• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Front Cover
 Preface
 Table of Contents
 Introduction
 Description of area
 Method of procedure






Group Title: Agricultural economics mimeo report - University of Florida. Agricultural Experiment Station ; no. 60-11
Title: Resource characteristics and utilization and level of living items, rural households, north and west Florida, 1956
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00074604/00001
 Material Information
Title: Resource characteristics and utilization and level of living items, rural households, north and west Florida, 1956
Physical Description: iii, 130 l. : tables. ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Reuss, L. A ( Lawrence Adkins ), 1907-
Gilbraith, K. M ( Kenneth M. ) ( joint author )
University of Florida -- Agricultural Experiment Station. -- Dept. of Agricultural Economics
Publisher: Dept. of Agricultural Economics, Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 1960
 Subjects
Subject: Rural conditions -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Genre: non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
General Note: Cover title.
General Note: Agricultural economics mimeo report - University of Florida. Agricultural Experiment Station ; no. 60-11
Statement of Responsibility: by L.A. Reuss and K.M. Gilbraith.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00074604
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: oclc - 01822735
lccn - 60063386

Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Front Cover
    Preface
        Page i
        Page ii
    Table of Contents
        Page iii
    Introduction
        Page 1
    Description of area
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
    Method of procedure
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Description of human resources
            Page 9
            Page 10
            Page 11
            Page 12
            Page 13
            Page 14
            Page 15
            Page 16
            Page 17
            Page 18
            Page 19
            Page 20
            Page 21
            Page 22
            Page 23
            Page 24
            Page 25
            Page 26
            Page 27
            Page 28
        Utilization of human resources
            Page 29
            Page 30
            Page 31
            Page 32
            Page 33
            Page 34
            Page 35
            Page 36
            Page 37
            Page 38
            Page 39
            Page 40
            Page 41
            Page 42
            Page 43
            Page 44
            Page 45
        Land and capital resources and their utilization
            Page 46
            Page 47
            Page 48
            Page 49
            Page 50
            Page 51
            Page 52
            Page 53
            Page 54
            Page 55
            Page 56
            Page 57
            Page 58
            Page 59
            Page 60
            Page 61
            Page 62
            Page 63
            Page 64
            Page 65
            Page 66
            Page 67
            Page 68
            Page 69
        Human resources and income
            Page 70
            Page 71
            Page 72
            Page 73
            Page 74
            Page 75
            Page 76
            Page 77
            Page 78
            Page 79
            Page 80
            Page 81
            Page 82
            Page 83
            Page 84
            Page 85
            Page 86
            Page 87
            Page 88
            Page 89
            Page 90
            Page 91
            Page 92
            Page 93
            Page 94
            Page 95
            Page 96
            Page 97
            Page 98
            Page 99
            Page 100
            Page 101
            Page 102
            Page 103
            Page 104
            Page 105
            Page 106
            Page 107
            Page 108
            Page 109
            Page 110
            Page 111
            Page 112
            Page 113
            Page 114
            Page 115
            Page 116
            Page 117
            Page 118
        Level of living items
            Page 119
            Page 120
            Page 121
            Page 122
            Page 123
            Page 124
        Summary
            Page 125
            Page 126
            Page 127
            Page 128
            Page 129
            Page 130
Full Text

March 1960
/"f


7


Agricultural Economics
Mimeo Report No. 60-11


RESOURCE CHARACTERISTICS AND UTILIZATION


AND LEVEL OF LIVING ITEMS, RURAL HOUSEHOLDS,


NORTH AND WEST FLORIDA, 1956




by
L. A. Reuss and K. M. Gilbraith







Preliminary statistics published in
tabular form for reference use.





Department of Agricultural Economics
Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations
Gainesville, Florida E
in cooperation with
Farm Economics Research Division APR 19 30
Agricultural Research Service, U.S.D.A. 1








PRIFACE


Public interest in the Rural Development Program and in resource

use adjustment potentials for low-income problem areas has prompted a plan

for publication of a series of three reports concerning a survey of rural

households in North and West Florida.

The first of two scheduled mimeographed reports appeared in October

1958 under the title "Sources and levels of Income, Rural Households, North

and West Florida, 1956" (Mimeo. Report No, 59-4, Department of Agricultural

Economics, Florida Agricultural Experiment Station).

This, the second report, contains basic data concerning the people

in the surveyed households, their resources, and the way in which their

resources are utilized. It contains the statistics that will form the basis

for completion of a major objective of the project, namely, "To relate the

characteristics, organization and utilization of resources to sources of

income, levels of income, and levels of living." So that each mimeographed

report may be substantially self-contained, the sections entitled "Description

of the Area" and "Method of Procedure" are the same in each report.

A final printed report is planned. It will analyze and summarize

the findings of the study and will draw upon basic statistics contained in

the mimeographed reports.

Many people have contributed to this report including many rural

residents of North and West Florida who have provided information. The

project is under the general direction of Dr. H. G. Hamilton, Head, Department

of Agricultural Economics, Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations, and

Max M. Tharp, Farm Economics Research Division, Agricultural Research Service,

Dr. R. E. L. Greene of the Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations and









Dr. William E. Hendrix, Farm Economics Research Division, Agricultural

Research Service, have served as consultants on the study.


-ii-












COINTETS


Introduction . . . .. .

Description of Area . . . .

Method of Procedure . . .


I. Description of Human Resources . . .

The total population ..... .
Population by household . .

II. Utilization of Human Resources . .

III. Land and Capital Resources and Their Utilization

Nonfarm households . .
Farm households . *

IV, Human Resources and Income .. ....

Family income from all sources . .
Farm income . . . .
Income from work on other farms ....
Nonfarm employment income . .
Nonemployment income . .

V. Level of Living Items ...... .

VI. Summary . . . .

Human resources . . .
Nonhuman resources . . .
Income . . . .


Page



. . 2

. . 7
o e o 1

ooo2

o7


. . 4 9

. . 9
. . 20

. . 29

, . 46

. . 46
. . .51

. . 70

. . 70
. .. 79
. . 86
. .9 99
. .112

. .. 119

. . .125

. 125
. . .126
. . .127


-iii-






RESOURCE CHAEACT!RISTICS A14D UTILIZATION, INCOI~E
AND L.VEL OF LIVING ITEMS, HURiL HOUSEHOLDS,
NORTH AND WEST FWORIDA, 1956

by

L. A. Reuss and K. M. Gilbraith1



Introduction


Information concerning the people of an area, their resources, and

the way in which they use these resources is essential to a consideration of

low-income problem situations and solutions. Despite high levels of employ-

ment and incomes in industry and trade, incomes remain low for many farm and

rural nonfarm families in the South. Differences in current levels of health,

education, training, age, and capabilities of the population are contributing

factors as are limitations on land and capital resources.

To help alleviate the low-income problem, Rural Development and

other programs oriented specifically to economic development through resource

use adjustments in low-income areas are being initiated by governmental and

civic organizations in many parts of the country. The successful development

and implementation of both local and national programs require more detailed

knowledge than is provided by usual sources of secondary data. To obtain

needed information, a project entitled "An Appraisal of the Economic

Characteristics and Problems of Low Income Rural Areas of North and West

Florida," was undertaken by the Department of Agricultural Economics, Florida

Agricultural Experiment Station, in cooperation with the Farm Economics

Research Division, Agricultural Research Service, U. S. Department of

Agriculture,

The first report originating from the project dealt with sources


Agricultural Economists, Farm Economics Research Division,
Agricultural Research Service, U.S.D.A.

-1-






-2-


and levels of income of 730 households surveyed in North and West Florida.

This, the second report, contains basic data concerning human and nonhuman

resources and the way in which the resources are used.


Description of Area

The study area is located in State Economic Areas I and III in North

and West Florida (Figure 1). These two economic areas encompass 25 of

Florida's 67 counties, make up slightly less than one-third of the total land

area of the state, and contain approximately 18 percent of the state's popula-

tion. Total population in the area has increased steadily since 1930,

although not as rapidly as for the state as a whole.

The increase has been due to an increase in the urban segment of the

population. The rural nonfarm segment increased only slightly, while the

farm population declined by almost a fifth during this period. From the

standpoint of individual counties, population change within the area has been

far from consistent. Estimates published by the Bureau of Economic and

Business Research of the University of Florida indicate that between 1950 and

1956, total population declined in 16 counties throughout the state.

Economic Areas I and III contain 13 of these counties. Only one of the 25

counties in the study area showed a relative increase in population equal to

the increase for the state.

The nonagricultural segment of the economy of North and West

Florida has increased in importance, along with the growth of urban population.

The largest relative increase between 1940 and 1950 in numbers of persons

employed outside agriculture occurred in the wholesale and retail trade group,

followed by the service trade group. The service trade group continues to

lead, however, in total number of persons employed, followed by the wholesale






-3-


Key Map

..... --............. ..-" -" ./-^. \
T-------" _'_ -Z--- ,-'A--..



S-- ...
F LI TAYLOR N .,..
OVlt ~I -C-- I.j

.... --.... .
-F -AOL
LEVY









Figure 1.--Location of study area





Survey Counties


Economic Area I


Economic Area III


Calhoun
Escambia
Okaloose
Santa Rosa
Walton
Washington


Alachua
Baker
Columbia
Gadsden
Gilchrist
Hamilton
Holmes


Jackson
Jefferson
Lafayette
Leon
Madison
Suwannee
Union





-4-


and retail trade group. Manufacturing ranks third in number of persons

employed outside agriculture.

Based on data from the Census of Manufacturers, the number of

manufacturing establishments in Economic Areas I and III increased from 407

to 705 between 1939 and 1954. This increase of 73 percent was half as great

as that for the state as a whole. The total number of establishments in the

state increased from 1,976 to 4,792 during this period for a relative increase

of approximately 143 percent. As would be expected, the bulk of the manufac-

turing establishments in North and West Florida are located in the 12 counties

that showed an increase in population. The 13 counties in which population

declined accounted for only 29 percent of the total number of establishments

in 1954. Moreover, 80 percent of the manufacturing establishments located in

these 13 counties were in the lumber industry, which is an extractive industry

closely related to agriculture.

Viewed from the standpoint of number of manufacturing establish-

ments, the lumber industry, with 410 establishments, led in Economic Areas I

and III in 1954. Food and kindred products was second with 123. The print-

ing industry ranked third with 43 establishments. These three industries

accounted for a little more than two-thirds of all manufacturing establishments

in the two economic areas surveyed. Other industries of considerable impor-

tance to the area include stone and glass, chemicals, paper, and furniture.

Paralleling the decline in the farm population in the study area

has been a significant decrease in number of farms accompanied by an increase

in farm size. Farms in North and West Florida, however, continue to be

smaller on the average than those in the rest of the state. Based on data

from the 1954 Census of Agriculture, economic Areas I and III contain approxi-

mately 39 percent of the farms in the state and 22 percent of the total land






-5-


in farms. The average farm size for the two areas was 183 acres compared with

316 acres for the state as a whole. Crop, grazing, and forest land are inter-

mingled in the study area with relatively more forest land in West than in

North Florida. Only about a third of the land area in West Florida is in

farms. A relatively large proportion of the limited farmland is used for

crops, particularly for such field crops as corn, cotton, peanuts, and tobacco.

Most of the rural land outside farms is commercial forest land with a moderate-

to-high proportion of well-stocked commercial stands of timber. In North

Florida, about half the land is in farms and more of the farmland is idle crop-

land and woodland grazed than in West Florida. The entire study area lies in

the Coastal Plains, where timber companies and cotton and turpentine planta-

tions were dominant in early times. The present land cover and land use, as

well as the economic situation, have been influenced by depletion of saw-

timber stands and naval stores and declining profits from production of

cotton. In recent times, however, forestry has increased in importance, The

stumpage value of slash pine for pulp and other uses has risen substantially.

Active tree-planting programs are underway. Paper companies and other corpo-

rations have increased their forest holdings and raised the average level of

timber management.

The soils of North and West Florida are predominantly well-drained

sands with deep sands on the higher ridges. There are also poorly drained

flatlands along the coastal area in Economic Area I. The heavy rainfall and

the warm climate have furthered the processes of leaching and oxidation of

soil nutrients. In terms of natural fertility, however, the soil in this

area compare favorably with other parts of the southeastern Coastal Plain.

The growing season usually exceeds 240 days. Average rainfall amounting to

50 to 60 inches annually is ample for agriculture. Because killing frosts are









likely to occur annually, spring and summer crops predominate rather than the

winter crops found in Central and South Florida.

Tobacco is the major source of crop receipts in North and West

Florida; in 1955, its value was in excess of $22 million. Peanuts ranked

second with $6 million and cotton ranked third with $4.6 million. With these

three crops subject to allotment programs, however, other crops have increased

in importance. Soybeans were introduced into the area and are important in

several counties. The acreage of oats has increased. A large acreage is

planted to corn, with about half harvested for grain and the rest hogged-off

or grazed. Interplanted corn and peanuts constitute a major source of forage

for production of hogs in the area.

In 1954, receipts from the sale of livestock and livestock products

amounted approximately to $21 million in North and West Florida. Although

nearly a third of these receipts came from the sale of hogs, other sales such

as cattle, calves, chickens, eggs, and milk increased in relative importance

from 1949 to 1954. Receipts from the sale of milk increased especially in

Economic Area I. Sales of cattle and calves increased especially in Economic

Area III.

Despite the significant decrease in farm population and the signif-

icant increase in the nonagricultural segment of the economy, incomes of

families in this area have continued to average among the lowest in the nation

during the last several decades. This is true of both farm and nonfarm

families.

Based on data from the 1949 Census of Agriculture, Economic Areas I

and III were classified as "serious low-income and level-of-living areas."

The residual farm income to operator and family labor in this area averaged

less than $1,000 in 1949 compared with a level in excess of $5,000 in Central






-7-


and South Florida. Farm operator level-of-living indexes for 1954 reveal

similar substantial differences and place farm families in this area in the

lowest one-fifth in the nation.

Statistics compiled by the Bureau of Economic and Business Research

of the University of Florida show that in 1954 per capital income in Florida

was $1,506. This was approximately 85 percent of the national average. Of

the 25 counties in Economic Areas I and III, 18 had per capital incomes of less

than $1,000. The counties in this area ranged from a low of $580 to a high

of $1,480 in per capital incomes, with none reaching the State level.

In many of the counties in North and West Florida, sources of

income continue to be limited largely to an agriculture that includes many

subsistence farms, the harvesting and primary processing of timber and forest

products, and government expenditures in the form of payrolls and welfare

payments.


Method of Procedure

For purposes of the study reported here, a special delineation was

made of the open-country portion of Economic Areas I and III. Twenty counties

were involved, including the 14 counties in Economic Area III and all or

parts of 6 of the counties in Economic Area I. Five gulf coast counties

(Bay, Gulf, Franklin, Liberty, and Wakulla) were excluded because of the

indicated low numbers of farms and rural residents. Within the 20 counties,

identifiable irrelevant and unimportant territories were delineated on county

maps and excluded from the universe to be studied. Excluded areas consisted

of incorporated towns, cities and villages, other closely settled or built-up

places, national and state forests and purchase units, military reservations,

gulf coastal fringe and beach zones, and large swamp areas showing few






-8-


evidences of inhabitants (Figure 1),

The remaining area to be surveyed was then divided into counting

units and these in turn were divided into sample segments. These sample

segments each had a known probability of selection. A sample was drawn from

these segments and personal interviews were made at each household in the

sample segments. Data obtained included sources and amounts of family income,

population characteristics, land use, farm assets, net worth, level of living

items, occupations and other pertinent information. A total of 1,057 inter-

views yielded 748 schedules and 309 memorandums. Income records were com-

plete on 730 of the schedules; they form the basis for the statistics presented

in this report.









I. Description of Human Resources


The 730 sample households contained a total of 2,887 individuals

(Table 1). While nonwhite households accounted for 32 percent of all house-

holds, nonwhite individuals accounted for 36 percent of the total population

because of the larger size of nonwhite families.


TABLE l.--Number and percentage distribution of survey households and popula-
tion by race, 730 rural households, North and West Florida, 1956


Race Households Total : Households Total
: Population : : Population


S Number Number Percent Percent

White 496 1,839 68.0 63.7

Nonwhite :234 1,048 32.0 36.3

Total :730 2,887 100.0 100.0



The total population.--Distribution of the total sample population

by age and race is given in Table 2 and Figure 2. Almost three-fifths of the

population consisted of persons below 20 or over 64 years of age. This com-

pares with about half in the United States. The proportions of the popula-

tion below working age and above the age of maximum physical effort were sub-

stantially higher among the nonwhite than among the white population. Persons

aged 20 through 64 years made up 45.6 percent of the white population compared

with 35.1 percent of the nonwhite population.

Table 3 and Figures 3 and 4 show the distribution of the population

14 years of age and older by age, sex, and race. The male population had

larger proportions both below the age of 20 and beyond 64 years of age, and

conversely, a smaller proportion in the working age groups than the female





-10-


TABLE 2.-Population distribution by age classes and
race, 730 rural households, North and West Florida,
1956


Age : Total : White : Nonwhite

: Number Number Number

Under 6 years 398 213 185
6 9 years 254 147 107
10-13 years : 323 205 118
14-19 years : 358 225 133
20-24 years 100 66 34
25-29 years 102 66 36
30-34 years 133 77 56
35-39 years 156 109 47
40-44 years 173 125 48
45-49 years 186 142 44
50-54 years 135 98 37
55-59 years 113 79 34
60-64 years 109 77 32
65-69 years 128 73 55
70-74 years 98 60 38
75 years and over : 111 72 39
Not ascertained : 10 5 5

All ages : 2,887 1,839 1,048


population. This was true for both the white and nonwhite populations. For

the total population 14 years of age and older, the ratio of females to males

was 1.1 to 1. When divided on the basis of race, the ratio of females to

males was 1 to 1 in the white population compared with 1.26 to 1 in the non-

white population. Among individuals in the working age groups (20 to 64 years)

the ratio of females to males increased to 1.1 to 1 in the white population

and 1.4 to 1 in the nonwhite population.

Population distribution based on relationship to the family head

is shown in Table 4. The nuclear family (fathers, mothers, and their off-

spring) constituted 95 of each 100 individuals in the total population. The

remaining 5 percent consisted of parents, other relatives, and other persons.




















Age
75 and over
70 74
65 69
60 64
55 59
50 54
45 49
40 44
35 39
30 34
25 29
20 24
14 19
10 13
6- 9
Under 6


White


Nonwhite


20 15 10 5 0 5 10 15 20
Percent

Fig. 2,--Percentage distribution of white and nonwhite
populations by age, 730 rural households, North and West
Florida, 1956.


-11-





-12-


TABLE 3.--Number of persons 14 years of age and older by age classes, race,
and sex, 730 rural households, North and West Florida, 1956


Total :White Nonwhite
Age

: Total: Male: Female Total: Male: Female: Total: Male: Female


SNo. No. No. No. No No. No. No

14 years : 78 42 36 48 26 22 30 16 14
15 19 years : 280 153 127' 177 103 74 103 50 53
20 24 years : 100 42 58 66 29 37 34 13 21
25 29 years: 102 45 57 66 31 35 36 14 22
30 34 years: 133 57 76 77 35 42 56 22 34
35 39 years 156 66 90 109 48 61 47 18 29
40 44 years : 173 73 100 125 54 71 48 19 29
45 49 years : 186 96 90 142 72 70 44 24 20
50 54 years: 135 70 65 98 55 43 37 15 22
55 59 years : 113 58 55 79 41 38 34 17 17
60 64 years: 109 47 62 77 37 40 32 10 22
65 69 years : 128 56 72 73 29 44 55 27 28
70 74 years: 98 51 47 60 35 25 38 16 22
75 years
and over : 111 60 51 72 40 32 39 20 19
Not ascertained 10 3 7 5 1 4 5 1 4

All ages : 1,912 919 993 1,274 636 638 638 282 356





-13-


Age
75 and over
70 74
65 69
60 64
55 59
50 54
45 49
40 44
35 39
30 34
25 29
20 24
15 19
14


Male


20 15 10 5


Percent


Fig, 3,--Percentage distribution of
populations 14 years of age and older by
holds, North and West Florida, 1956.


Female


5 10 15 20


white male and female
age, 496 rural house-


Age
75 and over
70 74
65 69
60 64
55 59
50 54
45 49
40 44
35 39
30 34
25 29
20 24
15 19


Male


20 15 10 5 0
Percent


Female


5 10 15 20


Fig, 4,--Percentage distribution of nonwhite male and
female populations 14 years of age and older by age, 234 rural
households, North and West Florida, 1956,





-14-


TABLE 4,-Number and percentage distribution of total population by relation-
ship to household head and by race, 730 rural households, North and West
Florida, 1956


: Population
Relationship of :
household member : : :
to family head : Total : White : Nonwhite : Total : White : Nonwhite


: Number Number Number : Percent Percent Percent

Head of household: 730 496 234 25.3 27.0 22,3

Spouse : 576 413 163 : 19.9 22.5 15.5

Children : 1,433 857 576 : 49.6 46.6 55.0

Parent 34 21 13 : 1.2 1.1 1.2

Other relative : 103 50 53 : 3.6 2.7 5.1

Other persons : 11 2 9 : 0.4 0.1 0.9

Total : 2,887 1,839 1,048 : 1000 100.0 100.0



The nonwhite population had greater proportions of children, other relatives

and other persons, and a smaller proportion of family heads and spouses than

the white population. Within the nonwhite population, there were 550 off-

spring at home for each 1,000 population compared with 466 offspring at home

per 1,000 white population. Relatives including parents of the household

heads and unrelated persons accounted for 7.2 percent of the nonwhite popula-

tion compared with 3.9 percent in the white population.

Among the white population, there were approximately 5 couples

(heads of household and spouse) to each head of household unaccompanied by a

spouse (Table 5). Among the nonwhite population, almost one-third of the

household heads were unaccompanied by a spouse (single, separated, divorced,

widowed). Of the 730 sample households, 14.6 percent had female family heads.

The female heads were equally divided (53 to 52) between white and nonwhite





-15-


households. In relative terms, however, females constituted 10 percent of

white family heads and 22 percent of nonwhite family heads.


TABLE 5.--Number and percentage distribution of persons 14 years of age and
older by relationship to household head and by race and sex, 730 rural house-
holds, North and West Florida, 1956


: Population
Relationship of _
household member :
to family head : Total : White: Nonwhite : Total : White : Nonwhite


: Number Tumber Number Percent Percent Percent

All members:
Head of household : 730 496 234 38.2 38.9 36.7
Spouse : 576 413 163 30.1 32.4 25.6
Children : 458 292 166 23.9 22.9 26.0
Parent 34 21 13 1.8 1,7 2,0
Other relative : 103 50 53 5.4 3.9 8.3
Other persons : 11 2 9 0.6 0.2 1.4

Total 1,912 1,274 638 100.0 100.0 100.0

Males:
Head of household : 625 443 182 68.1 69.6 64.5
Spouse 1 1 0 0.1 0.2 0
Children : 237 165 72 25.8 25.9 25.5
Parent 4 3 1 0.4 0.5 0.4
Other relative 44 22 22 4.8 3.5 7.8
Other persons 7 2 5 0.8 0.3 1.8

Total 918 636 282 100.0 100.0 100.0

Females:
Head of household : 105 53 52 10.6 8.3 14.6
Spouse : 575 412 163 57.9 64.6 45.8
Children : 221 127 94 22.2 19.9 26.4
Parent 30 18 12 3.0 2.8 3.4
Other relative 59 28 31 5.9 4.4 8.7
Other persons : 4 0 4 0.4 0 1.1

Total : 994 638 356 100.0 100.0 100.0



Tables 6 and 7 show the distribution of the population 14 years of

age and older by years of school completed and by sex, age, and race.







TABIE 6.--Number of persons 14 years of age and older by age classes and years of school completed, 730 rural
households, North and West Florida, 1956


: Years of school completed

S: :Still :
Age : Total : : Elementary :High school: College :in : Not
_:: :__ : :_ :school : reported
: : None : : : : :
: 1 : 1-4 5-6 : 7 : 8 1-3 4 1-3 : 4 or:
: : : : : more:


:No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No.

14 years : 78 .. .. 1 .. .. .. .. 7 .
15 19 years : 280 1 1 14 5 12 17 25 .. 205
20 24 years : 100 1 5 10 8 7 24 30 -4 2 8 1
25 29 years : 102 2 9 8 9 10 25 25 4 5 5
30 34 years : 133 3 12 16 11 11 40 27 6 5 1 1
35 39 years : 156 3 20 19 15 21 38 31 4 3 .. 2
40 44 years 173 7 34 30 12 22 32 25 4 3 .. 4
45 49 years 186 5 36 33 21 28 32 16 1 7 .. 7
50 54 years : 135 9 32 25 14 22 17 7 2 1 1 5
55 59 years 113 7 34 31 8 17 9 2 1 1 .. 3
60 64 years 109 13 34 21 6 16 8 3 3 .. .. 5
65 69 years 128 16 47 26 4 15 7 7 2 .. .. 4
70 74 years : 98 9 40 18 4 10 6 1 2 .. .. 8
75 years and over : 111 20 37 15 3 5 8 2 1 .. .. 20
Not ascertained 10 1 2 1 .. .. .. 3 .. .. .. 3

All ages : 1,912 97 343 267 121 196 263 204 34 27 297 63




-17-


TABLE 7.--Number of
pleted, by sex and


persons 14 years of age and older by years of school com-
race, 730 rural households, North and West Florida, 1956


S Total White Nonwhite
Years of ___
school :
completed : Total:Male:Female : Total:Male:Female : Total:Male:Female


: No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No.

None : 97 52 45 45 24 21 52 28 24

Elementary:
1-4 years : 343 193 150 177 106 71 166 87 79
5-6 years : 267 128 139 159 80 79 108 48 60
7 years : 121 61 60 91 50 41 30 11 19
8 years : 196 92 104 152 78 74 44 14 30

High school:
1-3 years : 263 95 168 205 82 123 58 13 45
4 years : 204 79 125 175 69 106 29 10 19

College:
1-3 years : 34 14 20 25 13 12 9 1 8
4 years or more: 27 8 19 23 7 16 4 1 3

Still in school : 297 168 129 186 111 75 111 57 54

Not reported : 63 28 35 36 16 20 27 12 15

Total 1,912 918 994 1,274 636 638 638 282 356




-18-


Approximately 5 percent of the population reported no formal schooling and

33 percent had completed less than seven grades. Approximately 11 percent

had completed high school. The number of individuals reporting education

above the high school level constituted 3 percent of the population.

The relatively high proportion of persons with low levels of educa-

tion can be attributed mainly to the age composition of the population. On

the average, individuals reporting in the age group 25 to 39 years had com-

pleted one year in high school; those aged 40 to 54 years had completed about

the seventh grade; and, those aged 55 to 69 years had completed about the

fifth grade. One in eight of those persons over 55 years of age reported no

formal schooling. With such a relationship existing between age and educa-

tion, and with 37 percent of the adult population over 50 years of age,

average educational levels for the population as a whole were low.

Substantial differences in educational levels existed between the

white and nonwhite populations. The nonwhite population had greater propor-

tions in the three lowest educational classes (no schooling, 1 to 4 years and

5 to 6 years) than the white population. Fifty-one percent of the nonwhite

population was in these three classes compared with 30 percent of the white

population. Above the sixth grade level, the reverse was true for each edu-

cational class. Approximately 14 percent of the white population had com-

pleted high school compared with 5 percent of the nonwhite population. For

both the white and nonwhite populations, females had smaller proportions than

males in the three lowest educational classes.

Although the ratio of males to females in the group aged 14 to 29

years was approximately 1 to 1 (282 males and 278 females), there are 9 males

for every 8 females still in school. Among the white population, there were

189 males age 14 to 29 at home compared with 168 females (a ratio of 1.1 to






-19-


1.0), but there were 6 males in school for every 4 females. Among the non-

white population in this age group, there were 93 males and 110 females (a

ratio of 0.85 to 1.00), but approximately the same number of each sex was still

in school (57 males and 54 females).

Tables 8 and 9 show the distribution of the population 14 years of

age and older by sex, race, and physical capacity for work. Some 19 percent

of the population placed some limitation on their physical capacity. About

7 percent were "unable to work," and 12 percent said they could do "light

work only." Physical limitations were more prevalent among males than among

females. By races, limitations were somewhat more severe among nonwhite than

among white males. Limitations were relatively more serious as well as more

frequent among nonwhite than among white females.


TABLE 8.--Number of persons 14 years of age and older by physical capacity for
work and by sex and race, 730 rural households, North and West Florida, 1956


: Population 14 years of age and older

Physical :
capacity :Total :White Nonwhite
for work :

:Total: Male: Female: Total: Male: Female: Total: Male: Female


:No. No. No. No. No, No. No. No. No.

No limitation : 1,420 658 762 948 451 497 472 207 265

Light work only : 236 124 112 153 88 65 83 36 47

Unable to work : 127 78 49 83 52 31 44 26 18

Not reported : 129 58 71 90 45 45 39 13 26

Total : 1,912 918 994 1,274 636 638 638 ?82 356





-20-


TABLE 9.--Percentage distribution of persons 14 years of age and older by phys-
iJal capacity for work and by sex and race, 730 rural households, North and
West Florida, 1956


: Population 14 years of age and older

Physical :
capacity : Total White Nonwhite
for work

:Total: Male, Female: Totals. Male,. .emaler.Total Male: Female


SPet. Pct. Pct. Pet. Pct. Pct. Pet. Pct. Pet.

No limitation : 74.3 71.7 76.7 74.4 70.9 77.9 74.0 73.4 74.4

Light work only: 12.3 13.5 11.3 12.0 13.8 10.2 13.0 12,8 13.2

Unable to work : 6.6 8.5 4.9 6.5 8.2 4.9 6.9 9.2 5.1

Not reported : 6.8 6.3 7.1 7.1 7.1 7.0 6.1 4.6 7.3

Total :100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0



Population by household.--Average family size by type of household

and race is shown in Table 10. Family size averaged slightly less than 4

members for the 730 households. On the average, farm families were consid-

erably larger than nonfarm families. Within farm households, commercial farm

families averaged the smallest in size with part-time farm families the

largest. This was true for both white and nonwhite households, although, as

mentioned earlier, nonwhite families were substantially larger than white

families for all household types.

While family size averaged approximately 4 persons, a relatively

large proportion of the households had 6 or more members (Table 11). House-

holds of 6 or more members accounted for 18 percent of all white households

compared with 31 percent of nonwhite households. White families of 2, 3, and

4 members were especially numerous, as were nonwhite families of 8 or more





-21-


TABLE 10.-Average family size by type of household and race, 730 rural house-
holds, North and West Florida, 1956


: Family size

Type of household
:All White : Nonwhite
: households : households : households


: Number Number Number

Farms:
Residential 4.34 3.84 5.52
Part-time 5.27 5.07 5.67
Commercial 3.86 3.75 4.38

All farms 4.22 3.97 5.06

Nonfarms 3.68 3.36 4.15

All households :3.95 3.71 4.48



members. Nearly 1 in 6 of the nonwhite households had 8 or more members com-

pared with about one household of this size for every 20 white households.

Most of the households having only one member were located on nonfarm units.

Generally speaking, a relatively large proportion of the residential farms

had only two members; most of the commercial farms were operated by white

families having 2 to 5 members; and, families on part-time farms had relatively

larger proportions in the larger family size classes.

The parents in the 730 rural households reported 1,602 children who

had left home to stay, an average of 2.19 per household (Table 12). The

number who had left home exceeded the number of offspring still at h@me in 1956.

In addition to the relatively large families still at home, this is further

evidence of the high birthrate in this low-income area. In terms of the more

mature offspring, those 14 years of age and older, an average of more than

three had left home for each one remaining. This says nothing concerning





-22-


TABIE ll.-Tumber of white and nonwhite households by family size classes and
household type, 730 rural households, North and West Florida, 1956


Type of household

Size of
household : Farms
All : Tonfarm
households :onf
SAll :Residential'Part-time Commercial'
: : farms:
S *


Number Number Number


Number Number Number


White:

1 member
2 members
3 members
4 members
5 members
6 members
7 members
8-10 members
11 and over

All households

Nonwhite:

1 member
2 members
3 members
4 members
5 members
6 members
7 members
8-10 members
11 and over

All households


39
138
86
85
59
37
26
23
3

496


19
55
37
25
26
17
15
32
8

234


177


283



1
17
11
11
13
6
9
15
2

85


213


migration from the area of individuals or of entire families.

The number of white persons who had left home exceeded the number

of nonwhite persons by a ratio of 1.7 to 1.0. As previously indicated, the

ratio of white to nonwhite households was 2.1 to 1.0. Nonwhite families,





-23-


TABLE 12.--Number of children who have left home by type of household and by
race and sex, 730 rural households, North and West Florida, 1956


: Number : White Nonwhite
Household : of :: : Total
type : households :
: Sons : Daughters : Sons : Daughters


: Number Number Number Number Number Number

Farms:
Residential : 91 64 81 53 34 232
Part-time : 63 36 35 29 27 127
Commercial : 214 161 164 56 58 439

All farms : 368 261 280 138 119 798

Nonfarms 362 224 245 154 181 804

Total 730 485 525 292 300 1,602



however, are larger than white households in terms of average number of off-

spring, in a ratio of 1.3 nonwhite to 1.0 white members. Offspring 14 years

of age and older (including those away from as well as at home) were found in

the average household in a ratio of 1.2 in nonwhite households to 1.0 in

white households. The proportions of offspring 14 years of age and older who

had left home were comparable; 77.5 percent for the white households and 78.1

for the nonwhite households.

The proportion of available male offspring 14 years of age and older

who had left home was higher in nonwhite households than among the white

households. The reverse was true with regard to female offspring who had left

home. In each instance, relatively more offspring had left home in the non-

white households.

Relative to a measure of household size which included those away

as well as at home, the departure of offspring had been greatest from nonwhite

commercial farms followed by white nonfarm units. Similarly, departures tended





-24-


to have been relatively fewest from white part-time farms followed by nonwhite

part-time farms.

As mentioned earlier, the proportion of households headed by females

was twice as great among nonwhite as among white families. In both racial

groups (Table 13), these households were predominately nonfarm units.


TABLE 13.--Number of households by sex and race of household head and by type
of household, 730 rural households, North and West Florida, 1956


: Type of household


Head of : : Farms
household :All _
: households: : : :Nonfarm
All
farm:Residential:Part-time Commercial:
: : farms:
: __

: Number Number Number Number Number Number

Male heads:
White : 443 267 56 42 169 176
Nonwhite : 182 74 22 20 32 108

Female heads:
White 53 16 8 .. 8 37
Nonwhite : 52 11 5 1 5 41

All households : 730 368 91 63 214 362



Among the white population (Table 14), households headed by males

and females had approximately the same average number of children 14 years of

age and older at home and approximately the same average number of relatives

and unrelated persons in the household. Among the nonwhite households, how-

ever, the average number of children, other relatives, and other persons was

substantially higher for households headed by females than for households

headed by males.

Survey households are classified by "family type" in Tables 15, 16,





-25-


TABLE 14.--Number of persons 14 years of age and older by relationship to
household head by sex and by race, 625 households with male heads and 105
.. .., householdascwith female heads4 J.lteth and West F6lfida, 1956


: White : Nonwhite
Relationship of households :households
household member :
to family head :
:Total : Male : Female : Total : Male : Female


: Number Number Number Number Number Number

Male household heads:
Heads of households : 443 443 0 182 182 0
Spouse of heads 412 0 412 163 0 163

Children 262 149 113 121 51 70
Parents : 18 3 15 11 1 10

Other relatives : 46 20 26 37 14 23
Other members : 1 1 0 3 0 3

All members : 1,182 616 566 517 248 269

Female household heads:
Heads of households : 53 0 53 52 0 52
Spouse of heads 1 1 0 0 0 0

Children : 30 16 14 45 21 24
Parents : 3 0 3 2 0 2

Other relatives 4 2 2 16 8 8
Other members : 1 1 0 6 5 1

All members : 92 20 72 121 34 87


and 17. Of the white households headed by males (Table 16),


a little less


than half (46.7 percent) had male heads who were "employable" (45 to 65 years

of age, or under 45 years of age with physical condition limiting work done

but not disabled). An additional 21.5 percent of the households had no

employable males 18 to 64 years of age present. The remaining 31.8 percent

had either a fully employable male head or other member who was fully employ-

able (defined as 18 to 45 years of age and employed in 1956 and without





-26-


physical condition limiting the kind of work done).

The nonwhite households (Table 17) headed by males had a smaller

proportion (36.8 percent) with male heads who were "employable," a higher

proportion (31.3 percent) with no employable males 18 to 64 years of age

present, and a remainder (31.9 percent) with either a fully employable head

of household or a fully employable other member.

A larger proportion of the white households headed by females had

no employable males present than was the case among the nonwhite households

headed by females.





-27-


TABIE 15,--Description of family types, 730 rural households, North and West
Florida, 1956


Family : Description
type


1 Husband and wife households with husband under 45 years of
age and with no occupational handicap.

2 Husband and wife households with (1) husband 45-64 years of
age or (2) under 45 years of age but with physical condition
limiting work he can do but who is not "disabled"-i

3 Male household head without wife present: male under 45
years of age and with no occupational handicap.

4 Male household head without wife present: with (1) male
45-64 years of age or (2) under 45 years of age with
physical i9ndition limiting kind of work he can do but not
disabled.-/

5 Female household heads with one or more male members 18 to
45 years of age who were employed in 1956 in farming or in
nonfarm work (p. 14, question 25, a(l) and (2) who reported
no physical condition limiting the kind of work they can
do).

6 Female household heads with no male members "fully employ-
able" (as defined in 5 above) but with one or more male
members 45-64 years of age not disabled or 18 to 45 years
of age with a physical condition limiting kind of work but
is employed in farm or nonfarm work and is not "disabled."-/

7 Households without an "employable" male member 18 to 64
years of age. (As used, the term employable would exclude
all males 65 years of age or over; all under 18 years of
age; all between 18 and 64 who were "disabled" in 1956;
and all whose major activity in 1956 was "in school").

8 Husband and wife households and households with male head
(without wife present) with male head or husband over 64
years of age and with one or more other fully employable
male members.


1/Includes males 45-64 years of age and physically handicapped but
not disabled.





-28-


TABLE 16.--Number and percentage distribution of households by family type, 496
white rural households, North and West Florida, 1956


Household classification-l

: Households
Presence of
Type: employable males Nominal leadership

No. Pet.

1 : Male head "fully employable" Male head (with wife) 125 25,2
2 : Male head "employable" Male head (with wife) 198 39.9
3 : Male head "fully employable" Male head (no wife) 7 1.4
4 : Male head "employable" Male head (no wife) 9 1.8
8 : Male member "fully employable" Male head (age 65 and over) 9 1.8
7a : None present Male head (age 65 and over
or disabled) 95 19.2
5 : Male member "fully employable" Female head 6 1.2
6 : Male member "employable" Female head 1 0.2
7b : None present Female head 46 9.3

Total 496 100.0


-See Table 15 for description of types.


TABLE 17.-Number and percentage distribution of households by family type, 234
nonwhite rural households, North and West Florida, 1956


Household classificationl/

: : Households
: Presence of
Type: employable males Nominal leadership
*

;No. Pet.

1 : Male head "fully employable" Male head (with wife) 49 20.9
2 : Male head "employable" Male head (with wife) 61 26.1
3 : Male head "fully employable" Male head (no wife) 5 2.1
4 : Male head "employable" Male head (no wife) 6 2.6
8 : Male member "fully employable" Male head (age 65 and over) 4 1.7
7a : None present Male head (age 65 and over
:or disabled) 57 24.4
5 : Male member "fully employable" Female head 13 5.6
6 : Male member "employable" Female head 2 0,8
7b : None present Female head 37 15.8

Total 234 100.0

I/See Table 15 for description of types.









II. Utilization of Human Resources


The employment status of individuals 14 years of age and older is

shown in Table 18. Of the 1,912 persons, 1,103, or 58 percent, reported some

type of employment during 1956.2


TABLE 18.--Distribution of population 14 years of age and older by sex, race,
and employment status, 730 rural households, North and West Florida, 1956


: Employment status
: Total :_
Sex and race : population : Unem
: Reporting : employed : Not
work labor not in the : ascertained
*labor force

SNumber Number Number Number

Males:
White 636 500 127 9
Nonwhite 282 213 65 4
Total 918 713 192 13

Females:
White 638 202 426 10
Nonwhite 356 188 159 9
Total : 994 390 585 19

Total population : 1,912 1,103 777 32



There were marked differences in proportions employed between races

and sexes. Among the male population, 79 percent of the whites reported

either part-time or full-time employment compared with 76 percent of the non-

whites. Among the female population, however, almost 53 percent of the non-

whites reported employment compared with less than 32 percent of the whites.

Because of the large proportion of females working, 63 percent of the nonwhite

2
This compares favorably with the national average of 56 percent of
the civilian population employed in 1956. In the United States in 1956, more
than three-fourths of the civilians 14 years of age and older not employed were
either in school or keeping house.









population reported employment, compared with 55 percent of the white popula-

tion.

Of the total population 14 years of age and older, 543 reported work

on the home farm during 1956, and a rather comparable 566 reported work at non-

farm jobs. Only about half as many (270) reported work on other farms (Table

19), Individuals 14 through 19 found employment most frequently on the home

farm, followed in order of importance by work on other farms. In age classes

20 through 54 years, nonfarm employment showed the largest proportion of indi-

viduals, followed by individuals reporting work on the home farm. Above 55

years of age, larger proportions of individuals reported work on the home farm.

Table 19 also indicates the extent to which individuals were engaged in more

than one type of employment. As mentioned previously, only 1,103 individuals

reported employment during 1956, yet the number reporting the three separate

types of employment totaled 1,379.

From the standpoint of race and sex (Tables 20 through 23), propor-

tions of the population reporting the three major types of employment varied

considerably. Proportions of the white population reporting work on the home

farm and nonfarm work were essentially the same (30 percent) but only 7.5 per-

cent reported work on other farms. For the nonwhite population, larger propor-

tions found employment at nonfarm jobs, followed in order of importance by work

on other farms, then work on the home farm. As against the 7.5 percent of the

white population reporting work on other farms, more than 27 percent of the

nonwhite population reported such work. In both the white and nonwhite popu-

lations, larger proportions of individuals above the age of 55 were employed

on the home farm.

Of the male population 14 years of age and older, a larger proportion

was employed on the home farm than at nonfarm work. This was due to the






-31-


TABLE 19.-Number
ing employment by


and percentage of population 14 years of age and older report-
age classes and major type of employment, 730 rural households,
North and West Florida, 1956


: :Reporting work on --
TAgotal :
Age put
population Home Other : Nonfarm
:farms farms : jobs


: Number Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

14 years : 78 20 25.6 15 19.2 1 1.3
15 19 years : 280 88 31.4 62 22.1 41 14.6
20 24 years 100 22 22,0 29 29.0 50 50.0
25 29 years 102 21 20.6 13 12.7 48 47.1
30 34 years 133 23 17.3 29 21.8 64 48.1
35 39 years 156 49 31.4 21 13.5 71 45.5
40 44 years : 173 55 31.8 23 13.3 75 43.4
45 49 years : 186 72 38.7 25 13.4 81 43.5
50 54 years 135 46 34.1 20 14.8 48 35.6
55 59 years 113 38 33.6 10 8.8 34 30.1
60 64 years : 109 37 33.9 32 11.0 23 21.1
65 69 years 128 33 25.8 7 5.5 14 10.9
70 74 years 98 23 23.5 2 2,0 8 8.2
75 years and over : 111 14 12.6 2 1.8 6 5.4
Not ascertained 10 2 20.0 ., .. 2 20.0

Total :1,912 543 28.4 270 14.1 566 29.6






-32-


TABLE 20.-Distribution of white population 14 years of age and older by age
and by major types of work reported, 496 rural households, North and West
Florida, 1956


: : Reporting work on --
Total
Agepopulation *
population: Home Other Nonfarm
: farms : farms jobs


:Number Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

14 years : 48 12 25.0 5 10.4
15 19 years 177 57 32.2 25 14.1 32 18.1
20 24 years 66 11 16.7 8 12.1 37 56.1
25 29 years 66 17 25.8 3 4.5 25 37.9
30 34 years 77 14 18.2 6 7.8 41 53.2
35 39 years 109 39 35.8 5 4,6 50 45.9
40 44 years : 125 39 31.2 13 10.4 47 37.6
45 49 years 142 56 39.4 9 6.3 64 45.1
50 54 years 98 37 37.8 6 6.1 30 30.6
55 59 years 79 28 35.4 2 2.5 21 26.6
60 64 years 77 27 35.1 8 10.4 15 19.5
65 C9 years 73 16 21.9 3 4.1 9 12.3
70 74 years 60 18 30.0 1 1.7 6 10.0
75 years and over : 72 10 13.9 2 2.8 4 5.6
Not ascertained : 5 1 20.0 .. .. 2 40.0

Total 1,274 382 30.0 96 7.5 383 30.1






-33-


TABLE 21.--Distribution of nonwhite population 14 years of age and older by age
and by major types of work reported, 234 rural households, North and West
Florida, 1956


: Reporting work on -
Total : .
Ae population Home Other Nonfarm
: farms farms : jobs


:Number Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

14 years : 30 8 26.7 10 33.3 1 3.3
15 19 years : 103 31 30.1 37 35.9 9 8.7
20 24 years 34 11 32.4 21 61.8 13 38.2
25 29 years 36 4 11.1 10 27.8 23 63.9
30 34 years 56 9 16.1 23 41.1 23 41.1
35 39 years 47 10 21.3 16 34.0 21 44.7
40 44 years 48 16 33.3 10 20.8 28 58.3
45 49 years 44 16 36.4 16 36.4 17 38.6
50 54 years 37 9 24.3 14 37.8 18 48.6
55 59 years 34 10 29.4 8 23.5 13 38.2
60 64 years 32 10 31.2 4 12.5 8 25.0
65 69 years 55 17 30.9 4 7.3 5 9.1
70 74 years 38 5 13.2 1 2.6 2 5.3
75 years and over : 39 4 10.3 .. .. 2 5.1
Not ascertained : 5 1 20.0 .. ....

Total : 638 161 25.2 174 27.3 183 28.7






-34-


TABLE 22.--Distribution of male population 14 years of age and older by age and
by major types of work reported, 730 rural households, North and West Florida,
1956


Reporting work on --
STotal
Age :population : *
Spon Home Other : Nonfarm
farms : farms jobs


Number Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

14 years 42 17 40.5 8 19.0 1 2.4
15 19 years 153 61 39.9 39 25.5 22 14.4
20 24 years 42 13 31.0 16 38.1 26 61.9
25 29 years 45 15 33.3 7 15.6 28 62.2
30 34 years 57 19 33.3 13 22.8 37 64.9
35 39 years 66 30 45.5 9 13.6 47 71.2
40 44 years 73 38 52.1 14 19.2 46 63.0
45 49 years 96 56 58.3 16 16.7 61 63.5
50 54 years 70 40 57.1 11 15.7 37 52.9
55 59 years 58 32 55.2 6 10.3 24 41.4
60 64 years 47 25 53.2 7 14.9 15 31.9
65 69 yoars 56 24 42.9 6 10.7 12 21,4
70 74 yaars 51 20 39.2 2 3.9 5 9.8
75 ye-rs and over : 60 13 21.7 2 3.3 5 8.3
Not ascertained : 3 1 33.3 .. ..

Total : 919 404 44.0 156 17.0 366 39.8
4






-35-


TABLE 23.--Distribution of female population 14 years of age and older by age
and by major types of work reported, 730 rural households, North and West
Florida, 1956


S: Reporting work on --
STotal :
g population Home Other : Nonfarm
:farms farms : obs


:Number Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

14 years : 36 3 8.3 7 19.4 ..
15 19 years 127 27 21,3 23 18.1 19 15.0
20 24 years 58 9 15.5 13 22,4 24 41.4
25 29 years 57 6 10.5 6 10.5 20 35.1
30 34 years 76 4 5.3 16 21.1 27 35.5
35 39 years 90 19 21.1 12 13.3 24 26.7
40 44 years 100 7 17.0 9 9.0 29 29.0
45 49 years 90 16 17.8 9 10.0 20 22.2
50 54 years 65 6 9.2 9 13.8 11 16.9
55 59 years 55 6 10.9 4 7.3 10 18.2
60 64 years 62 12 19.4 5 8.1 8 22:9
65 69 years 72 9 12.5 1 1.4 2 28
70 74 years 47 3 6.4 .. .. 3 6.4
75 year and over : 51 1 2.0 .. .. 1 2.0
Not ascertained 7 1 14.3 2 28.6

Total : 993 139 14,0 114 11.5 200 20.1






-36-


significantly higher proportions of individuals below 20 and over 50 years of

age working on the home farm. Between the ages of 20 and 50, greater propor-

tions reported nonfarm employment. Larger numbers of females reported nonfarm

jobs from the standpoint of the total female population as well as the age

groups between 20 and 50 years of age.

Previous tables concerning proportions of the population engaged in

the three types of employment considered individuals working on the home farm

as a proportion of the total population 14 years of age and older. In Table 24,

individuals reporting work on the home farm are shown as a proportion of the

farm population 14 years and older. There were 1,063 individuals 14 years of

age and older in the farm population, with the 543 reporting work on the home

farm constituting 51 percent. Approximately 76 percent of the male population

reported work compared with 26 percent of the females. Proportions of the male

population reporting work ranged from 57 percent in the age groups below 20

years to approximately 93 percent in the age group 60 to 64 years. The largest

proportion of females reporting work (36 percent) was the age group 20 to 24

years.

Table 25 shows the distribution of individuals reporting work on the

home farm by months worked. Of the 543 individuals, 263 (48 percent) reported

full-time work, one-third reported from 1 to 3 months work,and 19 percent

reported from 4 to 10 months work. Up to the age of 35, less than 7 percent of

the individuals reported full-time employment on the home farm. Above the age

of 35, almost 63 percent of the individuals reporting work were employed full

time.

The average length of employment on the home farm was 7.7 months for

the 543 reporting individuals (Table 26). Members of white farm households

averaged 8.1 months compared with 6.7 months for members of nonwhite households,






-37-


TABLE 24.--Number and percentage distribution of farm population 14 years of
age and older reporting work on home farm by age and sex, 368 farm households,
North and West Florida, 1956


: Population 14 years of age and older


: Male : Female
Age : :___

Total Reporting Total Reporting
: : work : : work


: Number Percent Number Percent

14 years : 30 56.7 20 15.0
15 19 years : 108 56.5 77 35.1
20 24 years 20 65.0 25 36.0
25 29 years 21 71.4 23 26.1
30 34 years 22 86.4 29 13.8
35 39 years 36 83.3 56 33.9
40 44 years 45 84.4 68 25.0
45 49 years 67 83.6 56 28.6
50 54 years 44 90.9 32 18.8
55 59 years 35 91.4 28 21.4
60 64 years 27 92.6 35 34.3
65 69 years 33 72.7 37 24.3
70 74 years 23 87.0 16 18.8
75 years and over : 23 56.5 21 4.8
Not ascertained 1 100.0 5 20.0

Total : 535 75.5 528 26.3



The fuller employment of the white population is most noticeable in the age

classes ranging from 30 to 55 years in which white persons averaged about 9

months compared with less than 7 months for nonwhite persons. The length of

time worked by the male population averaged nearly twice as much as that worked

by the female population, 8.8 months to 4.5 months.

Work on other farms in the survey area is mainly seasonal in character;

it is related to the harvesting of cotton and tobacco crops. Less than 10 per-

cent of the 270 individuals reporting farm wage work were employed full time

(Table 27). Almost 60 percent were employed less than 9 weeks. Two-fifths of






-38-


TABLE 25.-Population 14 years of age and older reporting work on home farm by
age and by months worked, 368 farm households, North and West, Florida, 1956


: Months worked on home farm
Age
: : : : : : : : : :
: 1 : 2 : 3 : 4: 5: 6 : 7 : 8 : 9 10: 12: Total


No. No. o No No. No... No No. N No.. .No. No.

14 years : 4 3 8 .. 4 .. .. .. *. .. 1 20
15 19 years : 13 19 24 9 9 5 *. .. 1 8 88
20 24 years : 8 4 1 2 1 3 .. .. .. .. 3 22
25 29 years : 3 3 .. 1 1 1 *. 2 *. 10 21
30 34 years :3 2 2 ., 1 1 1 1 2 10 23
35 39 years :6 9 2 1 .. 3 1 1 1 2 23 49
40 44 years : 6 5 6 .. 1 3 1 .. 2 31 55
45 49 years :8 4 5 .. 1 5 1 1 2 7 38 72
50 54 years : 1 3 2 1 .. 1 .. 2 1 35 46
55 59 years : 2 1 1 .. 2 2 1 1 28 38
60 64 years 1 4 1 1 4 .. .. .. 26 37
65 69 years : 4 2 1 1 1 .. 1 .. .. 23 33
70 74 years 2 1 1 1 .. 1 1 16 23
75 years and over: 1 2 .. ~ *. .. 1 .. .. 10 14
Not ascertained : .. .. .* .. .. .. ** *. 1 2

Total :61 63 54 17 19 26 7 8 9 16 263 543


the individuals reporting farm wage work were below

Individuals reporting averaged 14 weeks o:

(Table 28). There was little difference in length

bers of the white and nonwhite populations. Weeks


the age of

f farm wage


25 years,

work in 1956


of time worked between mem-

worked by males averaged


more than twice as much as for females.

Data was obtained on distance traveled to work for the two major types

of employment other than work on the home farm. Those persons reporting farm

wage work generally found employment in the immediate vicinity of their homes.

Approximately 88 percent reported traveling less than 10 miles, while only 9 of

the 270 individuals traveled a distance greater than 20 miles.

Distribution of the 566 persons reporting nonfarm work by race, sex,

and occupation is shown in Tables 29 and 30. More than two-thirds of those






-39-


TABIE 26,-Average months worked on home farm by age classes and race and sex,
368 farm households, North and West Florida, 1956


: Individuale reporting
Age

: Total : White : Nonwhite : Male : Female


: Months Morths Months Months Months

14 years 3,3 4.1 2.1 3.2 3.7
15 19 years : 3.9 3.8 4.0 4.4 2.6
20 24 years 3.9 4.2 3.6 5.5 1.6
25 29 years 7.8 7.7 8.0 10.3 1.5
30 34 years 7.8 8.7 6.4 8.8 3.2
35 39 years 7.6 8.2 5.2 8.9 5.5
40 44 years 8.3 9.0 6.5 9.8 4.8
45 49 years 8.7 9.0 7.7 9.8 4.9
50 54 years 10,2 10.6 8.3 11.1 4.2
55 59 years 10.3 10.1 10.9 10.6 9.0
60 64 years 9.5 9.7 8.9 10.8 6.8
65- 69 years 9,2 8.6 9.8 10.4 6.2
70 74 years 9.9 10.1 9.0 10.4 6.0
75 years and over : 9.5 9,6 9.2 10.1 2.0
Not ascertained 6.5 1.0 12.0 12.0 1.0

All ages : 7.7 8.1 6.7 8.8 4.5


reporting were members

female.


of white households and approximately a third were


The most frequently reported occupations were jobs at unskilled labor,

and in crafts and services other than household service. Together, these

three occupational groups accounted for almost 63 percent of the nonfarm

workers.

When divided on the basis of race, the nonwhite population had much

larger proportions than the white population employed as unskilled laborers

and service workers. Approximately 86 percent of the nonwhite workers reported

nonfarm labor and service work compared with 37 percent of the white workers.

Of the total number of individuals reporting occupations in the six categories






-40-


TABLE 27.-Population 14 years of age and older reporting work on other farms by
age and by weeks worked, 730 households, North and West Florida, 1956

Weeks worked on other farms


Age : 10 Full-
: : : : : : : : : over :
:1 :2 :3 :4 :5 :6 :7 8: 9:and :time :Tota1
: over:


:No. o No. 1 o. HNo. No. No. No. No No.. No. No.

14 years : 5 3 1 .. .. 1 1 .. 4 .. 15
15 19 years : 5 10 9 7 4 1 2 7 *. 17 .. 62
20 24 years : 2 4 2 1 2 1 4 .. 13 29
25 29 years : 2 1 1 1 1 .. 4 3 13
30 34 years : 3 3 2 .. .. 1 17 3 29
35 3 years : 2 .. 4 2 1 1 .. 6 5 21
40 44 years : 3 5 2 1 1 1 .. 1 .. 6 3 23
45 49 years 2 3 .. 1 2 1 1 2 .. 9 4 25
50 54 years : 1 3 3 1 2 1 1 .. 5 3 20
55 59 years :.. 2 1 1 1 1 .. 2 2 10
60 64 years :3 2 .. 1 1 .. 1 .. 3 1 12
65 69 years : 3 3 .. ** .. 1 .. .. 7
70 74 years :1 .. .. .. .. 1 2
75 years and over :1 .. .. .. .. ** ** ** 1 2
Not ascertained .. .. .. .. ** **

All ages :33 34 26 15 16 5 7 22 .. 87 25 270


other than labor and service work,


less than 10 percent were nonwhite. The


situation was essentially the same when the white and nonwhite workers were

subdivided on the basis of sex.

A major proportion of the 566 individuals reporting nonfarm work were

employed less than full time (Table 31). Almost 17 percent reported less than

10 weeks of work, 49 percent reported from 10 weeks to full time, and 34 percent

reported full-time employment. Although 95 percent of the persons working full

time were between 20 and 65 years of age there was no consistent relationship

between the percentages working full time and specific age groups. In only one

age group (35 to 39 years) did the proportion of individuals reporting full-time






-41-


TABLE 28.--Average weeks worked on other farms per reporting individual, by age
classes, race, and sex, 730 rural households, North and West Florida, 1956


Individuals reporting

Age
S Total : White : Nonwhite : Male : Female


Weeks Weeks Weeks Weeks Weeks

14 years : 5.1 3.4 6.0 6.9 3.1
15 19 years : 7.9 8.2 7.6 9.0 6.0
20 24 years 12.1 12.9 11.9 14.6 9.2
25 29 years 18.8 20.7 18.2 27.6 8.5
30 34 years 20.0 29.7 16.9 31.8 9.6
35 39 years 20.7 22.2 20.2 32.0 12.2
40 44 years : 8.1 20.0 15.6 25.8 6.1
45 49 years 18.3 15.0 20.1 22.5 10.8
50 54 years 15.0 18.2 13.6 21.8 6.7
55 59 years 21.1 27.5 19.5 31.3 5.8
60 64 years 11.2 5.9 21.8 15.1 5.6
65 69 years 2.4 1.7 3.0 26.7 1.0
70 74 years 26.5 52.0 1.0 26.5
75 years and over : 19.0 19.0 .. 19.0
Not ascertained .... **

All ages 14.0 14.3 13.9 18.6 7.8



employment reach as much as 50 percent.

The average length of time worked per reporting individual was 33

weeks (Table 32). White workers reported an average of 36 weeks compared with

an, average of 27 weeks reported by nonwhite workers. A difference of 6 weeks

in length of time worked existed between male and female workers, who reported

an average of 35 and 29 weeks, respectively. Again there was no consistent

relationship between average length of time worked and specific age groups.

A majority of the individuals reporting nonfarm work were employed

within a distance of 20 miles from their homes (Table 33). Approximately 44

percent traveled less than 10 miles, 20 percent traveled from 10 to 20 miles,

and 36 percent traveled 20 miles or more. A distance exceeding 50 miles was








TABLE 29.--Distribution of individuals reporting nonfarm work by occupation,
race, and sex, 730 rural households, North and West Florida, 1956

Individuals reporting nonfarm work


Occupation White Nonwhite
Total :
: Male : Female Male : Female

Number Number Number Number Number

Professional 26 10 11 2 3
Managers 37 25 9 2 1
Clerical : 31 4 26 1
Sales 25 14 9 .. 2
Craftsmen 97 88 ,. 9
Operatives 50 34 10 6
Private households : 43 .3 1 39
Service 66 27 20 10 9
Laborers (nonfarm) : 191 64 29 70 28
Total 566 266 117 100 83



TABLE 30.-Percentage distribution of individuals reporting nonfarm work by
occupation, race, and sex, 730 rural households, North and West Florida, 1956

: Individuals reporting nonfarm work


Occupation White Nonwhite
Total __

:Male : Female : Male : Female

: Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent

Professional 4.6 3.7 9.4 2.0 3.6
Managers 6.5 9.4 7.7 2.0 1.2
Clerical : 5.5 1.5 22.2 .. 1.2
Sales 4.4 5.3 7.7 .. 2.4
Craftsmen 17.1 33.1 ., 9,0
Operatives 8.8 12.8 8.5 6.0
Private household : 7.6.. 2.6 1.0 47,0
Service 11.7 10.1 17.1 10.0 10.9
Laborers (nonfarm) : 33.8 24.1 24.8 70.0 33.7

Total : 100.0 100.0 100.0 100,0 100.0






-43-


TABLE 31.--Population 14 years of age and older reporting nonfarm employment by
age and by weeks worked, 730 rural households, North and West Florida, 1956

Weeks worked at nonfarm employment

Age : : : : : : : :
: .: :. : : :
:1 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 6 : 7 : 8 : 9 taAd time Total
: :over:


No. No_. No.. N o. No_ No. No. Nooo No. No.

14 years : .. .. .. ** 1 ** ** 1
15 19 years : 2 1 5 1 1 2 1 6 .. 19 3 41
20 24 years : 2 1 .. .. .1 .. .. 27 18 50
25 29 years :.. 1 .. .. ., 1 .. 3 .. 22 21 48
30 34 years : 2 1 1 1 .. .. .. 4 1 36 18 64
35 39 years 1 .. .. 2 .. .. 3 4 .. 25 36 71
40 44 years :2 1 1 3 1 1 2 1 1 38 24 75
45 49 years :.. .. .. .. 2 1 4 .. 38 36 81
50 54 years : 1 1 2 3 .. .. .. 3 1 25 12 48
55 59 years :. 2 .. .. .. 2 .. 16 14 34
60 64 years .. 1 .. 2 .. .. 3 *. 13 4 23
65 69 years .. .. .. .. .. *. .. 1 1 8 4 14
70 74 years 1 1 .. .. .** ** ** 1i 4 1 8
75 years and over: .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 5 1 6
Not ascertained :.. .. .. .. .. ** ** 1 1 2

All ages 11 10 9 12 3 7 11 29 4 277 193 566
3-


traveled by 5 percent of the nonfarm workers.

On the average, white workers traveled

white workers and males tended to travel farther

proportion of individuals traveling less than 20


greater distances than non-

than females. The largest

miles was found among the non-


white females. The smallest proportion traveling less than 20 miles was found

among the white males.





-44-


TABLE 32.--Average weeks worked at nonfarm employment by age classes and by
race and sex, 730 rural households, North and West Florida, 1956


: Individuals reporting

Age : : :
Total : White : Nonwhite : Male : Female


: Weeks Weeks Weeks Weeks Weeks

14 years : 6.0 6.0 6.0 .
15 19 years : 17.1 19.3 9.2 22.8 10.4
20 24 years 34.7 39.5 21.1 35.3 3.4
25 29 years 37.0 42.3 31.2 41.5 30.6
30 34 years 33.5 39.0 23.7 37.5 28.0
35 39 years 38.6 41.4 32.0 40.0 35.9
40 44 years 33.6 35.0 31.3 35.2 31.2
45 49 years 38.1 39.4 33.6 37.7 39.5
50 54 years 30.2 33.0 25.4 32.0 23.9
55 59 years 35.9 39.4 30.2 40.0 26.5
60 64 years 25.6 28.8 19.6 33.3 11.2
65 69 years 33.0 36.1 27.4 32.9 33.5
70 74 years 14.9 11.0 26.5 6.2 29.3
75 years and over : 29.8 34.0 21.5 31.0 24.0
Not ascertained 47.0 47.0 .... 47.0

All ages : 33.3 36.1 27.2 35.5 29.2






-45-


TABLE 33.-Distribution of individuals reporting nonfarm work by race, sex, and
distance traveled to work, 730 rural households, North and West Florida, 1956


:White Nonwhite
Miles traveled _
to nonfarm work
: ~ae : Female : Male : Female


: Number Number Number Number

1 9 miles :00 51 49 47
10 19 miles :37 26 28 24
20 29 miles 36 13 7 1
30 39 miles 22 7 4 1
40 49 miles 10 4 1
50 miles and over 22 1 6 ..
None or not ascertained :39 15 5 10

Total : 266 117 100 83

Percent Percent Percent Percent

1 9 miles : 376 43.6 49.0 56.6
10 19 miles : 13.9 22.2 28.0 28.9
20 29 miles 13.5 11.1 7.0 1.2
30 39 miles 8.3 6,0 4.0 1.2
40 49 miles 3.7 3.4 1.0
50 miles and over 8.3 .9 6.0
None or not ascertained 14.7 12.8 5.0 12.1

Total : 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0






-46-


III. Land and Capital Resources and Their Utilization


Nonfarm households.--The 362 nonfarm households consisted of 226

house-and-lot-units and 136 houses with 3 or more acres of land. These latter

nonfarm units are sometimes referred to as acreagee" or "acreage tracts."

The 226 house-and-lot-units constituted approximately 31 percent of

total households. Among these households, the proportion of nonwhite families

was substantially higher than it was among households. Whereas 32 percent of

all families were nonwhite, 43 percent of the families occupying house-and-lot-

units were nonwhite. Considerable variation in the tenure status existed

between white and nonwhite families (Table 34). A majority of the house-and-

lot-units occupied by nonwhite families were provided either by employers or

others such as relatives. Ownership was more prevalent among the white fami-

lies as was rental of rural residences. Among the white families, 70 percent

either owned or rented their homes compared with 42 percent of the nonwhite

families,


TABIE 34.-Number and percentage distribution of nonfarm house-and-lot-units by
tenure status of family and race, 226 rural households, North and West Florida,
1956


Race

Tenure status
: White : Nonwhite


: Number Percent Number Percent

Owned 58 45.3 30 30.6
Rented 32 25.0 11 11.2
Provided by employer :15 11,7 33 33.7
Provided by others 23 18.0 17 17.4
Not ascertained .. 7 7.1

Total 128 100.0 98 100.0
S






-47-


The 136 nonfarm units other than "house and lots" accounted for 19

percent of total households. Compared with the house-and-lot-units, the pro-

portion of nonfarm acreage tracts occupied by nonwhite families was somewhat

smaller (Table 35). While the nonfarm units of 3 or more acres were mainly

owned by the occupants, ownership among the white families was significantly

higher than among the nonwhite families.


TABLE 35.-Number and percentage distribution of nonfarm units of 3 acres or
more by tenure status of family and race, 136 rural households, North and West
Florida, 1956


Race

Tenure status :
:White :Nonwhite


: Number Percent Number Percent

Owned : 80 94.1 42 82.3
Rented :2 2.4 3 5.9
Provided by employer : **
Provided by others 1 1.1 1 2.0
Undivided estimate 2 2.4 5. 9.8

Total 85 100.0 51 100.0



Total land owned or operated by the occupants of nonfarm acreages

amounted to 5,066 acres and averaged almost 37 acres per household. Units

occupied by white families accounted for 66 percent of the total land and

averaged 40 acres in size. By comparison, the average size of units occupied

by nonwhite families was 32 acres. More than three-fourths of the units were

less than 50 acres in size (Table 36). Smaller units were relatively more

numerous among the nonwhite than among the white population.

The resources used or owned by rural nonfarm families are indicated

here by three measures: value of dwelling, value of nonfarm property, and net






-48-


worth. The data concerning value of dwelling includes all houses, whether

owned, rented, or provided. Owned houses are included in the value of nonfarm

property and therefore are reflected in the data on net worth.


TABLE 36.--Number and percentage distribution of nonfarm units of 3 or more
acres by acreage classes and race, 136 rural households, North and West Florida,
1956


Race
Acres operated :
by size classes :
:White Nonwhite


: Number Percent Number Percent

Under 10 acres 21 24.7 20 39.2

10 29 acres : 23 27.1 13 25.5
30 49 acres 19 22.3 8 15.7
50 69 acres 5 5.9 6 11.7
70 99 acres 9 10.6 1 2.0
10 99 acres 56 65.9 28 54.9

100 139 acres 4 4.7
140 179 acres :2 2.3 2 3.9
180 219 acres : 1 1.2 1 2.0
100 219 acres :7 8.2 3 5.9

220 259 acres 1.2
260 acres and over .. ** *
220 and over : 1 1.2..

All acreage units : 85 100.0 51 100.0


Low-value dwellings dominated the picture among the nonfarm survey

households with 35 percent of all houses valued at less than $500, 68 percent

valued at less than $2,000 and less than 8 percent valued at $5,000 or more

(Table 37). Many of the low-value dwellings were typical two room-and-shed

cabins of the type associated historically with cotton growing under plantation

and sharecropping arrangements. When compared on the basis of race, low-value

dwellings were encountered more frequently among the nonwhite population.






-49-


Houses valued at $5,000 or more were occupied by white families only.


TABLE 37.-Number and percentage distribution of nonfarm households by value of
dwelling and race, 362 rural households, North and West Florida, 1956


Race
Value of dwelling
by classes :
(dollars) White : Nonwhite


: Number Percent Number Percent

Under 500 42 19.7 85 57.0
500- 999 32 15.0 29 19.5
1,000- 1,999 :41 19.2 17 11.4
2,000- 2,999 18 8.5 3 2.0
3,000- 3,999 20 9.4 5 3.4
4,000- 4,999 15 7.0 1 0.7
5,000- 7,499 18 8.5 ..
7,500- 9,999 4 1.9 .
10,000-12,499 :1 0.5
12,500 and over 5 2.3
Not ascertained 17 8.0 9 6.0

Total 213 100.0 149 100.0


In general, nonfarm households had limited nonfarm assets and net

worth (Tables 38 and 39). Low values were encountered most frequently among

the nonwhite population. Among the white households, 80 percent reported non-

farm property valued at less than $500 compared with almost 91 percent of the

nonwhite families. Less than 4 percent of the 362 nonfarm families reported

nonfarm property valued at $3,000 or more.

While almost 50 percent of the nonfarm households reported net worths

of less than $1,000 and 20 percent of more than $5,000, there was considerably

more variation between races than in the case of nonfarm property. Of the non-

white families, 55 percent reported net worths of less than $500 and less than

7 percent reported $5,000 or more. By comparison, 30 percent of the white









TABLE 38,-Number and
nonfarm property and


percentage distribution of nonfarm households by value of
race, 362 rural households, North and West Florida, 1956


: Race
Value of nonfarm :____________
property by classes :
(dollars) White : Nonwhite


: Number Percent Number Percent

None 103 48.4 95 63.8
1- 499 :67 31.4 40 26.8
500- 999 10 4.7 2 1.3
1,000- 1,999 :10 4,7 5 3.4
2,000- 2,999 10 4.7 3 2.0
3,000- 4,999 2 0.9 ..
5,000- 9,999 7 3.3
10,000-14,999 .....
15,000-19,999 : 1 0.5
20,000 and over 2 0.9 ..
Not ascertained 1 0.5 4 2.7

Total : 213 100.0 149 100.0


TABLE 39.-Number and percentage distribution of nonfarm households by net
worth and race, 362 rural households, North and West Florida, 1956


Race
Net worth ____:_.
by classes :
(dollars) White Nonwhite


: Number Percent Number Percent

Negative or none :32 15,0 39 26.2
1- 499 32 15.0 43 28.9
500- 999 17 8.0 14. 9.4
1,000- 1,999 :29 13.7 26 17.4
2,000- 2,999 13 6.1 9 6.0
3,000- 4,999 26 12.2 8 5.4
5,000- 9,999 36 16.9 3 2.0
10,000-14,999 13 6.1
15,000-19,999 6 2.8 2 1.3
20,000 and over 6 2.8.
Not ascertained 3 1.4 5 3.4

Total 213 100.0 149 100.0







-51-


households reported less than $500 and 30 percent over $5,000.

Farm households.-The proportion of nonwhite families was substan-

tially lower among farm households than among the nonfarm units. Nonwhite

families constituted 23 percent of farm households compared with 41 percent of

nonfarm households. The tenure status of white and nonwhite farm operators by

major farm economic groups is shown in Table 40. While the majority of both

white and nonwhite farm operators were either full owners or part owners,

tenancy was considerably more prevalent among the nonwhite farmers. Full

tenancy was reported by 8 percent of the white and 22 percent of the nonwhite

operators. Among the commercial ferms, 27 percent of the nonwhite operators

reported full tenancy compared with less than 7 percent of the white operators.

Approximately one-fifth *f the farm operators of both races rented

land in addition to what they owned.. White operators renting additional land

were mainly commercial farmers, whateas this practice followed by nonwhite

operators was rather evenly distributed among residential, part-time, and

commercial farmers. While 11 percent of the white operators rented out land,

less than 3 percent of the nonwhite operators reported this practice. The

majority of the white operators renting out land were residential and part-time

farmers.

Among the commercial farms ('- >le 41), full tenancy and also partial

tenancy by renting in land were found most frequently in the middle economic

classes with few cases among the very high-Iroducing and very low-producing

farms.

A total of 55,316 acres were operated by the 368 farm households

(Table 42). Almost 47 percent of ell land was cropland, with 35 percent in

crops and 12 percent idle cropland. Approximetely 13 percent of all land was

in permanent pasture. The remaining 40 percent was in woodland. The nonwhite




-52-


TABLE 40.--Number of farms by race and tenure status of operator and major farm
economic classes, 368 farms, North and West Florida, 1956


: Major economic classes
: .All :
Race and tenure of operator : $mase :
: Residential : Part-time : Commercial


: Number Number Number Number

White:
Owner-operator : 161 38 29 94
Owner-operator rent out : 32 15 4 13
Owner-operator rent in : 55 1 4 50
Owner-operator rent in and out : 3 .. 3
Tenant operator : 23 7 4 12
Other 6 3 1 2
Undivided estate 3 .... 3

Total white : 283 64 42 177

Nonwhite:
Owner-operator : 38 13 9 16
Owner-operator rent out 2 1 1
Owner-operator rent in 16 6 4 6
Owner-operator rent in and out : 1 .. 1
Tenant operator : 19 5 4 10
Other 4 2 1 1
Undivided estate 5 1 2 2

Total nonwhite : 85 27 21 37

Total all farms : 368 91 63 214



farms reported a larger proportion of total land in cropland and smaller pro-

portions in pasture and woodland than white farms. White farms averaged 174

acres in size compared with 73 acres for nonwhite farms. The average size for

all 368 farms was 150 acres.

Among the commercial farms, average size and average cropland

acreages tended to be progressively larger as economic class increased. Farms

in economic classes I, II, and III were found only among white farms. Class II

farms reported the largest total acreage and were considerably larger on the




-53-


TABLE 41.-Number of commercial farms by race and tenure status of operator,
and economic class of farm, North and West Florida, 1956


S: Economic class
: All :____
Race and tenure :commercial: :
of operator farms : : Part-: : : :
:V : time : V : IV : III II I
: : V : : :


: Number Number Number Number Number Number Number Number

White:
Owner-operator : 94 11 10 19 32 14 6 2
Owner-operator
rent in : 50 5 5 4 17 11 7 1
Owner-operator
rent out : 13 2 4 3 2 1 1
Owner-operator
rent in and out: 3 .. ., 1 1 1 .
Tenant operator : 12 1 1 4 3 2 1
Other : 2 1 .. .* .. 1
Undivided estate 3 .. .. 1 2 ..

Nonwhite:
Owner-operator : 16 6 3 3 4 .
Owner-operator
rent in 6 3 1 2 .. ..
Owner-operator
rent out 1 1 .. .. .. ..
Owner-operator
rent in and out: 1 .. .. 1 ..
Tenant operator : 10 6 .. 3 1 .. .
Other : 1 .. ** 1 .. ..
Undivided estate : 2 .1 1 .. ...

All farms : 214 36 24 40 66 29 16 3


average than farms in other economic classes.


The 48 farms in the three


highest economic classes constituted 13 percent of total farms.


Together they


operated 39 percent of total land, 38 percent of cropland, and 58 percent of

permanent pasture.

Commercial farms in economic classes IV, V, and VI operated by non-

white farmers arveaged 109 acres in size compared with 162 acres in farms in







TABIE 42,-Total acres operated by race of operator, economic class of farm, and
major land use classes, North and West Florida, 1956


SLand use classification
Race of operator : : Total :___
and economic class : Farms: acres ::
of farm :operated:Cropland:Other:I d Other : oo-
in crop- permanent: land
Scraps : land as e: pasture :


:Number Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres

White:
Residential : 64- 2,598 402 549 156 78 1,413
Part-time class VI : 42 3,955 868 400 179 34 2,474
Class VI : 20 2,272 648 282 128 44 1,170
Part-time class V : 20 2,816 979 372 499 5 961
Class V : 32 5,280 1,712 808 429 54 2,277
Class IV : 57 10,531 4.523 1,334 1,178 48 3,448
Class III : 29 8,413 3,362 1,069 638 503 2,841
Class II : 16 11,846 3,551 485 1,685 710 5,415
Class I : 3 1,436 366 11 470 355 234

Total farms 283 49,147 16,411 5,310 5,362 1,831 20,233

Nonwhite:
Residential : 27 1,222 333 261 30 55 543
Part-time class VI : 21 902 474 224 25 .. 179
Olass VI : 16 1,284 686 283 84 42 189
Part-time class V : 4 510 149 94 .. 30 237
Class V : 8 666 391 127 .. 148
Class IV : 9 1,585 802 227 22 20 514

Total farms : 85 6,169 2,835 1,216 161 147 1,810

All farms : 368 55,316 19,246 6,526 5,523 1,978 22,043


the same economic classes operated by white farmers.


Those with


operators, however, had much larger proportions of total land


in


nonwhite

crops and idle


cropland and smaller proportions in pasture and woodland than those with white

operators. Because of this, average acreages of cropland were approximately the

same on farms f. these economic classes with white and those with nonwhite

operators.

Acreages in crops by type of crop are given in Table 43. Because




TABLE 43.-Acres in crops by type of crop, race of operators, and
Florida, 1956


economic class of farm, North and West


Crops
Race of operator
and economic class :Farms: :
of farm : Peanuts: : :
SCorn : for : Other : Tobaccoa: Cotton: Watermelons: Oats: Soybeans Other
: :: Nuts :peanuts: : : : : crops


:Number Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres
White:
Residential : 64 300 23 12 .. 24,2 1 16 .41
Part-time class VI : 42 621 15 17 9.3 36.9 29 45 50 73
Class VI : 20 351 37 46 7.4 52.3 7 95 .87
Part-time class V :20 478 62 127 13.5 33.3 21 159 35 186
Class V :32 1,219 61 124 26.0 87.2 47 50 ., 152
Class IV : 57 2,494 307 478 67.1 207.2 160 410 146 645
Class III : 29 2,058 316 258 79.5 171.0 96 346 61 622
Class II : 16 1,802 319 293 50.8 112.3 90 464 65 648
Class I : 3 182 .. 11.6 .. 70 .. 221

Total 283 9,505 1,140 1,355 265.2 724.4 451 1,655 357 2,675

Nonwhite:
Residential 27 261 10 9 1.0 23... 1 .. 42
Part-time class VI : 21 273 24 63 15.1 47.4 5 9 .. 45
Class VI : 16 474 40 30 15.6 35.7 41 36 .. 25
Part-time class V : 4 92 33 .. 1.5 20.5 3 .. 3
Class V 8 234 68 23 7.5 28.0 5 .. .. 26
Class IV : 9 445 119 73 18.4 33.6 1 82 .. 50

Total :85 1,779 294 198 59.1 188.3 52 131 .. 191

All farms : 368 11,284 1,434 1,553 324.3 912.7 503 1,786 357 2,866


aAll tobacco reported was flue-cured except for 10
grown.


acres reported urder clase I farms which was shade




-56-


of double cropping and intercropping practices in the survey area, total acres

by type of crop exceed the acreage of cropland in crops as shown in Table 42 by

some 1,700 acres. The 368 farmers reported 21,019 acres in various crops for

1956. The acreage in corn exceeded that of any other single crop and accounted

for 54 percent of total acres in crops. Acres devoted to the three allotment

crops, peanuts, tobacco, and cotton, totaled 2,671 and constituted approximately

13 percent of the total.

Where comparisons were possible between white and nonwhite operators

(economic classes IV, V, and VI), the data indicate that on the average nonwhite

farmers grew nearly as many acres of corn, substantially more acres of peanuts,

tobacco and cotton, and fewer acres of watermelons, oats, soybeans, and other

crops as white farmers.

On the basis of cropland used (Table 44), residential and part-time

farms of whites had larger proportions in the smaller size classes than those

of nonwhites. More than half of the residential farms operated by white

families were less than 5 acres in size. By contrast, almost half of the

residential farms operated by nonwhite families were more than 10 acres in size

measured in terms of cropland used. For none of the residential farms in the

survey, however, were as many as 50 acres of cropland reported. Approximately

38 percent of the part-time farms operated by white families reported less than

10 acres of cropland compared with 14 percent of the nonwhite part-time farms.

The reverse was true for commercial farms. More than a third of the

nonwhite commercial farmers reported less than 30 acres of cropland used com-

pared with less than a fourth of the white commercial farmers. Approximately

16 percent of the white operators reported cropland in excess of 150 acres while

less than 4 percent of the nonwhite operators reported this amount.

In general, as economic class of farm increased the acreage of crop-

land used increased. Part-time class V and class VI farms tended to cluster in




-57-


TABIE 44.--Number of farms by race, size of farm (cropland used) and major farm
economic classes, North and West Florida, 1956


: Major economic classes
Race of operator : :___________
and size of farm All farms :
: Residential PaBtotime : Commercial


': umber Number Number Number

White:
Under 5 acres : 56 39 10 7
5- 9.9 acres : 18 7 6 5
10- 19,9 acres : 39 11 12 16
20- 29.9 acres : 19 4 2 13
30- 49.9 acres : 37 3 5 29
50- 69.9 acres : 37 .. 6 31
70- 99.9 acres : 17 1 16
100-149.9 acres : 32 .. .. 32
150-199.9 acres : 15 .. 15
200 and over : 13 .. 13

Nonwhite:
Under 5 acres 7 5 1 1
5- 9.9 acres : 12 9 2 1
10- 19.9 acres : 18 7 6 5
20- 29.9 acres : 16 4 6 6
30- 49,9 acres : 12 2 5 5
50- 69.9 acres : 11 .. 1 10
70- 99.9 acres : 4 .. 4
100-149.9 acres : 3 .. .. 3
150-199.9 acres : 2 .... 2
200 and over .. .. ..

All farms : 368 91 63 214



size groups from 10 to 70 acres, classes IV and V farms in groups of 30 to 150

acres and classes I, II, and III farms in groups of 70 to more than 200 acres

(Table 45). In terms of cropland used, however, some small farms were high in

gross value of product sold through production of pasturage, livestock, and

livestock products.

Among the 177 commercial farms with white operators, general farms

were most frequently encountered, followed in order by tobacco, hog, and peanut




-58-


TABLE 45.--Number of commercial farms by race of operator, size (cropland used),
and economic class of farm, North and West Florida, 1956


: Economic class
S All :
Race of operator :commercial: : :
and size of farm farms : Part-: :
: VI time : V : IV III : II :
: :


Number Number Number Number Number Number Number Number

White:
Under 5 acres : 7 2 1 2 1 1 .
5- 9.9 acres : 5 1 1 3 ..
10- 19.9 acres : 16 7 2 4 1 2
20- 29.9 acres : 13 4 4 3 2 .. .
30- 49.9 acres : 29 5 4 10 8 .. 1 1
50- 69.9 acres : 31 3 4 6 16 2 ..
70- 99.9 acres : 16 .. .. 3 6 6 1
100-149.9 acres : 32 2 4 13 9 3 1
150-199.9 acres : 15 .. .. 1 3 7 3 1
200 and over : 13 .. 1 3 2 7

Nonwhite:
Under 5 acres : 1 1 .. .. .
5- 9.9 acres : 1 1 .. .. .. ..
10- 19.9 acres : 5 3 .. 1 1 .. ..
20- 29.9 acres : 6 4 2 .. .
30- 49.9 acres : 5 .. 1 3 1 .
50- 69.9 acres : 10 5 1 2 2 .. .,
70- 99.9 acres : 4 .. .. 2 2 .
100-149.9 acres : 3 .. 2 1
150-199.9 acres : 2 .. .. .. .. 2
200 and over : .. .. .. ..

All farms : 214 34 26 40 63 32 16 3



farms (Table 46). There was less diversity in farming types among farms with

nonwhite operators. These farms were mainly tobacco and peanut farms.

Other than dairy and perhaps cotton farming, little relationship


appeared to exist between type of farming and economic class

accounting for approximately 5 percent of all farms of white

were no cotton farms in the three highest economic classes.


of farms. While

operators, there

Dairy farms




-59-


TABLE 46.--Number of commercial farms by race of operator and type and economic
class of farm, North and West Florida, 1956
-!
: Economic class
All _____:.._____
Race of operator 4 commercial : : : : :
and type of farm : farms : Part-:
: VI : time : V : IV : III II I
:: V : :


No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No.

White:
Cotton 8 4 2 1 1 .. .
Cash grain 4 1 .. 2 1 ..
Peanut 16 4 3 .. 6 3
Tobacco 40 3 4 10 10 10 2 1
Other field crops : 1 1 .. .* .. ..
Vegetable, fruit,
and nut 4 .. 2 1 .. 1
Dairy : 10 .. 1 1 2 4 2
Poultry 3 .. ..* 1 .. 2
Hog 24 2 3 8 9 2 ..
Other livestock 5 1 1 1 1 1 ..
General V 60 5 4 10 24 10 7
Miscellaneous 2 .. .. 2 .. .. .

Nonwhite:
Cotton : 4 3 1 .. .. .
Cash grain : .. ** **
Peanut : 2 3 2 4 3 *. .
Tobacco : 13 6 1 2 4 .. .. ..
Other field crops 1 1 *. .. .. .. ..
Vegetable, fruit,
and nut 1 *. ** 1 .. ..
Dairy : .. *. ** ** *
Poultry 0: *. ,. .. *.*
Hog 1 1 .. .. .. .. .. ..
Other livestock : .. ** **
General 5 2 ,. 1 2 .
Miscellaneous .. *. .. *. .* .. .. .

All farms : 214 36 24 40 66 29 16 3



bonstituted 6 percent of all farms compared with 17 percent of the farms in

economic classes I, II, and III. Other than these two types, the relative

frequency of the various farming types among the three highest economic classes








was comrsrable to the distribution of farm types among all farms with white

operators. Of the major types of farming, the proportion of farms in the low

economic classes (V and VI) was especially high for cotton and peanut farms.

The North Florida part of the study area includes the most important

hog-producing area of the state. In general terms, most of the remaining work-

stock in the state are also in this area. Both cattle and poultry numbers in

the study area are rather modest relative to the state's total.

Other than workstock, nonwhite operators of survey farms reported a

much smaller than proportional number of all types of livestock. While con-

stituting 23 percent of total farms, these farmers reported 46 percent of the

workstock. Approximately 12 percent of the hogs and poultry and less than 5

percent of the cattle were on farms with nonwhite operators (Table 47). As

mentioned previously, there were no nonwhite farms above economic class IV.

When viewed from the standpoint of total livestock numbers on all farms in

economic class IV and below, proportions of livestock on farms with nonwhite

operators were considerably higher but were still less than proportional to the

number of farms with nonwhite operators for all livestock types except work-

stock. This higher proportion of livestock numbers on nonwhite farms was due

to the fact that almost 50 percent of all:livestock on farms with white opera-

tors was concentrated on the 48 farms in economic classes I, II, and III.

Operators of almost half of the farms surveyed reported no tractor

power on the farm (Table 48). Farmers reporting neither workstock or tractor

power numbered 77 and constituted almost 21 percent of all farms. The propor-

tion of farmers reporting neither workstock nor tractor power was considerably

higher among farms with white than among those with nonwhite operators.

Approximately 60 percent of the farms with white operators reported tractor

power compared with 24 percent of the farms with nonwhite operators. In the

main, tractors were on commercial farms, although a few were reported on




-61-


TABLE 47.--Numbers of livestock by race of operator, economic class of farm,
and livestock types, North and West Florida, 1956

Livestock types
Race of operator _
and economic class Farms :: :
: Work-: Milk : Beef : Other: t
: stock: cows : cows : cattle: Hogs : Poultry
: :
:Number Number Number Number Number Number Number

White:
Residential : 64 16 50 76 53 284 1,396
Part-time class VI : 42 26 40 137 65 355 1,1-47
Class VI ; 20 10 20 91 88 202 636
Part-time class V : 20 3 32 158 92 255 407
Class V : 32 15 41 158 74 487 782
Class IV : 57 21 103 496 289 1,240 1,815
Class III : 29 8 114 461 211 938 902
Class II : 16 10 226 566 323 368 4,950
Class I 3 5 394 307 48 205

Total farms : 283 114 1,020 2,143 1,502 4,177 12,240

Nonwhite:
Residential : 27 22 17 12 62 399
Part-time class VI 21 30 9 10 9 90 396
Class VI : 16 18 4 18 11 110 343
Part-time class V : 4 4 3 1 51 32
Class V : 8 9 3 6 8 51 166
Class IV : 9 14 12 49 36 224 247

Total farms 85 97 48 83 77 588 1,583

All farms 368 211 1,068 2,226 1,579 4,765 13,823



residential and part-time farms of white operators.

Farms with workstock only were almost equally divided between resi-

dential, part-time and commercial farms, and between farms with white and non-

white operators. From a relative standpoint, however, 63 percent of the farms

with nonwhite operators reported worketock only compared with 17 percent of the

farms with white operators.

Among the 214 commercial farms, the level of mechanization increased




-62-


with the economic level of the farm (Table 49).


TABLE 48,--Number of farms by race of operator, level of mechanization, and
major farm economic class, North and West Florida, 1956


S: Major economic class
Race of .operator and : All :
level of mechanization : farms : : :
:: Residential : Part-time : Commercial


: Number Number Number Number

White:
No workstock or tractor : 65 37 10 18
Workstock only : 48 13 16 19
Workstock and tractor : 41 1 7 33
Tractor only : 129 13 9 107

Total farms : 283 64 42 177

Nonwhite:
No workstock or tractor : 12 7 1 4
Workstock only : 53 20 17 16
Workstock and tractor 17 .. 3 14
Tractor only 3 .. .. 3

Total farms : 85 27 21 37

All farms : 368 91 63 214



Ownership of farm real estate, livestock, and machinery and equipment

with a total value of approximately $5 million was reported by the 368 farm

households (Table 50). Farm real estate accounted for almost 80 percent of the

total value, and the remaining 20 percent was almost equally divided between

livestock and machinery and equipment.

The total value of these three major groups of resources reported by

nonwhite operators was considerably less than proportional to the number of

farms with nonwhite operators. Although they constituted 23 percent of all

farms, resources reported by farms with nonwhite operators amounted to only




-63-


TABLE 49.--Number of commercial farms by race of operator, level of mechaniza-
tion, and economic class of farm, North and West Florida, 1956


: Economic class
All :_____.
Race of operator and : commercial : :
level of mechanization : farms : : Part- : : : : :
: : VI : time : V : IV : III : II I
: : V : : : :


: NoT. Io.. -. NL. NTiOQ. No. No.- No.

White:
No workstock or
tractor 18 5 2 5 5 1 .. .
Workstock only : 19 5 2 7 5 .
Workstock and
tractor : 33 3 1 3 11 7 7 1
Tractor only : 107 7 15 17 36 21 9 2

Nonwhite:
No workstock or
tractor 4 1 .. 2 1 .. ..
Workstock only : 16 9 2 4 1 ., ..
Workstock and
tractor : 14 5 2 2 5 .. .. ..
Tractor only 3 1 .. .. 2 .

All commercial
farms : 214 36 24 40 66 29 16 3


6 percent of the value of total resources.


As indicated previously, the major


portion of total agricultural resources was reported by farms in economic

classes I, II, and III, which appeared only among the farms with white operators.

The value of resources reported by the 48 farms in these three classes amounted

to almost 50 percent of the value of total resources reported by the operators

of the 368 survey farms.

Investment in land, livestock, and machinery and equipment averaged

$13,569 for the 368 farms (Table 51). As would be expected, average investments

increased with farm productivity--they ranged from $4,700 for the 91 residential

farms to $123,000 for the 3 farms in economic class I. Investments in farm







TABLE 50.--Value of farm real estate, livestock, and machinery and equipment by
race of operator and economic class of farm, North and West Florida, 1956


: Value : : Value of
Race of operator s of farm : Value of : machinery : ota
and economic class : real : livestock : and
: estate : : equipment :

:Number Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars

White:
Residential 64 340,040 15,507 20,084 375,631
Part-time class VI : 42 276,580 20,785 24,921 322,286
Class VI : 20 166,730 14,533 13,041 194,304
Class V : 52 416,480 41,590 66,680 524,750
Class IV : 57 713,875 79,265 120,897 914,037
Class III : 29 720,600 88,985 107,031 916,616
Class II : 16 838,420 127,547 97,805 1,063,772
Class I : 3 215,000 101,980 53,477 370,k57

Total farms : 283 3,687,725 490,192 503,936 4,681,853

Nonwhite:
Residential : 27 44,400 3,912 4,670 52,982
Part-time class VI 21 42,730 5,429 4,936 53,095
Class VI : 16 43,100 5,150 10,912 59,162
Class V : 12 44,000 4,040 7,341 55,381
Class IT 9 69,500 7,830 13,741 91,071

Total farms : 85 243,730 26,361 41,600 311,691

All farms : 368 3,931,455 516,553 545,536 4,993,544


resources averaged $3,700 on farms with

$16,500 on farms with white operators.

as great as that between all farms with


nonwhite operators

While the relative


compared with


difference was not


white and those with nonwhite farmers,


the average value of farm resources on farms af: .the latter wp aubtattial.y -

3vwe -than.those en farms of .the former in all economic classes where compari-

sons were possible. As was shown earlier, tenancy was considerably more

prevalent among the farms with nonwhite operators; to a large degree, it would

account for the lower average investment in farm resources by nonwhite operators.




-65-


TABLE 51,-Average value of farm real estate, livestock, and machinery and
equipment by race of operator and economic class of farm, North and West Florida,
1956


: Value : : Value of :
Race of operator : of farm : Value : machinery Total
and economic class arm : real of : and :
: estate :livestock : equipment :


: Number Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars

White:
Residential 64 5,313 242 314 5,869
Part-time class VI : 42 6,585 495 593 7,673
Class VI : 20 8,336 727 652 9,715
Class V : 52 8,009 800 1,282 10,091
Class IV : 57 12,524 1,391 2,121 16,036
Class III : 29 24,848 3,068 3,691 31,607
Class II 16 52,401 7,972 6,113 66,486
Class I 3 71,667 33,993 17,826 123,486

Total farms : 283 13,031 1,732 1,781 16,544

Nonwhite
Residential 27 1,644 145 173 1,962
Part-time class VI : 21 2,035 259 235 2,529
Class VI : 16 2,694 322 682 3,698
Class V : 12 3,667 337 612 4,616
Class IV : 9 7.722 870 1,527 10,119

Total farms : 85 2,867 310 489 3,666
All farms : 368 10,683 1,404 1,482 33,569


While average investment in farm resources increased with farm pro-

ductivity, considerable variation in the value of farm assets existed within

the major economic classes of farms (Table 52). Investment in farm resources

averaged less than $6,000 for the residential farms of white operators but

ranged from less than $1,000 to more than $50,000. Part-time farms averaged

$7,700 in farm assets and had a range almost equally as great as residential

farms. Average investment for commercial farms in economic classes IV, V, and

VI amounted to $12,660, yet more than a fifth of the farms with white operators




-66-


TABIiE 52--Distribution of farms by race of operator, major farm economic class,
and value of farm assets, North and West Florida, 1956


S: Major economic class

Race of operator : All :
and farm assets : farms : : u.. : Commercial
(dollars) : ___ :
: : Residential : Part-time :
: : : : IV, V, : I, II,
: : : and VI : and III


: mber N uNumber Number Number Number

White:
Under :1,000 : 16 9 3 4
1,000- 1,999 : 15 8 2 4 1
2,000- 2,999 : 21 11 5 5
3,000- 3,999 16 3 4 9
4,000- 4,999 : 17 8 3 6
5,000- 7,499 : 39 10 9 18 2
7,500- 9,999 : 32 7 3 21 1
10,000-14,999 : 37 2 8 20 7
15,000-24,999 : 46 3 3 26 14
25,o00-49,999 : 31 2 2 15 12
50,000 and over 13 1 .. 1 11

Nonwhite:
Under 1,000 : 21 8 4 9
1,000- 1,999 : 12 7 5
2,000- 2,999 13 4 5 4 ..
3,000- 3,999 : 10 3 2 5
4,000- 4,999 8 2 2 4 ..
5,000- 7,499 7 2 2 3
7,500- 9,999 : 7 1 1 5
10,000-14,999 : 04.. ,. 4
15,000-24,999 : 3 .. .. 3
25,000-49,999 ...
50,000 and over .. .. ..

All farms : 368 91 63 166 48



in these three classes reported less than $5,000 in farm assets. Among the

farms with nonwhite operators, investment in farm assets ranged from under

$1,000 to more than $15,000 while averaging $3,700.


The value of nonfarm property reported by the 368 farm families









-67-


totaled approximately one-half million dollars. White farm families reported

almost 95 percent of the total and averaged about $1,700 compared with less

than $300 for the nonwhite families. Almost 45 percent of the farm households

reported no nonfarm property, while 17 households (6 percent) reported nonfarm

property exceeding a value of $10,000 (Table 53). Of the 203 households report-

ing nonfarm property, more than half reported less than $500. The 17 above-

mentioned farm households with nonfarm property in excess of $10,000 accounted

for two-thirds of the total nonfarm property reported by all farms,

The distribution of farm households on the basis of family net worth

is shown in Table 54. As indicated by the foregoing discussion of farm assets

and nonfarm property, the net worth position of many of the survey farm fami-

lies is low, Approximately 44 percent of the survey farmers reported net

worth of less than $5,000. Among the nonwhite farm families, 81 percent were

below this level compared with 33 percent of the white farm families. In the

higher levels, almost 30 percent of the white farms reported net worth in

excess of $15,000 compared with less than 4 percent of the nonwhite farms. As

would be expected, family net worth increased with the economic level of the

farm. Among the residential and part-time farms, 12 percent reported net worth

in excess of $10,000 compared with 47 percent of the commercial farms,










TABLf 53.-Distribution of farms by race of operator, major economic class, and
value of nonfarm property, North and West Florida, 1956


S| Major economic class
I ________________________---
*Baae of operator -
and value of I All : Commercial
nonfarm property 2 farms : e -
(dollars) : Residential : Part-time :
S: IV, T I, II
S: and VI : and III


Number Number Number Number Number

White:
None : 112 34 17 48 13
1- 499 : 89 17 17 40 15
500- 999 : 27 8 4 12 3
1,000- 1,999 17 3 2 9 3
2,000- 2,999 : 7 .. .. 5 2
3,000- 4,999 9 1 7 1
5,000- 9,999 4 1 .. 3 ..
10,000-14,999 : 5 1 2 2
15,000-19,999 : 4 .. .. 4
20,000 and over : 8 .. .. 3 5
Not ascertained : 1 1 ** *

Total farms 283 64 42 129 48

Nonwhite:
None : 53 18 14 21 .*
1- 499 : 27 8 7 12 ..
500- 999 1 *. .. 1
1,000- 1,999 3 1 .. 2
2,000- 2,999 .. .*. .*
3,000- 4,999 : .. *.* *.
5,000- 9,999 .. .. c. *
10,000-14,999 1 1. 1
15,000-19,999 : .. .. .. t
20,000 and over : .. .. ** *
Not ascertained .. ** *

Total farms : 85 27 21 37

All farms : 368 91 63 166 48
____________S------------------------------




-69-


TABLE 54.--Distribution of farms by race of operator, major economic class, and
value of net worth, North and West Florida, 1956

3
I Major economic class
*

Race of operator $ All : Commercial
and net worth : farms : : -
(dollars) : Residential : Part-time :
SIV, V : I, II,
S: and VI : and III
l__. .. ... 4 .. ... __,;_. .....


White:
Negative or none
1- 499
500- 999
1,000- 1,999
2,000- 2,999
3,000- 4,999
5,000- 9,999
10,000-14,999
15,000-19,999
20,000 and over

Total farms

Nonwhitet
Negative or none
1- 499
500- 999
1,000- 1,999
2,000- 2,999
3,000- 4,999
5,000- 9,999
10,000-14,999
15,000-19,999
20,000 and over

Total farms


* Number

:
3 11
: 8
S 6
S 10
21
3 37
77
t 30
S 22
: 61


283


Number


4
3
3
8
10
12
16
2
2


Number Number


129


3
7
1
2
5
6
7
3
1
2


Number


**
**
..
1

1
7
5
7
27

48



*6*
4.
.4

4.
..

**
9.
*
*


All farms 368 91 63


91 63


368


All farms




-70-


IV. Human Resources and Income


Family income from all sources.--The 730 survey families

total income of $1.77 million in 1956 (Table 55). Income reported

white families constituted 80 percent of total income and averaged

family, compared with an average of $1,529 for nonwhite families,

TABLE 55,-Aggregate cash income by major sources and by race, 730
holds, North and West Florida, 1956


reported

by the 496

$2,855 per



rural house-


: Cash income

Major source :
: Total a White Nonwhite


s Dollars Dollars Dollars

Farm operation a 241,705 221,329 20,376
Work on (other) farms : 102,193 45,628 56,565
Nonfarm employment : 1065,488 874,790 190,698
Other a 364,432 274,346 90,086

All sources : 1,773,818 1,416,093 357,725


Although the survey was restricted to open-country rural areas, the

income from farming operations accounted for less than 14 percent of total

income (Table 56). When combined, income from farm operation and farm wage

work amounted to less than one-fifth of all income and less than income from

nonemployment sources Nonfarm employment was by far the most important income

source. Relatively, income from farm wage work and nonemployment sources were

of greater importance to the nonwhite than to the white families. The reverse

was true for both farm income and income from nonfarm employment.

While family income averaged $2,430 for the 730 families, more than

half of the families reported cash family incomes of less than $2,000 (Table 57).

Less than 12 percent of the families reported incomes of $5,000 or more. The





-71-


TABIL 56.--Percentage distribution of aggregate cash income by major sources
and by race, 730 rural households, North and West Florida, 1956


: Cash income

Major source
T otal t White Nonwhite

Percent Percent Percent

Farm operation 13.6 15.6 5.7
Work on (other) farms 5.8 3.2 15.8
Nonfarm employment 60.1 61,8 53,3
Other 20,5 19.4 25.2

All sources 100.0 100.0 100.0


TABLE 57.-Number and percentage distribution of households by cash family
income class and by race, 730 rural households, North and West Florida, 1956


a a Race
Family income t All -
class : households :
(dollars) : : White $ Nonwhite

: Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Negative 22 3.0 17 3.4 5 2.1
0- 999 196 26.9 117 23.6 79 33.8
1,000-1,999 : 187 25.6 107 21,6 80 34.2
2,000-2,999 131 17.9 77 15.5 54 23.1
3,000-3,999 65 8.9 56 11.3 9 3.8
4,000-4,999 45 6.2 41 8.3 4 1.7
5,000-7,499 62 8.5 59 11.9 3 1.3
7,500-9,999 13 1.8 13 2.6 .,
10,000 and over : 9 1.2 9 1.8 ..

Total : 730 100,0 496 100.0 234 100.0





-72-


proportion of nonwhite families in the lower income classes was considerably

higher than among the white families. Approximately 94 percent of the nonwhite

families reported incomes of less than $3,000 compared with 64 percent of the

white families,

The concentration of families in the lower income classes tended to

increase with age of the family head (Table 58). Sixty-one percent of the

families in the $0 to $999 income class were headed by persons 60 or more years

of age. The percentages with incomes of less than $2,000 by age groups were as

follows: under 40 years, 32 percent; 40 to 54 years, 45 percent; 55 to 64

years, 65 percent; and, over 64 years, 82 percent. Among the families report-

ing incomes in excess of $7,500, almost two-thirds were headed by persons 30 to

49 years of age.

Significantly higher proportions of families with one and two members

reported incomes of less than $2,000 than of families with three or more mem-

bers (Table 59). Ninety-five percent of the one-member families and 75 percent

of the two-member families reported incomes below this level. Although they

conetituted'oh8y 34 percent of all families, one- and two-member families

accounted for 49 percent of the families with incomes below $2,000. None of

the one-member families and less than 4 percent of the two-member families

reported income in excess of $5,000, Although the proportion of three-member

families was considerably less than those of the one- and two-member families,

a majority (51 percent) also reported incomes of less than $2,000. Among

families with four or more members the proportions in the three lowest income

classes ranged from 36 to 47 percent. Among the higher income groups ($5,000

and over), 70 percent of the families were in size groups of 3, 4, and 5

members.

Average family size by family income classes varied considerably









TABLE 58.-Distribution of households by age of family head and by family income class, 730 rural households,
North and West Florida, 1956


: Age of family head
Family
income class : House-: : :
(dollars) :holds Under: 25-29 30-3 35-39 4-4 45- 50-54 55-59: 60-64: 65-69: 70-74: 75 and
: s:years: years years years years years years years years years over
S y .

No. No. No. No. o. No. No. No N No No. No. No. No

Negative 22 .. 1 2 4 1 5 3 1 2 2 .. 1
0- 999 :196 2 2 3 4 8 16 23 18 31 28 32 29
1,000-1,999 : 187 1 7 15 9 16 24 15 20 8 23 21 28
2,000-2,999 : 131 2 6 13 22 18 15 11 10 13 7 7 7
3,000-3,999 65 2 4 8 8 10 10 11 3 2 2 2 3
4,000-4,999 45 2 5 4 4 7 8 8 3 2 1 .. 1
5,000-7,499 62 1 3 6 11 9 12 7 5 3 2 3 ..
7,500-9,999 13 .. 1 1 3 2 3 .. 2 .. 1 .. ..
10,000 and over: 9 .. 1 .. .. 1 4 1 .. 1 1

Total 730 10 30 52 65 72 97 79 62 62 67 65 69
a_







TABLE 59.-Distribution of households by size of family and family income class,
730 rural households, North and West Florida, 1956


: t Family members
a ______________________________________________
Family : House- : : :
income class : holds : : : 9
(dollars) : 1 : 2 3 4 1 5 6 :7 8 and
: : : I : ; over
.. . ... ; : ; ..... ; i ; ; : .

No. No. o. NoN Noo. N aO. O. NO No.

Negative 22 2 4 5 4 4 .. 3 .
0- 999 196 44 77 28 21 7 9 6 3 1
1,000-1,999 : 187 9 64 30 18 21 13 9 20 3
2,000-2,999 131 1 27 21 24 18 12 9 15 4
3,000-3,999 : 65 1 7 11 10 13 11 5 5 2
4,000-4,999 45 1 7 6 16 3 1 9 2
5,000-7,499 62 .. 6 12 15 16 5 3 4 1
7,500-9,999 : 13 .. 1 5 1 3 1 .. 2
10,000 and over: 9 ..* 5 1 1 1 ,. 1 *

Total 7 30 58 193 123 110 86 53 41 55 11
,, ,, ,_ _, , ,, _,


as follows:


Family income Average
class size
(dollars) (number)

Negative 3.9
0- 999 2.7
1,000-1,999 4,0
2,000-2,999 4.7
3,000-3,999 5.0
4,000-4,999 4.4
5,000-7,499 4.6
7,500-9,999 4,5
10,000 and over 4,3

Average 4.0


Families in the income class $3,000 to $3,999 averaged 5.0 persons, the largest

average family size by income classes, Negative family income cases were all

farm units; they averaged 3.9 persons per household. Households in the $0 to








$999 income class were equally divided between farm and nonfarm units; more

than 60 percent had one or two members; and the households averaged 2,7 members.

As was shown earlier (Tables 16 and 17), approximately one-fourth of

the survey households were headed by "fully employable" males and were desig-

nated as Family Type 1. One-third of the households had an "employable" male

member (either 45 to 64 years of age or under 45 with physical handicap but

not disabled) and were designated as Family Type 2. Households with no employ-

able male member present (Type 7) accounted for another one-third of total

households. Together, these three family types constituted more than 90 percent

of all families.

The distribution of households by family type and income levels is

shown in Table 60, Among households of Family Type 1, 29 percent reported

incomes of less than $2,000 compared with 48 percent of the Type 2 families

and 84 percent of the Type 7 families. Conversely, proportions of these three

family types reporting incomes in excess of $5,000 were 20, 14, and 3 percent

for family Types 1, 2, and 7, respectively,

Closely associated with family type was the presence or absence of

able-bodied males 14 years of age and older other than the family head, The

data indicate that as the number of able-bodied males per family increased, the

proportion of families in the lower income classes decreased, while proportions

in the three highest income classes increased. Among the 270 families with no

able-bodied males present, almost 80 percent reported less than $2,000 family

income compared with 29 percent of the families with three able-bodied males.

Only 4 percent of the families without able-bodied males reported incomes

greater than $5,000 compared with 34 percent of the families with three able-

bodied males.

Among the families reporting no able-bodied females, 85 percent






-76-


TABLE 60.-Distribution of households by type of family and family income class,
730 rural households, North and West Florida, 1956


SFamily typea
Family : House- I__
income class & holds : 3 t 2 3
(dollars) : 2 3 3 4 2 5 : 6 : 7 t 8
St t

No. No. o. No. No.., No:. N. No.. ..

Negative : 22 6 11 1 1 1 2 .
0- 999 196 13 59 3 5 .. 1 115
1,000-1,999 : 187 31 53 4 4 7 1 81 6
2,000-2,999 131 44 49 4 2 6 1 24 1
3,000-3,999 65 25 31 .. .. 1 .. 5 3
4,000-4,999 45 19 19 .. 3 2 .. 1 1
5,000-7,499 : 62 28 26 ,. ,. 1 .. 6 1
7,500-9,999 : 13 6 5 .. .. 1 .. .. 1
10,000 and over : 9 2 6 .. .. *. 1

Total : 730 174 259 12 15 19 3 235 13

aSee Table 15 for description of family types.

reported incomes below $2,000. As the number of able-bodied females increased,

less than half of the families reported incomes below this level. Families

reporting incomes of $5,000 or more were largely families with one and two

able-bodied female members.

Although educational attainments of household heads varied rather

widely in any given income class, the positive association of education and

income was clear in the survey households (Table 61), As education of the

family head increased, considerably larger proportions of the families reported

incomes in the higher classes. Among those families whose family head had

completed 4 years of schooling or less, only 3 percent reported incomes of more

than $5,000. When family heads had completed college, 55 percent of the

families were in income classes above this level, Between these extremes, the

proportions tended to increase steadily as educational levels rose.






-77-


TABLI 61.-Distribution of households by education of family head and by family
income class, 730 rural households, North and West Florida, 1956

p
S 3 MEducation of family head
$ __$,__________________________
s I I t
Family t s tl High a t Not
income class 3 Totals elementary School I Oollege ascer-
(dollars) t S None: 3 te stained
t : a t t I t i :
S a a 1-4 5-6 7 8 1-3 4 1-3 rr:
t 3t I t 8 a $ i more


SNo. N No. No. N o No, No, ,,. No N.O

Negative a 22 .. 4 3 4 6 1 2 1 o, 1
0- 999 : 196 24 87 28 12 13 19 4 ., 1 8
1,000-1,999 < 187 25 64 33 6 21 10 13 2 .. 13
2,000-2,999 : 131 5 30 28 16 20 16 6 3 1 6
3,000-3,999 65 .. 11 14 9 5 15 7 .. 1 3
4,000-4,999 t 45 2 2 9 4 6 10 9 2 1 .
5,000-7,499 : 62 .. 9 12 4 10 8 11 6 2 1
7,500-9,999 a 13 .. .. 1 .. 1 4 5 1 1
10,000 and over a 9 .. .. ., 1 .. 4 2 .. 2

Total 730 56 206 128 56 82 87 59 35 9 32


Among the 105 households with female heads almost half had family

incomes below $1,000, nearly three-fourths below $2,000, and 91 percent below

$3,000 (Table 62). Comparable data for households headed by males were one-

fourth below $1,000, one-half below $2,000, and 70 percent below $3,000.






-78-


TABLE 62,-Distribution of households by sex of family head and by family income
class, 730 rural households, North and West Florida, 1956


: Sex of family head
Family All t_
income class : households I .
(dollars) t t Male t Female

t Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Negative 22 3.0 20 3.2 2 1.9
0- 999 : 196 26.9 148 23.7 48 45,7
1,000-1,999 : 187 25.6 155 24.8 32 30.5
2,000-2,999 : 131 17.9 117 18.7 14 13.3
3,000-3,999 : 65 8.9 63 10.1 2 1,9
4,000-4,999 : 45 6.2 42 6.7 3 2.9
5,000-7,499 : 62 8.5 59 9.5 3 2,9
7,500-9,999 13 1.8 12 1.9 1 ,9
10,000 and over : 9 1,2 9 1.4 .

Total t 730 100.0 625 100.0 105 100.0






-79-


Farm income.-Cash income from farming operation totaled $241,705 and

constituted about 14 percent of total income reported by farm households. On

the average, residential and part-time farms reported negative net cash farm

incomes while commercial farms averaged almost $1,200. The average for the

368 farms was $657.

The distribution of farm households by net cash farm income classes

and race is shown in Table 63. Of the 368 farm households, 135 or approximately

37 percent, reported negative cash farm incomes in 1956. Income from sources

other than farming, however, overcame the negative farm income for 113 of these

farms, leaving only 22 households, or 6 percent of all farm households with

negative family incomes.

TABLE 63.--Number and percentage distribution of farm families by race of oper-
a'tor and heet cash farm' income class, North and West Florida4 1956

: : Race
Net cash farm : All :
income class : households :
(dollars) : White Nonwhite

: Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

(-500) and over 1 32 8.7 29 10.2 3 3,5
(-499)-(-250) 24 6.5 20 7.1 4 4.7
(-249)-(-) : 79 21.5 57 20.1 22 25.9
0- 249 85 23,1 56 19.8 29 34,2
250- 499 32 8.7 20 7.1 12 14,1
500- 999 : 42 11.4 34 12.0 8 9.4
1,000-1,499 17 4.6 14 4.9 3 3.5
1,500-2,499 s 29 7.9 26 9.2 3 3.5
2,500-4,999 t 21 5.7 20 7.1 1 1,2
5,000 and over 7 1.9 7 2.5 ..
3
All classes : 368 100.0 283 100.0 85 100,0


High negative farm incomes occurred mainly among the white farm fami-

lies, Temporary adverse conditions played their part, but in several instances,






-80-


high negative incomes were associated with voluntary deferment of cash income

while inventory values were increased, In most instances, negative cash farm

incomes from $1 to $500 were reported by residential and part-time farmers and

associated with production for home use rather than for sale. These instances

were found among both white and nonwhite farms and were almost equally numerous

in relative terms.

Of the 233 farms reporting positive cash farm incomes, more than two-

thirds reported less than $1,000. Approximately 62 percent of the white farmers

having positive incomes reported less than $1,000 compared with almost 88 per-

cent of the nonwhite farms. Only 4 nonwhite farmers reported cash farm incomes

of $1,500 or more, as contrasted with 53 white farmers.

In general, the younger farm operators reported higher farm incomes

than older operators (Table 64). Among the farm operators between the ages of

30 and 44, one-third reported net cash farm incomes above $1,000, Proportions

reporting incomes above this level in operator age group 45 years of age and

older ranged from 13 to 19 percent. For each operator age group up through

40 to 44 years, a greater than proportional number reported incomes above the

$1,000 level. The reverse was true for all operator groups above 45 years of

age.

The data concerning family size, able-bodied males, and able-bodied

females reflects the size of the labor force and the number of employable.

Among the 1 and 2 member families and families with 9 or more members, consider-

ably less than proportional numbers reported incomes in the high negative class

or in the positive classes of $1,000 or more (Table 65). There was no apparent

relationship between total family size and net cash farm income among other

size groups. Greater than proportional numbers of farm families with 3, 5, and

6 members reported incomes above $1,000. The reverse was true for 4-, 7-, and











TABI3 64--Distribution of farm households by age of family head and by net cash farm income class, North and
West Florida, 1956

*


Net cash farm
Uacome class
(dollarO


Age of family head


*
*


Under :
years
ySears *


25-29 30-34 35-39:
years: years' years:
:
S


40-44:
years*
*


45-49'
years:
:*


50-54:
year s
:


55-59 i
years
*


60-64:
years
:


65-69 70-74
years: years
: :


75
and
over


No.o. No No. N. No. No e1. ,o. No. No. o


(-500) and over
(-499)-(-250)
(-249)-(-1)
0- 249
250- 499
500- 999
1,000-1,499
1,500-2,499
2,500-4,999
5,000 and over


1 14 19 33 43 68 46 35


: 368
*


33 35 23 18


: :
: p

: Total:
: :


: :


SNo.


All classes


--


___


. __


__


. .. -- .-- _


i






-82-


TABIL 65,--Distribution of farm households by family size groups and by net cash
farm income class, North and West Florida, 1956


: : Family members
Net cash farm I -
income class : Total : t 4 : t
(dollars) : 9: I : : : 9
: li 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 : 8 : and
Si : : over
,_ .. 3 :
SNo. No, No_. No. LNo. No.. K2,. N1 No..

(,500) and over : 32 .. 5 8 8 6 .. 1 .
(.499)-(-250) t 24 .. 2 1 5 8 2 2 4 to
(-249)-(-l) : 79 5 21 7 16 10 6 6 6 2
0- 249 : 85 5 27 15 13 5 4 3 10 3
250- 499 : 32 1 9 5 5 1 4 2 5
500- 999 : 42 1 10 10 8 8 1 4 ,. ..
1,000-1,499 : 17 .. 6 ,, 5 1 2 2 1
1,500-2,499 : 29 5 10 2 8 3 1
2,500-4,999 : 21 1 4 2 4 4 3 1 2
5,000 and over : 7 *. .. 1 1 2 2 *. 1 ..

All classes : 368 13 89 59 67 53 27 22 33 5
______J __ ----------------


8-member families. Among the higher

portional numbers of families with 3,

incomes in excess of $500.


negative income classes, greater than pro-

4, 5, and 8 members reported negative cash


Almost two-thirds of the households with no able-bodied males reported

cash farm incomes in the lowest negative and lowest positive classes. Rela-

tively more of the households having 1, 2, and 3 able-bodied males appeared in

the higher negative and higher positive income classes. Between households

having one or more able-bodied males, however, there was no consistent asso-

ciation between the number of males and income. The situation was essentially

the same with regard to the number of able-bodied females.

As mentioned previously, Family Types 1, 2, and 7 constituted approxi-

mately 90 percent of the total survey families. This was true also among farm

families (Table 66) although Type 2 families were relatively more numerous and









TABILE 66.-Distribution of farm households by family type and
income class, North and West Florida, 1956


by net cash farm


: $
Net cash farm : S Family typea
income class : Total .________
(dollars) : : : : : : :
: : 1 t 2 : 3 a 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 : 8



(-500) and over 0 32 9 20 1 .. 1 1 .
(-499)-(-250) : 24 6 13 1 .. .. .. 2 2
(-249)-(-l) 79 17 38 .. 1 3 1 19 ..
0- 249 { 85 12 32 2 2 3 .. 33 1
250- 499 : 32 6 15 ., 2 .. .. 7 2
500- 999 a 42 6 22 3 2 7. 2
1,000-1,499 : 17 6 8 .. 1 .. .. 1 1
1,500-2,499 a 29 12 11 .. 1 .. 5
2,500-4,999 : 21 6 11 .. 1 3 ..
5,000 and over 7 4 3 .. ..

All classes : 368 84 173 7 8 12 1 75 8

aSee Table 15 for description of family types.


Type 7 families less numerous among farm than among total households. Thus,

man and wife households with an employable male head were considerably higher

among the farms. Among Type 1 families (male head "fully employable"), 33 per-

cent reported cash farm incomes above $1,000 compared with 19 percent of Type 2

families (male head "employable") and 8 percent of Type 7 families (no employ-

able male present). Conversely, the percentages reporting incomes below $250

were 52, 60, and 73 for Types 1, 2, and 7 families, respectively. This was the

same general pattern that was found under total family income.

Distribution of farm households by cash farm income classes and

education of the family head is shown in Table 67. Cash farm income did not

tend to increase with the educational attainments of the farm operator as did

total family income when both farm and nonfarm households were involved. This

is due partly to the fact that some well-educated operators had low cash farm






-84-


TABIE 67,-Distribution of farm households by education of family head and by
net cash farm income class, North and West Florida, 1956


Education of family head :

Net cash farm ; Not
income class : Total: : : High j 1 ascer-
(dollars) : Elementary school t College : taine
:None: %3
: : I i s : : : : :
4 or
: : 1-4:5-6: 7 : 8 1-3: 4 :1-3 m ore
Smo re

SNo. N No. No No o. No No. No. No. No.

-500 and over : 32 ., 5 4 5 8 3 3 2 1 1
(-499)-(-250) : 24 .. 4 10 1 2 3 4 .. ..
(-249)-(-i) : 79 4 21 16 4 12 11 5 .. 1 5
0- 249 s 85 5 29 14 7 6 10 8 1 .. 5
250- 499 t 32 3 13 2 2 3 7 2 ,, ..
500- 999 : 42 2 8 9 3 6 2 6 3 .. 3
1,000-1,499 : 17 ., 3 2 4 4 2 1 1 ..
1,500-2,499 : 29 1 6 7 3 6 2 2 .. 2
2,500-4,999 : 21 1 2 5 3 4 2 3 .. ,, 1
5,000 and over : 7 .. 1 .. .. 1 2 1 ., 2

All classes I 368 16 92 69 32 52 44 35 7 6 15
t


incomes in 1956 because of temporary

to build up inventory values. Also,


conditions or voluntary deferment in order

individuals with more schooling may farm


less intensively in order to devote time and talents to higher paying nonfarm

Jobs. Among farm operators reporting negative farm incomes, approximately 24

percent reported high school or college level educations. This was true also

of farm operators reporting low positive farm incomes ($0 to $999) as well as

those reporting farm incomes in excess of $1,000, The proportion of farms with

cash farm incomes above $1,000 tended to increase as the education of the

operator increased from none to 7 grades. As the educational level of the

operator increased from 7 grades to 1 to 3 years of college, however, the pro-

portion reporting more than $1,000 farm income decreased from 31 to 14 percent.

Among those farm operators who had completed college, two-thirds reported farm







-85-


incomes in excess of $1,000.

Among those farm households with female family heads (Table 68),

approximately 93 percent reported cash farm incomes in the low negative and

lower positive ($0 to $999) income classes compared with 62 percent of the

households headed by males.


TABLE 68.-Number
family head and


and percentage distribution of farm households by sex of
by net cash farm income class, North and West Florida, 1956


I
: Sex of family head
Net cash farm t All _
income class t households :
(dollars) : Male P Female


: Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

(-500) and over 32 8,7 30 8.8 2 7.4
(-499)-(-250) : 24 6.5 24 7,0
(-249)-(-1) 79 21.5 67 19.6 12 44.5
0- 249 85 23.1 78 22,9 7 25.9
250- 499 : 32 8.7 30 8.8 2 7.4
500- 999 : 42 11.4 38 11,1 4 14.8
1,000-1,499 t 17 4.6 17 5.0
1,500-2,499 : 29 7.9 29 8.5
2,500-4,999 21 5.7 21 6.2
5,000 and over 7 1.9 7 2.1

All classes : 368 100.0 341 100.0 27 100.0
_________t _____,-----------------







-86-


Income from work on other farms.-Farm wage income amounted to

$102,193 and constituted less than 6 percent of the total income reported by

the 730 survey households. Lees than a fourth of the sample families reported

farm wage income, however, and these families averaged $600 per year from this

source. Nonfarm families averaged $862 compared with $313 for farm families.

Among farm families, farm wage income was considerably more important to part-

time farm families($541) than to residential ($274) or commercial ($178) farm

families. Nonwhite families earned 55 percent of the farm wage income and

averaged $602, White families constituted 44 percent of reporting households,

earned 45 percent of the total farm wage income, and averaged $625.

Relative to the number of families reporting income from farm wage

work, both white and nonwhite families occurred most frequently in the farm

work income class $1 to $250 (Table 69). A comparison of the percentage dis-

tribution of instances by race and farm wage income classes indicates higher

proportions of white families earning below $750 and above $2,000. Relatively

cases in income classes from $750 to $1,999 were substantially more important

among the nonwhite households.

The majority of families reporting income from work on other farms

were headed by persons from 40 to 60 years of age (Table 70). Generally speak-

ing, as the age of the family head increased, family income from farm wage work

decreased. Among the households whose family heads were under 50 years of age,

61 percent reported incomes of less than $500, compared with 72 percent of the

households whose family heads were over 50 years of age. Of those families

reporting farm wage income in excess of $1,000, 70 percent were headed by per-

sons less than 50 years of age. Further, when total farm wage income was

distributed among households on the basis of family head age groups, households

in each family head age group below 50 years of age reported larger than






-87-


proportional earnings from this source of income. The reverse was true for

all family head age groups above 50 years.

TABLE 69.-Number and percentage of households reporting income from work on
other farms by race of operator and by farm work income class, 167 rural house-
holds, North and West Florida, 1956


: : Family race
Farm work : All ____
income class : households 1 3
(dollars) I White : Nonwhite


i Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

1- 249 t 84 50.3 39 53.4 45 47.9
250- 499 26 15.5 14 19.2 12 12.8
500- 749 10 6.0 5 6.8 5 5.3
750- 999 : 10 6.0 2 2.7 8 8.5
1,000-1,499 t 16 9.6 3 4.1 13 13.8
1,500-1,999 10 6.0 3 4.1 ? 7.4
2,000-2,999 8 4.8 4 5.5 4 4.3
3,000-3,999 t 1 .6 1 1.4 ..
4,000-4,999 a 1 .6 1 1.4 ..
5,000-7,499 1 .6 1 1.4 ,,
7,500-9,999 a .. .. .,
10,000 and over : .. .. .. ** a

Total : 167 100.0 73 100.0 94 100,0


The proportion of families reporting income from work on other farms

was greater among the larger than among the smaller families. Approximately

18 percent of the families with less than six members reported this income

source compared with 41 percent of the families having six or more members.

While less than 8 percent of the one-member households reported farm

work income in excess of $1,000 compared with 86 percent of the households in

the largest size group (Table 71), there was no consistent positive association

between family size and family earnings from farmwork. There was less than

proportional representation of 1, 2, 4, 5, and 8-10 member families among those

households earning $1,000 or more from work on other farms. Among the lower









TABLE 70.-Distribution of households reporting income from work on other farms by age of family head and
farm work income class, 167 rural households, North and West Florida, 1956


: Age of family head
Farm work :House-:
income class : holds: : : : ::
(dollars) : :Under: 25-29 30-34' 35-39 40-44: 45-49: 50-54 55-59 60-64: 65-69 70-74: 75
: 25 # :and
years years years: years years: years years. years years years oe
Years over


H No. No. No. No. N. No. No. No. No. No. No. N

1- 249 :84 .. 3 8 7 9 8 14 10 10 6 6 3
250- 499 26 1 1 1 2 6 10 3 1 1 .. .. ..
500- 79 : 10 ,, 1 .. 1 4 1 2
750- 999 : 1s 2 .. 2 1 2 .. 1 1 1 .. ..
1,000-1,499 : 16 .. 1 3 2 3 2 .. 2 2 1
1,500-1,999 : 10 .. 1 2 2 .. 2 1 1 .. .. .
2,000-2,999 8 1 .. 1 1 1 2 1 1 .. ..
3,000-3,999 1 .1 .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
4,000-4,999 : .. .. .. *. 1 .. .. .. .. .
5,000-7,"9 : 1 .. .. 1 ., .. .. .. ..
7,500-9,999 : .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 4 .
10,000 and over : .. .. .. .. .. .. .... ..

Total 167 4 7 18 14 22 27 24 16 13 11 7 4
_________----------------------------------------------






-89-


TABLE 71.--Distribution of households reporting income from work on other farms
by family size and farm work income class, 167 rural households, North and West
Florida, 1956


: Family members
Farm work : House- :
income class : holds : : : : :
(dollars) : : : : : 9

: : : : : : : over

:i : : : : : : :
Noo Noo No. No. No- o..

1- 249 84 4 16 9 9 13 9 11 12 1
250- 499 26 6 4 2 4 4 2 4 ..
500- 749 10 .. 1 1 3 2 1 1 1 ..
750- 999 : 10 2 1 1 .. 1 2 1 2
1,000-1,499 : 16 1 3 3 1 .. 2 2 2 2
1,500-1,999 : 10 .. 2 1 1 1 2 .. 3
2,000-2,999 8 .. .. 2 1 2 1 ., 1 1
3,000-3,999 : 1 .. .. .. .. 1 .. ..
4,000-4,999 1 .. .. .. 1 .. .. .. ** *
5,000-7,499 : 1 .. .. 1 .. .. .. .. .
7,500-9,999 : .. .. .. .. .. ..
10,000 and over ., .. .. .. .. .** ** **

Total : 167 13 27 20 20 22 18 22 18 7
________----------- .---------------


income classes, there was

with 1, 2, 5, 7, and 8-10


greater than

members.


proportional representation of families


From the standpoint of total households in each able-bodied male

group, relatively few households having no able-bodied males 14 to 64 years of

age reported income from farm wage work. As the number of able-bodied male

members increased from 1 to 4 members the proportions of households reporting

this income source increased.

Households having no able-bo.ied males as well as those having 4 mem-

bers tended to be clustered in the lowest farmwork income classes. Almost 92

percent of the households reporting income in excess of $1,000 from farm wage

work had 1, 2, or 3 able-bodied male members. There was, however, no consistent






-90-


increase in proportions reporting higher incomes as the number of able-bodied

males increased from 1 to 3 members.

As for those families having no able-bodied males, relatively few

families with no able-bodied females reported income from work on other farms.

Considerably larger proportions of households with one or more able-bodied

females reported this source of income, although the proportions did not

increase directly with the number of females present as was the case when

distribution was made on the number of able-bodied males.

The concentration of households having no able-bodied females in the

lower farmwork income classes was not as marked as in the case of households

having no able-bodied males. Among those households having one or more able-

bodied females, as the number of able-bodied females increased, proportions of

households in the two lowest farmwork income classes decreased and proportions

reporting incomes in excess of $1,000 increased. This was not the case, as

mentioned above, when distribution was made on the basis of able-bodied males.

The distribution of households by farwaork income classes and family

type is shown in Table 72. Less than 14 percent of the Type 7 households (no

employable male present) reported income from work on other farms compared with

25 percent of the Type 1 (male head "fully employable") and Type 2 (male head

"employable") families.

Among the Type 1 families reporting farm wage income 36 percent

earned less than $250 compared with 48 percent of the Type 2 families and 78

percent of the Type 7 families. Conversely, the percentages in farm work

income classes above $1,000 wnre 36, 20, and 6 for Type 1, 2, and 7 families

respectively. Again this was the same general pattern as found under farm

income and total family income.

There was no apparent relatic ship between family earnings from farm






-91-


TABLE 72.--Distribution of households reporting income from work on other farms,
by family type and farm work income class, 167 rural households, North and West
Florida, 1956


: Family type
Farm work : House- :
income class : holds : : : : :
(dollars) : 2 3 4 : 5 : 6 7 8

IO NO. NO. 1o. o o. N o. Lio. No

1- 249 : 84 16 32 3 5 1 .. 25 2
250- 499 : 26 7 13 2 1 1 2 ..
500- 749 10 .. 6 .. 2 1 1
750- 999 : 10 5 2 .. 1 .. .. 2
1,000-1,499 : 16 6 3 1 1 3 .. 1 1
1,500-1,999 : 10 4 5 .. .. .. .. 1
2,000-2,999 : 8 4 4 .. .. .. .. ..
3,000-3,999 : 1 1 .. .. .. *. -*. ..
4,000-4,999 1 1 .. .. .. .. .. *a
5,000-7,499 : 1 .. 1 ,. .. .. .. .. ..
7,500-9,999 : .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
10,000 and over : .. .. .. *. ** **

Total 167 44 66 6 8 7 .. 32 4
___________----------,---ill-----i


aSee Table 15 for description of family types.


wage work and education of the family

less than $250 from this source range


head (Table 73). Proportions reporting

from 40 percent of the households whose


family head had no formal schooling to 70 percent of the households whose

family head had completed 7 years of school, Proportions reporting farm w&ge

income above $1,000 ranged from 19 percent of the households wherein the family

head had completed 8 grades to 29 percent of the households whose family head

had completed 1 to 3 years of high school. Viewed from the standpoint of tot.l

survey households, however, a consistent association existed between the pro-

portion of households reporting farm waze income and the educational level of

the family head. For example, 36 percent of the households whose family heads

had no formal schooling reported farm wage earnings compared with 4 percent of






-92-


TABLE 73,--Distribution of households reporting income from work on other farms,
by education of family head and farm work income classes, 167 rural households,
North and West Florida, 1956


: : Education of family head


Farm work Elementary : High College : Not
income class : Total : School : ascer-
(dollars) : None: : tainted


1-4 5-6, 7 8 :1-3 4 1-3:more:


No O No. No. No. No. NOa- No.

1- 249 :84 8 28 15 7 10 7 4 .. 1 4
250- 499 26 2 9 5 1 2 2 3 .. .. 2
500- 749 : 10 3 3 2 .. 1 .. .. .. 1
750- 999 10 3 3 2 .. .. 1 .. .. .. 1
1,000-1,499 : 16 ,. 7 3 2 2 2 .. .. ..
1,500-1,999 : 10 4 4 1 .. .. .. .. .. .. 1
2,000-2,999 8 .. 4 2 .. .. 1 1 .. ..
3,000-3,999 : 1 .. .. .. .. 1 *. *..
4,000-4,999 : 1 *. .. .. .. .. 1 .. .. .. .,
5,000-7,499 1 *. .. .. .. 1 .. .. .. .. ..
7,500-9,999 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
10,000 and over t .. .. .. *.. .. .. .. 4. ..

Total i 167 20 58 30 10 16 14 9 .. 1 9
________s-----------------------


the households whose family heads reported education above the high

level. Between these two extremes, proportions reporting decreased


school

steadily as


the educational level of the family head rose.

Households headed by females (Table 74) were concentrated to a con-

siderable extent in the lower farm work income classes. None of the households

headed by females reported farm wage income in excess of $1,500, whereas 14

percent of the households headed by males exceeded this amount.

The discussion of farm wage income thus far has dealt with total

family income from this source and characteristics of the households reporting

this income. The rest of this section deals with individuals. It should be






-93-


TABLE 74,-Distribution of households reporting income from work on other farms,
by sex of family head and farm work income class, 167 rural households, North
and West Florida, 1956


: Sex of family head
Farm work All :
income class : households I
(dollars) Male t Female


: Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

1- 249 :84 50.3 72 49.3 12 57.1
250- 499 26 15.5 23 15.7 3 14,3
500- 749 a 10 6.0 8 5.5 2 9.5
750- 999 2 10 6.0 8 5.5 1 4.8
1,000-1,499 : 16 9.6 14 9.6 3 14.3
1,500-1,999 : 10 6.0 10 6.8
2,000-2,999 : 8 4.8 8 5.5
3,000-3,999 a 1 .6 1 .7 .
4,000-4,999 1 .6 1 .7
5,000-7,499 1 .6 1 .7
7,500-9,999 .. .. .. .. .
10,000 and over .. .. .. ..

Total a 167 100.0 146 100.0 21 100.0



noted that the number of individuals reporting farm wage income is not the same

as the number reporting weeks worked, as shown in Part II of this report. Farm

wage earnings were obtained from 271 persons while length of time worked was

obtained from 270 persons. A similar difference also existed between numbers

reporting weeks worked and income from nonfarm work.

Of the 271 individuals reporting farm wage income, 174, or approxi-

mately 64 percent, were nonwhite. An average of 1.85 persons per household

reported earnings from farmwage work among the 94 nonwhite households reporting

this income source compared to an average of 1,33 persons among the white

households. Among the nonwhite individuals (table 75), 69 percent reported

farm wage incomes of less than $250 compared with 64 percent of the white

individuals. Eight percent of the white individuals reported farm wage earnings






-94-


TABLE 75.--Number and percentage distribution of individuals 14 years of age
and older reporting income from work on other farms, by farm work income class
and race, 167 rural households, North and West Florida, 1956

t
Race
Farm work All ____
income class : individuals 3
(dollars) White Nonwhite


i Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

1- 249 : 182 67.1 62 64.0 120 690o
250- 499 36 13.3 15 15.5 21 12,1
500- 749 : 14 5.2 4 4.1 10 5.7
750- 999 6 2.2 4 4.1 2 1.2
1,000-1,499 : 19 7.0 4 4.1 15 8.6
1,500-1,999 5 1.8 2 2.1 3 1.7
2,000-2,999 6 2.2 3 3.1 3 1.7
3,000-3,999 1 ,4 1 1.0 .. ..
4,000-4,999 1 .4 1 1.0
5,000-7,499 g 1 .4 1 1.0
7,500-9,999 .. .. ..
10,000 and over .. .. .. .. ..

Total : 271 100,0 97 100.0 174 100.0



of more than $1,500 while less than 4 percent of the nonwhite individuals

reported incomes above this level. Average income from farm wage work was

$470 for white individuals and $325 for nonwhite individuals.

As mentioned in Part II, a substantial number of the individuals

reporting farm wage work were in the younger age groups. More than one-fou'tn

of the individuals who reported income from this source were under 20 years of

age and more than three-fifths were under 35 (Table 76). Earnings from this

source were generally low for individuals below 20 and over about 45. Somo two-

thirds of the individuals who earned $1,000 or more were in the age groups 30

through 49 years.

As would be expected from the number of younger persons reporting

income from farm wage work, nearly 23 percent of those reporting were still in









TABLE 76.--Distribution of individuals 14 years of age and older reporting income from work on other farms, by
age and farm work income class, 167 households, North and West Florida, 1956


Age

Farm work : House-: : : : : : : :
income class : holds Under: 20-24: 25-29 30-34: 35-39 4-44 45-49 50-54 55-59: 60-64: 65-69: 70-74: 75
(dollars) :: and
20 years: years: years: years: years: years' years: years: years: years years*
S: : over


No No. NO. No ..o o. No. -No. No. No. O. No. No.

1- 249 : 182 66 19 6 14 10 15 13 14 6 10 6 2 1
250- 499 36 6 5 2 6 5 1 7 2 .. 2 .. .. ..
500- 749 14 2 4 1 2 2 .. 2 1 .. .
750- 999 : 6 1 1 .. .. 1 1 2 .. .
1,000-1,499 : 19 1 .. 1 6 2 4 2 1 2 .. .. ..
1,500-1,999 : 5 .. 1 1 .. 1 1 .. .. .. .. .. 1
2,000-2,999 6 .. .. .. 1 1 .. 2 1 1 .. ..
3,000-3,999 1 .. .. 1 ... .. .... .. .. ..
4,000-4,999 1 .. .. .. 1 ., .. ,. .. .. .
5,0oo-7,499 1 *.. *. .. .. .. 1 .. .. .. ..
7,500-9,999 : .. .. .. .. .. .. 0 .. ... .. .. ..
10,000 and over: .. .. .. .... .... .. .

Total 271 76 30 12 29 21 23 27 21 10 12 6 2 2
J iJ .






-96-


school (Table 77). Of the remaining 209 persons, more than half had completed

less than seven grades. Less than 6 percent had completed high school.


TABLE 77.-Distribution of individuals 14 years of age and older reporting
income from work on other farms, by educational levels and farm work income
class, 167 rural households, North and West Florida, 1956


: Education :

: : :
Farm work : : E : igh olle : Still: Not
income class :Total : elementary school : C e in :arer-
(dollars) : :None: : school:tcined
: : : : : : : : : ::
: l-41 5-61 7 8 '1-3 4 1-3*4 or:
: : : ; t :mores:
: : : -- S
SNo. N. No. o. No, o. o. No. g No. No.

1- 249 : 182 9 32 25 312 14 17 6 2 .. 60 5
250- 499 : 36 3 10 3 2 5 7 3 .. .. 2 1
500- 749 :14 .. 3 3 1 2 2 3 .. .. ..
750- 999 : 6 2 1 1 .. 1 *. .. .. .. 1
1,000-1,499 : 19 3 4 4 3 2 2 .. .. .. 1
1,500-1,999 : 5 1 3 1 .. .. .. .. .. .* *
2,000-2,999 a 6 3 1 .. .. .. 1 1 *. .. .* **
3,000-3,999 1 .. .. .. .. ** 1 .* ** **
4,000-4,999 : 1 .. .. .. .. 1 .. *. b..
5,000-7,499 : 1 .. .. *, .. 1 .. ,* ** **
7,500-9,999 *. .. *. .. .. .. .. 6
10,000 and over : .. .. e. .. .* .* .. o o. ..*

Total : 271 21 54 37 18 25 30 14 2 .. 62 8


The association between level of

national attainment does not seem to be cli


income from farm wage work and edu-

ose. The fact that those still in


school had low earnings and those with no formal schooling ranged upward in

income to $3,000 suggests that, in most instances, the amount of time worked

determines the amount of income earned from this source. From the standpoint

of the total population 14 years of age and older, as shown in Table 6, however,

there is an inverse relationship between educational attainment and proportion




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