .39 .71 588 1,271
Medium size ........... .44 .68 689 1,575
Large (with cropper)'
Family ............. .. .71 1.12 1,102 2,441
Cropper' ............... .30 .34 408 755
Total farm' .......... 47 .63 668 1,386
Large (without cropper) .. 1.43 3,400
1935-39 prices:
Small .................. 11 .25 166 447
Medium size ................ 13 .24 202 566
Large (with cropper)3
Family ................ 01 .17 16 364
Cropper' ................ 21 .24 284 524
Total farm' ......... .13 .21 183 464
Large (without cropper) .. .58 1,385
1 Based on net income.
SHours do not include general overhead jobs.
I Reorganized system is the cotton-livestock organization.
4 Does not include value of cropper's farm privileges; returns to cropper labor are not
comparable to those of operator and family because of the differences in production functions.
SLivestock-small-grains organization.
Not a predominant system in 1945.










Apparently, under this system the
farm operator's income would be
maintained near, or even raised
above, the systems in which crop-
per labor would be employed to
produce cotton.
Recent developments indicate
that in the future it may become
feasible to mechanize cotton pro-
duction more completely, especial-
ly on farms of this size.'" Cultiva-

2 The Use of Mechanical Cotton Har-
vesters in North Carolina, By McPherson,
W. W., and Greene, R. E. L., Progress
Report, Dept. of Agr. Econ. AE-Infor-
mation Series No. 13 Agr. Expt. Sta. in
cooperation with Bur. Agr. Econ. July
1947. Mechanical Harvesting of Cotton in
North Carolina, 1947 by Sutherland, J. G.,
and James, H. B., Progress Report. Dept.
of Agr. Econ. AE-Information Series No.


tors, hoeing, and harvesting limit
the acreage a family can tend, un-
der present production methods, to
only a few acres. If it proves eco-
nomical to perform these tasks
with tractor equipment, one fami-
ly would be able to tend a much
larger acreage. This would raise
the relative advantage of cotton
under current and historical price
relationships, compared with al-
ternatives on large farms. Under
such conditions, about 34 acres of
cotton could be substituted for an
equal acreage of small grain-les-
pedeza in the livestock-small grain
system.
20. N. C. Agr. Expt. Sta. in cooperation
with Bur. Agr. Econ. Dec. 1948.


FARM SIZE, PRODUCTION EFFICIENCY, AND INCOMES


In cases where management is
not the limiting factor many farms
of the Southern Piedmont are too
small in land area for achieve-
ment of maximum efficiency in the
use of the other resources. How-
ever, where management is the
limiting factor, a larger scale of
operation would not increase net
incomes. Instead, employment of
larger quantities of other re-
sources would tend to lower their
efficiency level. Also, in many
cases, farms provide an occupation
that is secondary to off-farm em-
ployment for farmers.
In addition to economic prob-
lems involved, physical and insti-
tutional limitations to farm en-
largement must be considered.
These limitations are due mainly
to location and ownership patterns.
In cases where adjustments in the
combination of land and labor and
improvements in managerial ca-
pacities are feasible, a period of
time generally will be required for
accomplishing such changes. In
view of these conditions, opportuni-
ties for increasing net incomes on
farms with their present acreages
of land need to be examined in ad-
dition to a study of the opportuni-
ties for adjustments in the com-
bination of productive factors and


scales of operation that require a
longer period of time.
In the predominate farming sys-
tems of 1945, the labor, land, pow-
er, and equipment on large farms
were used very little more effi-
ciently than those on smaller
farms. The problems of the most
effective employment of labor liv-
ing on farms were aggravated by
the extreme fluctuations or peak
periods in labor requirements.
Based on semi-monthly periods
production of cotton required about
20 hours an acre during peak pe-
riods, but during ten periods of
the year it required less than one
hour per acre. The problem was
complicated further by the fact
that critical periods for corn and
small grains occurred almost sim-
ultaneously with cotton. Labor re-
quirements for livestock were
distributed relatively evenly
throughout the year. To a limited
extent livestock did not compete
with the major crops. Livestock
chores on small enterprises were
performed before and after the
field work. On the other hand,
larger livestock enterprises would
reduce the labor available for field
work. To some extent, the avail-
able labor, influenced by members
of the operator's family of school


Table 39.-Proportion of labor living on forms utilized in productive work, representative
forms, 1945 and reorganized systems, Southern Piedmont, North Carolina

System and size of farm Percentage of available
labor used

1945:
Small .................. ......................... 61
Medium size ......... ............................ 62
Large:
Total farm 57
Family labor .......... ....... ................ 63
Cropper labor ................... .................. 54
Reorganized systems:
Small .............................. .. ........ 72
Medium size ........ ............................ 93
Large (cotton-livestock)
Total farm ................... .............. ... 88
Family labor ....... ................... ....... 87
Cropper labor ......... .......................... 88
Large (livestock-small grains) ................... 95


age who were available during the farms (Table 39). In terms of la-
cultivating and harvesting seasons, bor returns per unit, there were
varied directly with labor require- some differences; but these were
ments. relatively small (Table 40). Acre-
In 1945, there was very little age of cotton per unit of labor was
difference in labor efficiency, meas- fairly constant throughout the
ured by the proportion used, on range of farm sizes.
the three predominant sizes of Use of power and equipment was

Table 40.-Returns per unit of lobor on representative farms, 1945 and reorganized
systems, Southern Piedmont, North Carolina'

Per hour of labor Per man equivalent
Price level and used directly2 of labor available
size of farm
1945 Reorganized 1945 Reorganized
Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars
1945 prices:
Small ................. .39 .71 588 1,271
Medium size ........... .44 .68 689 1,575
Large (with cropper)'
Family ............. .. .71 1.12 1,102 2,441
Cropper' ............... .30 .34 408 755
Total farm' .......... 47 .63 668 1,386
Large (without cropper) .. 1.43 3,400
1935-39 prices:
Small .................. 11 .25 166 447
Medium size ................ 13 .24 202 566
Large (with cropper)3
Family ................ 01 .17 16 364
Cropper' ................ 21 .24 284 524
Total farm' ......... .13 .21 183 464
Large (without cropper) .. .58 1,385
1 Based on net income.
SHours do not include general overhead jobs.
I Reorganized system is the cotton-livestock organization.
4 Does not include value of cropper's farm privileges; returns to cropper labor are not
comparable to those of operator and family because of the differences in production functions.
SLivestock-small-grains organization.
Not a predominant system in 1945.









Table 41.-Investment per acre of cropland on representative farms, 194S and reorganized
systems, Southern Piedmont, North Carolina
Investment per acre of cropland
Systems and size of Operating
farm Real Productive capital'
estate livestock Power Equipment Total
Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars
1945 systems:
Small ....................121 6 11 11 149 20
Medium .................. 125 7 7 9 148 20
Large ................... 108 3 11 6 128 25
Reorganized systems:
Small .................... 139 16 11 11 177 40
Medium .................. 150 38 7 9 204 45
Large:
Cotton-livestock ........127 38 10 12 187 55
Livestock-small grains ..118 19 8 12 157 26
1 Annual cash expenses per acre of cropland.


closely associated with problems
similar to those involving the use
of farm labor. Quantities sufficient
to meet peak periods were kept by
the farmer. As a result, there were
considerable periods of idleness.
The hours of work per head of
workstock on the representative
farms amounted to: small farm,
550; medium size farm, 782; and
large farm, 483. On the large farm,
a tractor was used 356 hours.
Under the 1945 system, invest-
ments per acre of cropland were
lowest, except for power, but an-
nual cash expenses were $5 per


acre higher on the large farm
(Table 41). In general, acreage of
cropland and investment, excluding
land, per man equivalent of avail-
able labor increased with the size
of farm, but the extent of increase
was relatively small (Table 42).
Assuming that managerial ca-
pacity is not the limiting factor,
the most efficient utilization of la-
bor and other productive resources,
regardless of size of farm, would
require one of the following
changes, or combination of
changes, from the 1945 conditions:
(1) Adjustments in type of farm,


Table 42.-Relation of land and investment to labor on farms, representative farms, 1945
and reorganized systems, Southern Piedmont, North Carolina
Land per worker Investment per worker2
Systems and size Total less land
of farms Improved Total and operating
Cropland land3 Total less land capital
Acres Acres Dollars Dollars Dollars
1915 systems
Small ............... 22.6 23.8 3,783 1,513 1,072
Medium ............. 26.2 30.6 4,393 1,692 1,166
Large' ............... 28.0 33.3 4,312 1,743 924
Reorganized systems:
Small ............... 22.6 26.9 4,901 2,534 1,634
Medium ............ 25.6 36.3 6,403 3,532 2,379
Large:
Cotton-livestock' .. 28.0 39.0 6,758 4,074 2,545
Livestock-sm. gr. .. 77.9 89.0 14,297 7,426 5,363
1Includes cropper labor.
2 Includes operating capital.
$ Cropland and permanent pasture.


or enterprise combinations, and
farm practices, (2) changes in
types and/or kinds of equipment
used, and (3) employment of in-
creased volumes of seasonal labor.
Even with these changes small and
medium size farms do not have
sufficient acreage for maximum ef-
ficiency in the use of other factors.
Neither the addition of more equip-
ment of the kind currently used,
buildings, and other forms of capi-
tal to the present size-type farms
nor the increase in size of farm
alone would solve the economic
problems of production in the
Southern Piedmont.
Addition of livestock enterprises,
due to the relatively even labor
distribution, offers considerable op-
portunity for the use of labor pre-
viously underemployed. However,
with the most common practices,
quality of livestock, and rates of
production found in 1945, very lit-
tle would be gained, in terms of
income, by the additional employ-
ment of the available labor. But
with improved practices the addi-
tional labor required would gain
a much higher net return from
these enterprises.
The greatest opportunity for in-
creasing efficiency in cotton pro-
duction appears to stem from the

Table 43.-Summary of incomes at 1945 prices,
systems, Southern Piedmont, North Carolina


possibilities of mechanizing the
planting, harvesting, hoeing, and
cultivating operations. With pres-
ent hand harvesting and chopping,
and half-row cultivating equip-
ment, opportunity for full utiliza-
tion of labor is limited. However,
if tractor equipment should prove
to be economical in the perform-
ance of these tasks, it would tend
to level the labor peaks and in-
crease considerably the acreage
that the relatively fixed labor
force could handle.
Employment of wage hands dur-
ing peak labor periods would tend
to increase the acreages that the
fixed farm labor supply could tend,
but this is not thought to be
feasible in the Southern Piedmont.
Alternative employment opportuni-
ties during other periods of the
year would not absorb such a sea-
sonal labor force sufficiently to
provide adequate annual incomes.
Finally, these data indicate op-
portunity for a greater degree of
efficiency, to a limited extent, on
small and medium size farms with
present levels of equipment. On
many farms larger acreages would
be necessary for an approach to
optimum use of family labor, pow-
er, and equipment. The larger
acreage necessarily would need to

representative farms, 1945 and reorganized


Net cash income Net income
System and size of farms
Per farm Per person Per farm Per person

Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars
1915 systems:
Small .................... 621 155 958 240
Medium ..................1,300 260 1,480 296
Large
Total .................3,295 330 2,912 291
Operator and family ....2,180 545 1,797 449
Reorganized systems:
Small ................... 1,778 444 2,072 518
Medium ................. 3,262 652 3,402 680
Large:
Cotton-livestock:
Total ................ 6,993 699 6,041 604
Operator and family .4,931 1,233 3,979 995
Livestock-small grain ...6,002 1,500 5,542 1,386
Includes net cash returns to cropper labor.








Table 44.-Summary of incomes at 1935-39 average prices, representative forms, 194S
and reorganized systems, Southern Piedmont, North Carolina
Net cash income Net income
System and size of farms
Per farm Per person Per farm Per person
Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars
1945 systems:
Small .................... 166 42 271 68
Medium .................. 477 95 436 87
Large:
Total .................. 1,352 135 800 80
Operator and family ..... 578 144 26 6
Reorganized systems:
Small .................... 681 170 728 182
Medium .................1,361 272 1,222 244
Large:
Cotton-livestock:
Total' ................3,119 312 2,024 239
Operator and family .1,688 422 593 148
Livestock-small grain .. .3,000 750 2,258 564
1 Includes net cash returns to cropper labor.


be accompanied by capable man-
agement and by major adjustments
in enterprise combinations, prac-
tices, and types and kinds of equip-
ment. Also, these adjustments
would be necessary on the larger
farms which already have suffi-
cient acreage of land.
A test of efficiency measured in
terms of net income to the farm


business is shown in Tables 43 and
44. The "net cash income" is par-
ticularly important in view of
necessary cash expenses for family
living and for payment of farm
debts. The farmer also must con-
sider "net income," because in the
long-run, the income must cover
depreciation and interest on equip-
ment and buildings which eventual-
ly must be replaced.


SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS'1


Considerable opportunity for
profitable adjustments in farming
systems exists in the cotton pro-
ducing section of the Southern
Piedmont. Key adjustments would
include a greater degree of effi-
ciency in the production of cotton
and a more effective use of the re-
maining farm resources. These ad..
justments would mean the adop-
tion of improved or more efficient
enterprise practices and changes
in the resource organization and
enterprise combinations. Increased
yields of feed crops, brought about
by improved practices, would mean
that present sizes of farms would
5Sece Appendix Table VIII for detailed
summary of farm organizations in 1945
compared with alternatives.


support larger numbers of live-
stock.
On small and medium size farms,
in both present and alternative
systems, cotton appears to be the
most profitable enterprise. Poul-
try offers the best opportunity for
supplementing income from cot-
ton since pasture land usually is
limited to a few acres. If enough
pasture land is available, dairying
compares favorably with poultry.
On larger units adjustment op-
portunities depend upon the labor
situation. In cases where labor is
scarce relative to land, dairy, poul-
try, and small grains-lespedeza
offer opportunities for profitably
replacing cotton. On farms where
enough labor is available at tlhe


customary costs these less inten-
sive enterprises are profitable sup-
plements in a cotton type of farm-
ing.
In general these adjustments
would include: (1) Reduction in the
proportion of the cropland planted
in row crops, (2) increases in the
proportion of the cropland on
which a legume would be plowed
under annually, (3) increases in
productive employment of avail-
able labor, power, and other re-
sources, and (4) increases in farm
investments.
At 1945 prices, even with the
changes in farming systems, net
cash income per person would be
only $444 on small farms and $652
on medium size farms. Where
there is capable management, the
size of farm would need to be
equivalent to that of the larger
farms to permit adjustments in or-
ganization and operation that
would be necessary for efficient use
of the most common units of power
and family labor on farms.
Development of the alternative
systems would meet with several
obstacles. Dairy and poultry en-
terprises are relatively inflexible
because of the fixed costs in the
form of buildings and equipment.
Because of the inexperience of
farm operators and farm labor in
handling commercial livestock en-
terprises and the necessity of gain-
ing technical experience, these en-
terprises would need to be started
on a small scale in nearly all cases.
This adjustment would require
long-range planning on the part of
farmers.
Age and health of the farm oper-
ators must be considered. In many
cases, several years would be need-
ed to accomplish the recommended
changes and the older men would
not share in the advantages to the
extent of younger men who might
expect to gain livelihoods from
their farms for a much longer pe-
riod of years. The average age of
farmers in the study was 54 years,
and more than a third of the total


number were more than 60 years
old.
Managerial capacity, both pres-
ent and potential, is rather in-
tangible. It is not known to what
extent this item is the limiting
factor of production. However,
farms operated according to the
reorganized systems would re-
quire a higher degree of both tech-
nical skill and managerial ability
than is required by the present
systems.
Larger capital funds would be
required. In the farm business,
expenses of a machine and/or oth-
er types of durable capital are
handled through long-term depre-
ciation and interest charges, with
the rate depending upon the ex-
pected life of the item. In many
cases, this expected life covers
a period of many years. Usually,
however, farmers are required to
pay cash or to meet installment
payments allocated over a period
much shorter than the life of the
asset. Also, there is need for cred-
it adapted to the financing of farm
improvements such as pasture de-
velopment, terracing, and improve-
ment of livestock herds."
The reorganized farming sys-
tems, if extensively developed,
would require all-weather farm-to-
market roads and an efficient mar-
keting system. Opportunities for
improving production efficiency by
mechanizing cotton production2'
and by improving farm layouts
are major phases that need further
study.
Finally, the accomplishment of
these changes would require inten-
sive and coordinated work by agri-
cultural agencies whose jobs are
to provide farmers with informa-
tion needed in planning and oper-
ating their farms. Such work must
be directed toward the specific

For treatment of this subject see: In-
vestment Credit to Improve F'arming Sys-
temrs, by Donald 1. Ibach and G. W. Forster.
N. C. Agricultural Experiment Station and
the Iureau of Agricultural Economics. co-
operating.
l Further treatment of this subject by
the North Carolina Agricultural Experi-
ment Station is currently in progress.











problems of individual farmers as
well as the more general problems
of the area. For practical purposes
it is often necessary to break down
problems into partial analysis.
However, the results should be
properly integrated and the ulti-
mate effects appraised if the infor-


mation is to be sound.
Benefits of these adjustments
would serve society as a whole. The
general economic and social status
of the rural people of the South-
ern Piedmont would be raised but
not at the expense of other seg-
ments of the economy.


APPENDIX TABLES
Table I.-Production and sale of farm products, representative small farm, 1945 and reor.
ganized system, Southern Piedmont, North Carolina'
1945 Reorganized

Item Unit For sale2 For sale2
Pro- Pro-
duction Quantity Value duction Quantity Value
Units Units Dollars Units Units Dollars
Crops:
Cotton: lint .........Cwt. 42 42 952 45 45 1,004
seed ........Cwt. 67 63 151 70 70 167
Corn ................. Bu. 198 0 0 250 0 0
Wheat ...............Bu. 105 40 66 222 54 89
Oats ................. Bu. O 0 0 168 0 0
Barley ............... Bu. 0 0 0 60 0 0
Lespedeza seed' ......Cwt. 0 0 0 65 65 523
Hay: lespedeza .......Ton 8 0 0 0 0 0
alfalfa .........Ton 0 0 0 9 0 0
oats .. .......Ton 5 0 0 0 0 0
Garden and other ....xxx 20 20
Total crops..........xxx 1,189 1,803
Livestock:
Milk ................Cwt. 74 14 39 120 4 167
Veal ................Cwt. 1 1 10 2 2 27
Pork ................ Cwt. 5 0 0 6 0 0
Eggs ............... Doz. 300 150 61 2,800 2,680 1,083
Chickens ............ Cwt. 2 1 16 6 5 132
Total livestock .....xxx 126 1,409
Conservation payments: .xxx 24 34
Total cash receipts ..xxx 1,339 3.246
SBased on 1945 prices.
2 Quantity not sold was consumed on the farm.
SUtilization of the lespedeza crop would depend on relative prices, preference of farmers,
and individual conditions.
S408 pounds of butter or equivalent in form of other dairy products.
Items not applicable.

Table II.-Farm expenses, representative small form, 1945 and reorganized system, Southern
Piedmont, North Carolina'
Value
Item
1945 Reorganized
Dollars Dollars
Cash:
Fertilizer and lime ............................... 249 415
Seeds and plants ................................. 60 147
Ginning cotton ................................... 45 47
Combining, grain and lespedeza ................... 24 304
F eed ............................................. 82 219
Livestock purchased .............................. 20 62
Other livestock expense ........................... 16 35
Auto and hauling ................................. 70 70
Equipment repair ................................ 28 28
Building repair .............. ................... 60 75
T axes ......... .................................. 27 27
Crop insurance .................................. 0 22
Building insurance ............................... 7 17
H ired labor ...................................... 30 0
Total cash expenses ............................. 718 1,468
Noncash:
Depreciation: Total ............................... 77 93
Buildings .............. ........................ 34 50
Equipm ent ..................................... 43 43
Interest: total ................................... 248 337
Current operating .............................. 43 88
Short-term investment ......................... 50 69
R eal estate ..................................... 155 180
Total noncash expenses ....................... 325 430
Total expenses ............................... 1,043 1,898
SBased on 1945 prices.











Table III.-Production and sale of form products, representative medium-size form, 1945
and reorganized system, Southern Piedmont, North Carolina'

1945 Reorganized
Item Unit For sale2 For saleW
Produc- Produc-
tion Quantity Value tion Quantity Value

Units Units Dollars Units Units Dollars
Crops:
Cotton: lint .........Cwt. 51 51 1,154 5 54 1,217
seed ........ 81 77 185 85 85 203
Corn ................. Bu. 308 58 85 500 0 0
Wheat ............... Bu. 204 125 206 321 44 73
Oats ................. Bu. 277 100 90 360 0 0
Lespedeza seed ......Cwt. 27 18 147 83 83 671
Hay: Alfalfa .........Ton 0 0 0 23 0 0
Lespedeza .....Ton 13 0 0 3 0 0
Garden and other ....xxx 40 40

Total crops ........xxx 1,907 2,204

Livestock:
Milk ................Cwt. 158 127 357 600 537 1,504
Veal ............... Cwt. 2 2 30 6 4 60
Cow ................ Each 0 0 0 1 85
Pork ............. Cwt. 5 0 0 6 0 0
Eggs ................ Doz. 321 181 73 4,200 4,050 1,636
Chickens ............ Cwt. 2 1 18 10 8 204

Total livestock ..... xxx 478 3,489
Conservation payments ..xxx 50 CO

Total cash income .xxx 2,435 5,753

1 Based on 1945 prices.
2 Quantity not sold was consumed on the farm.
Items not applicable.


Table IV.-Form expenses, representative medium-size farm, 1945 and reorganized sys-
tem, Southern Piedmont, North Carolina'

m Value
Item
1945 Reorganized

Dollars Dollars
Cash
Fertilizer and lime ............................... 373 691
Seeds and plants .................................. 15 216
Ginning cotton .................................. 65 57
Combining, grain and lespedeza .......... 192 304
Feed ............................................. 141 442
Livestock purchased ..... ........................ 20 82
Other livestock expense ............................ 18 107
Auto and hauling ................................ 105 105
Equipment repair ................................ 30 30
lluilding repair .................................. 70 105
lT axes .............................................. 48 48
Crop insurance ................................... 0 27
Ituildi g insurance ............................... 18 27
Hired labor. 50 160
]lired labor. ...................................... 50 160

Total cash expenses ...................... ... 1,135 2.91
Noncsh :
Depreciation: total ............. ... ........... .. 115 151

B ui lings ...................................... 65 101
Equipm ent .................................... 50 50
Interest: total ..................................... 370 591

Current operating ............................. 68 149
Short-term investment .......................... 64 151
R eal estate ..................................... 247 291

Total noncash expenses ...................... 494 742
Total farm expenses ........................ 1,629 3,233

Based on 1945 prices.


Table V.-Production and sale of farm products, representative large form, 1945 and
reorganized system, Southern Piedmont, North Carolina'

Reorganized
1945 cotton-livestock

Item Unit For sale2 For sale
emProduc- Produc-
tion Quantity Value tion Quantity Value


Crops:
Cotton: lint .........Cwt.
seed ........Cwt.
Corn: Grain ..........Bu.
silage .........Ton
Wheat .. ............u.
Oats ................. u.
Lespedeza seed ......Cwt.
Hay: Lespedeza ......Ton
Alfalfa ........Ton

Total crops ........xxx
Livestock:
M ilk ................. Cwt.
Cows ...............Each
Veal ............... Cwt.
Pork ................ Cwt.
Eggs ................ Doz.
Chickens ............ Cwt.

Total livestock .....xxx
Conservation payments ..xxx
total cash income .xxx
Total cash income .xxx


Units Units Dollars Units Units Dollars
110 110 2,465 84 84 1,890
174 165 395 131 131 315
600 320 467 950 0 0
0 0 0 64 0 0
241 181 299 906 391 645
891 655 590 636 0 0
68 52 417 200 200 1,623
24 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 52 0 0
4,633 4,473


158 127 357 1,200
0 0 0 3
2 2 20 11
8 0 0 28
413 273 110 7,000
2 1 29 16
516 *
88 *

5.237 *


3,184
246
130
305
2,767
360

6,992

131

11,596


1 Based on 1945 prices.
2 Quantity not sold was consumed on the farm.
Items not applicable.






Table VI.-Farm products used by the operator's family, representative large farm, 1945
and reorganized system, Southern Piedmont, North Carolina

1945 Reorganized
IteUnit Quantity Value Quantity Value


Units Dollars Units Dollars
Corn ........................... ..... u. 10 15 10 15
W heat ...............................Bu. 24 40 24 40
Garden .............................. 100 -150
lilk .......................... ..... Cwt. 31 62 50 100
Eggs ...............................Doz. 140 57 120 48
Pork ........................... .... Cwt. 8 108 6 90
V eal .............. .................. Cw t. 0 0 1 13
Chickens .......................... Cwt. 1 29 2 58
W ........................... Cord 8 8 64
Dwelling ......................... Rent -211; 216
Total value ............ ..... xx 691 xx 794











Table VII.-Form expenses, representative large farm, 1945 and reorganized cotton-
livestock system, Southern Piedmont, North Carolina'

Value
Item Reorganized
1945 cotton-livestock
Cash: Dollars Dollars
Fertilizer and lime ............................... 750 1,496
Seeds and plants ...................... .......... 49 476
Ginning cotton .................................. 117 88
Combining, grain and lespedeza ................... 164 '0
Other crop expense .............................. 4 3315
Feed ............................................. 150 830
Livestock purchased ....................... ...... 30 84
Other livestock expense ........................... 24 110
Tractor ........................................ 145 163
Auto and hauling ................................ 140 280
Equipment repair ................................ 79 133
Building repair ................................... 195 299
Taxes ....................................... ... 70 80
Crop insurance ................................... 0 42
Building insurance .............................. 25 50
Cropper labor .......................... ......... 960 878
Hired cropper labor .............................. 155 1,184
H ired labor ..................................... 0 157

Total cash expenses ........................ .. 3,057 6,665
Noncash:
Depreciation : total ............................... 302 438

Buildings ...................................... 125 178
Equipm ent .................................... 177 260
Interest: Total ................................... 772 1,308

Current operating .............................. 183 400
Short-term investment ......................... 127 3(66
Real estate .................................... 462 542

Total noncash expenses ....................... 1,074 1,746

Total farm expenses ......................... 4,131 8,411

1 Based on 1945 prices.
2 Performed with own combine.
3Baling hay, harvesting silage, and cleaning lespedeza seed.


Table VIII.-Farm organizations in 1945 compared with alternatives, representative farms,
Southern Piedmont, North Carolina

Percentage change'

Large farms2
Items
Medium Cotton Livestock
Small size Cotton small small
farm farm Livestock grains grains

Land use:
Percentage of cropland used
annually for:
Cotton ....................... 0 1 5 11 s
Intertilled crops .............. --8 -6 -5 -6 -33
Legume plowed under ........ 31 9 7 16 43
Percentage of all land used for
crops and pasture .............. 8 12 10 -4 0
Acreage of cotton ............... 0 0 -27 65

Labor and power used:
Percentage of available labor used 11 31 31 9 38
Hours workstock used per head .... -5 10 54 12 54
Hours tractor used ................ 0 0 12 0 27

Amount of investment:
Real estate ....................... 16 18 17 6 14
Equipment ....................... 0 0 98 98 98
Power ............................ 0 0 15 -15 -30
Productive livestock ............... 178 458 1,076 14 523
Total investment ............... 20 36 45 9 27

Quantity of production:
Cotton, lint ...................... 7 6 -24 74 *
Grains, all ....................... 67 53 67 43 119
Grains, for sale .................. 35 -81 -53 65 144
Hay ............................. 12 100 117 50 0
Pasture capacity ................ 488 282 233 -38 25
M ilk ............................. 62 280 659 24 280
Eggs' ........................... 833 1,162 1,595 69 578
Pork ............................ 20 20 250 0 0
Proportion of cash income from:
Cotton ........................... -31 -30 -36 --3
All crops ......................... 1-33 -40 -50 7 -21
All livestock ..................... 34 41 50 -7 22

1 Changes from 1945 representative systems.
2Each in terms of changes from 1945 large cotton farm.
1 No cotton grown in this organization; however, should mechanization of cotton pro-
duction prove to be economical about 34 acres could be substituted for small grain-lespedeza.
4 Egg production, based on the given prices, could be profitably expanded to this extent on
individual farms; but the extent to which the market would absorb this increase, if carried
out on an area-wide basis, without important relative price changes has not been determined.




























(67)








LIST OF REFERENCES


County Soil Surveys, Bureau of
Soils USDA, in cooperation with
the North Carolina Department
of Agriculture, 1921.

Greene, R. E. L., H. Brooks James,
and C. G. Dawson, Cost and Util-
ization of Power and Equipment
on Farms in the Central Pied-
mont, North Carolina Agricultur-
al Experiment Station and the
Bureau of Agricultural Econom-
ics, USDA, co-operating, North
Carolina Experiment Station,
Technical Bulletin No. 84.

Greene, R. E. L., and W. W. Mc-
Pherson, Major Farming Sys-
temns, 1939, and Usual Production
Practices, Lincoln County, North
Carolina, North Carolina Agri-
cultural Experiment Station, co-
operating with the Bureau of Ag-
ricultural Economics, prelimi-
nary mimeographed report.
Handbook for Agricultural Work-
ers, prepared by the North Caro-
lina Agricultural Extension Serv-
ice and published annually.


McPherson, W. W., W. H. Pierce,
and R. E. L. Greene, Production
Practices and Production Rates,
Principal Enterprises on Cotton
Farms, Southern Piedmont,
North Carolina, North Carolina
Agricultural Experiment Station,
co-operating with the Bureau of
Agricultural Economics, USDA.
Progress Report, AE-Informa-
tion Series No. 19, Department of
Agricultural Economics, Novem-
ber 1948. Processed.
McPherson, W. W. and R. E. L.
Greene, The Use of Mechanical
Cotton Harvesters in North Caro-
lina, North Carolina Agricultur-
al Experiment Station, in co-op-
eration with Bureau of Agricul-
tural Economics, USDA, Prog-
ress Report, Information Series
No. 13, Department of Agricul-
tural Economics, July 1947. Pro-
cessed.
All current publications of the
North Carolina Agricultural Ex-
tension Service and Experiment
Station pertaining to agricultur-
al production and marketing.
























(68)


1!


C h




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