A STUDY OF THE MERITS OF COOPERATIVE FARMING IN
THE SHADEVILLE COMMUNITY, WAKULIA COUNTY,
FLORIDA
A Thesis
Presented to
the Faculty of the Graduate School
Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
Master of Science
f
by
Rufus Williams
July, 1955
A STUDY OF THE MERITS OF COOPERATIVE FARMING IN
THE SHADEVILLE COMMUNITY, WAKULLA COUNTY,
FLORIDA
A Thesis
Presented to the Faculty of the Division of Graduate
Study Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University in Partial
Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science
in Agriculture
by
Rufus Williams
APPROVED:
iv'
A-9
w,, .o r.Tc
AJ I soft"" jooe
--imw-%m-P =2
6m.mW
C 2 /
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER PAGE
I. INTRODUCTION 1
THE PROBLEM 2
Statement of the Problem 2
Scope of Problem 2
Importance of Study .. 3
DEFINITION OF TERMS .
Cooperative 4
Farm unit 4
Full-time farmer 4
Non-owner 5
Part-owner 5
Part-time farmer 5
Tenant 5
LIMITATIONS 5
Description of Wakulla County 6
REVIEW OF LITERATURE 8
II. STATUS OF FARBING IN THE SHADEVILLE COMMUNITY,
1949-1954 14
Farming Pattern 15
Size of Farming Units 15
Land Tenure 18
Capital Investment per Farm Unit 19
Farm Income 25
iv
CHAPTER PAGE
Summary 30
III. COOPERATIVE FARMING IN THE SHADEVILLE COMMUNITY 32
Economic Problems Facing the Shadeville Com-
munity Farmers 32
Capital Investment in the Wakulla County
Negro Farmers' Cooperative 33
Services Performed by the Cooperative for
Members and Non-Members 35
Effects of Cooperative Activities on Farming
in the Shadeville Community 40
Capital Investment per Farm Unit 41
Farm Income. 42
Size of Farm Units 43
Acres Cultivated 44
Ownership and Operation of Farm Ma-
chinery 44
Adoption of Approved Farming Practices 45
Purchase of Farm Supplies 47
Community's Economy 47
Farm and Home Improvements 48
Marketing Principal Crops and Livestock 49
Summary 51
IV. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 55
BIBLIOGRAPHY 60
APPENDIX 64
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE PAGE
I. Average Size of Farming Units Operated by
Twenty-Five Farmers in the Shadeville Com-
munity, 1949-1954 16
II. Average Number of Acres in Principal Crop Enter-
prises, 1949-1954 17
III. Average Size of Livestock and Poultry Enterprises,
1949-1954 .. 18
IV. Tenure Status of Twenty-Five Farmers in the
Shadeville Community, 1949-1954 19
V. Average Capital Investment Per Farm .. 21
VI. Total Capital Investment in Livestock and Poultry
by Twenty-Five Farmers in the Shadeville Com-
munity, 1949-1954 24
VII. Farm Income of. Tenty-Five Farmers in the
Shadeville Community, 1949-1954 26
VIII. Income From All Sources of Twenty-Five Farmers
in the Shadeville Community, 1949-1954 28
IX. Services Performed by the Wakulla County Negro
Farmers' Cooperative, 1952-1954 . 38
X. Participation in Approved Farming Practices by
Twenty-Five Farmers in the Shadeville Community
for the Periods 1949-1951 and 1952-1954 46
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE PAGE
I. Average Size of Farming Units Operated by
Twenty-Five Farmers in the Shadeville Com-
munity, 1949-1954 . 16
II. Average Number of Acres in Principal Crop Enter-
prises, 1949-1954 17
III. Average Size of Livestock and Poultry Enterprises,
1949-1954 .. 18
IV. Tenure Status of Twenty-Five Farmers in the
Shadeville Community, 1949-1954 19
V. Average Capital Investment Per Farm 21
VI. Total C&pital Investment in Livestock and Poultry
by Twenty-Five Farmers in the Shadeville Com-
munity, 1949-1954 .. 24
VII-. Farm Income of.Twenty-Five Farmers in the
Shadeville Community, 1949-1954 .. 26
VIII. Income From All Sources of Twenty-Five Farmers
in the Shadeville Community, 1949-1954 .. 28
IX. Services Performed by the Wakulla County Negro
Farmers' Cooperative, 1952-1954 . 38
X. Participation in Approved Farming Practices by
Twenty-Five Farmers in the Shadeville Community
for the Periods 1949-1951 and 1952-1954 46
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The writer wishes to acknowledge the very valuable
assistance of Professor Godfrey P. Van Meter, Assistant
Professor Graduate Agricultural Education; Professor T. T.
Lewis, Associate Professor of Agricultural Economics;
and Professor Lonnie A. Marshall, Associate Professor of
Agricultural Education and State Itinerant Teacher-Trainer
in Vocational Agriculture, for their guidance and coopera-
tion in the making of this study.
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Cooperatives give men something more than goods and
services. They give them a sense of control over their
destinies, and a sense of kinship with their fellows on
common problems. The greatest asset of cooperatives is
their democratic form of organization--supporting the idea
that people together can solve their economic problems.
All rural communities need the stimulating influence
of organization through which problems can be attacked and
activities stimulated by the collective effort of all the
people who call the locality home. Farming must not only
be profitable, but it must be pleasant as well. The ideal
community may develop through the people who live there if
they will but pool their efforts. In such a community the
increased income from farming will maintain a higher stand-
ard of living; the homes, the highways, farms, and public
buildings will be attractive; health will be protected, and
the social activities will make life brighter and happier
for everyone in the community. Cooperation by itself may
not be a way of life but it is a way to better living.
4JA38
2
I. THE PROBLEM
Statement of the Problem. Prior to the organization
of the Wakulla County Negro Farmers' Cooperative in 1952,
poorly organized farms and low farm income characterized the
farming pattern of Negro farmers in the Shadeville Community.
Many farmers supplemented their farm income by off-farm ac-
tivities, frequently, at the expense of farming operations.
In recognition of these conditions, the Wakulla County Negro
Farmers' Cooperative was organized.
The purpose of this study is to examine the operations
of the cooperative organization to determine whether it has
contributed to the solution of the problems which existed
before 1952.
cope of Problem. There are forty-eight Negro farmers
and four white farmers in the Shadeville Community and con-
tiguous areas covered by this study. Of this number, twenty-
five of the farms were selected and surveyed as a basis for
securing data for this investigation. The twenty-five farms
surveyed included eleven which were affiliated with the
Wakulla County Negro Farmers' Cooperative and fourteen farm
units that were non-members. A six year period beginning
1949 and ending in 1954 was covered. This represents three
years of non-cooperative farming and three years of cooperative
farming.
The specific areas which are the concern of this
inquiry are indicated on a map of Wakulla County. (See
Appendix.) These will be referred to as the Shadeville
Community although some of the farm units studied are found
in contiguous communities. These communities have much in
common and can safely be studied as a unit.
Importance of the Study, Evidence of the low economic
status of farming was common throughout the Shadeville Com-
munity. The small size of the farm unit, the low farm income,
and the relatively small capital outlay per farm unit were
of special concern to many persons in the community. It was
the general opinion of those concerned that if the adverse
conditions were to be changed, extensive changes in farming
methods would be necessary.
In light of the above conditions and with the hope
that cooperative action might give a degree of relief to the
small farmers in the Shadeville Community, the Wakulla County
Negro Farmers' Cooperative was organized in 1952. It was also
hoped that through cooperative action the standard of living
of the community in general might be raised. This effect,
it was felt would result mainly from increased farm income
made possible by cooperative purchase of farm machinery and
supplies and through cooperative marketing of farm produce.
4
To determine the extent to which cooperative efforts
have alleviated the conditions existing prior to 1952 is the
concern of this investigation. The information gained from
this study will serve as a guide to future cooperative action
in the community.
The desirability for information bearing on the problem
was indicated by most of the residents of the community. The
steady decline in community population, church membership, and
the ineffective functioning of other community organizations
were matters of grave concern. The general consensus of
opinion was that a closer working relationship between farmers
of the community was necessary to avert economic and social
disaster.
An effort will be made to show the extent to which
success has been attained in succeeding chapters of this study.
II. DEFINITIONS OF TEMIS USED
Cooperative. An organization of farmers whose ob-
jective is to carry on farm operations to the advantage of
its members on a non-profit basis.
Farm Unit. The complete farm under the control of one
person or in partnership with another person.
Full-time Farmer. A farmer whose value of sales of
farm products exceeds $1,199.00 provided (1) he does not work
5
off his farm more than one-hundred days, or (2) the non-
farm income received by him and the members of his family
is not greater than the value of farm products sold.
Non-owner. A farmer who owns none of the land on
which he farms,
Part-owner. A farmer who owns a portion of the land
on which he farms, and rents or leases a portion.
Part-time Farmer. A farmer whose value of sales of
farm products ranges from $250.00 to $1,199.00 provided (1)
he works off the farm one-hundred days or more, or (2) the
non-farm income received by him and the members of his
family is greater than the value of farm products sold.
Tenant. A farmer who rents from others or works on
shares for others all the land he operates.
Limitations. This study is limited to a comparison
of cooperative and non-cooperative farming in the Shadeville
Community for the period 1949-1954. For this purpose records
of twenty-five farmers in the Shadeville Community will be
used as the principal source of information.
6
III. DESCRIPTION OF WAKULIA COUNTY
Wakulla County is located in North Florida. It is
bordered on the east by Jefferson County, on the north by
Leon County, on the west by Liberty and Franklin Counties,
and on the south by the Gulf of Mexico. The county is
sparsely populated with about 5,400 persons inhabiting its
385,980 acres of land.
About 37,000 acres of the land in the county is in
farms. Of this acreage approximately 21,000 area are
cleared for cultivation. About 7,000 acres are being cul-
tivated by the sixty-six commercial farmers and two-hundred
seventy-seven other farmers in the county. The other
14,000 acres are lying idle or classified as unimproved
pasture.
In general, the soil is of the sandy type, which
predominates over the entire county. It ranges in drainage
from poorly drained to excessively drained.
The average annual rainfall is 54.03 inches which is
reasonably distributed throughout the year. The heaviest
rainfall comes in July, August, and September.
The Shadeville Community, in which this study is made,
is one of the small communities found inside the borders of
Wakulla County. It is located on U. S. Highway 319, ap-
proximately two miles southwest of Wakulla Springs and
7
approximately four miles east of Crawfordville, the County
Seat.
Farming occupies an important place in the economy
of this community. There are fifty-two farmers in the com-
munity. Most of the farms are of the general farm type with
corn and peanuts constituting the principal crops grown.
Hogs and chickens represent the principal livestock and
poultry enterprises.
At the time the present investigation was begun, farm-
ing and timbering afforded the major sources of income for the
people in the Shadeville Community and were the principal ac-
tivities. For many years, however, there has been a steady
exhaustion of timber. The exhaustion of timber has reflected
itself in a decline in the number of persons employed by the
timber industry. A further reduction in the number of persons
employed by the industry is expected in the near future. Un-
less farming is improved to the point where it will absorb
these workers on a full-time basis, families will be forced
to seek employment in areas outside the community. This will
cause serious disruption of community activities and a break-
down in community organization.
It is estimated that it will take fifteen years from
the time of this study, under efficient timber management, to
grow a supply of timber which will be conducive to an appreci-
able expansion in employment. Farming can be expanded in a
much shorter period of time.
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Literature dealing directly with the study is very,
very much limited in quantity. The writer was unable to
find any literature on cooperative farming in the Shade-
ville Community, nor for a sectional area that would in-
elude the community. Most of the literature received is
only indirectly applicable to the study.
According to a study made by the Florida State
Department of Agriculture more than half of Wakulla County
is located in the Apalaohioola National Forest which em-
braces 106,800 of the 385,980 acres of land found in the
county. It is further stated that the lumber and naval
stores industry, once the county's major source of income,
are still important assets to the county's economy. Com-
mercial fishing and tourists comprise the main sources of
income, in addition to agriculture and timber. Corn,
sweet potatoes, sugar cane, velvet beans, and peanuts are
the principal crops grown in the county, continued the
study.
Know Florida. Florida State Department of Agricul-
ture, p. 75.
9
Of the three-hundred forty-three farms in Wakulla
County, sixty-six are commercial farms and two-hundred
seventy-seven are classified as other farms.
A generalized soil map of Florida gives two general
classifications of the soil found in Wakulla County.
1. "Imperfectly to poorly drained, sands and loamy
sands over dominantly non-calcareous materials.
2. Somewhat excessively to moderately well drained
sands.1g
According to Laird approximately 7,000 acres of land
in farms are cultivated and approximately 14,000 acres of
cleared land are lying idle or classified as unimproved
pasture in Wakulla County.
Hopkins5 pointed out that "a farmer can accomplish
much by working with his neighbors in performing jobs that
either he cannot do at all by himself, or at least could not
do so economically or so well." He further pointed out that
2
250 Agriculture Census. United States Department
of Commerce, Vol. 1, Part 18, pp. 131, 137.
3
S. N. Edison and F. B. Smith, Soils and Fertilizers
for Florida Vegetable and Field .Crop. University of Florida
Experiment Station, Bulletin 554, (February, 1953), p. 12.
A. S. Laird, "Annual Plan of Work for Wakulla County,
Florida" (unpublished Report of An Annual Plan of Work for
Wakulla County, 1954).
John A. Hopkins, Elements of Farm Management. (New
York: Prentice Hall, Inc., 1939), pp. 3- 1-51.
10
farmers cooperate to an advantage in exchanging labor, haul-
ing, ownership of large and expensive pieces of equipment
that cannot usually be used economically on a single farm,
and ownership of breeding sires.
6
Hunt added selling of farm products, farm crediting,
beef clubs, and cold storage lockers as desirable types of
farm cooperation. He asserted that "the activities of the
farm operator should not be confined to the line fences of
his own farm when trying to increase farm income."
Mears and Tobriner' defined cooperative marketing as
"the organized sale of farm products on a non-profit basis
in the interest of the individual grower." They took the
stand that it is murderous competition for two small farmers
to try to outbid each other to gain the favor of commercial
buyers.
The greatest saving to farmers results from the in-
creased specialization in marketing, grading, control over
shipments, trade names, advertising, and merchandising,
reported Mears. and Tobriner.
6
Robert L. Hunt, Farm Management in the South.
(Danville, Illinois: The Interstate Printers and Publishers,
1942), pp. 464-83.
?
Elliot Grinnell and Matthew 0. Tobriner, Principles
and Practices of Cooperative Marketing. (New York: Ginn
and Company, 1926), p. 580.
.bid., p. 580.
11
SOnly by Joining and working together can farmers
provide the capital, manpower, and facilities for efficient
lspration, meet organized groups on an equal basis, carry
on research, and develop new ideas that will benefit all
9
people.
10
Chapman emphasized the importance of rural organi-
I nations through which problems can be attacked and high
standards of living maintained.
The following accomplishments have been made by
farmers through their cooperatives: aided in improving
quality of food, fostered standardization of products,
improved storage facilities, reduced transportation costs,
reduced production costs, improved method of production,
lowered cost of credit, and helped stabilize farm prices.1
12
Timmons lists the following things which a
cooperative can do: Help improve distribution between
markets, finance marketing operations, decrease wasteful
Five Questions About Farmer Cooperatives. United
States Department of Agriculture, Information Bulletin
Number 4.
P1aul W. Chapman, Successful Farming in the South.
(Atlanta, Georgia: Turner E. Smith and Company, 1942),
pp. 290-95.
11
Farmers Hel Everybody When They Work Together.
United States Department of Agriculture, Information Bulletin
Number 3.
12
1D. E.. Timmons, Cooperative Agriculture in Florida.
Florida Department of Agriculture, p. 70.
12
practices, make cheaper credit possible, make for cooperative
production, make for cooperation in preparation for market,
Sand get the grower a quality price for a quality product.
He also lists things cooperative cannot do as ?make a good
Farmer out of a poor one," etc.
13
According to McKay marketing co-ops have increased
farm income by improving the quality of the products they
handle, encouraging farmers to improve their production
practices, and reducing marketing costs; the purchasing
cooperatives by providing at cost the kind of supplies the
farmers need.
He pointed out further that if the farmers are helped
all of us are helped--the bankers and businessmen. Through
the opportunities for leadership in a cooperative organiza-
tion farmers are developed, their interest in the churches
and schools is stimulated, and a cooperative progressive
spirit is developed.
14
Williams and others in reporting on the functions
and some of the activities of the Sweet Home Community Far-
mers' Cooperative in 1951, stated that the Sweet Home
13
A. W McKay, Farmers' Cooperatives in Our Community.
United States Department of Agriculture, Circular E-32,
May, 1948).
14Rufus Wlliams, C. J. Randolph, W. W. Anderson and
L. A. Marshall, A Report on the Function and Some of the
Activities of the Sweet Home Community Farmers' Cooperative
Association,' (unpublished Committee Report of a Field Trip
to the Sweet Home Community Farmers' Cooperative Association,
Seguin, Texas, 1951).
13
ity Farmers' Cooperative was organized for the
wrpzpose of securing the necessary machinery needed by the
:farmers in the community to increase their farm labor in-
~Ime. As a result the average farm income increased from
$500.00 to $2,500.00 in nine years. It was further re-
perted that outstanding improvements had been made in the
living standards of the farmers in the community which was
a direct or indirect result of cooperative action by far-
mers in the community.
CHAPTER II
STATUS OF FARMING IN THE SHADEVILLE COMMUNITY, 1949-1954
Farming was at a low state in the Shadeville Com-
munity at the time this study was made. The farms were
small on the average and the average farm income was far
below the state average per farm unit. Considerable pro-
gress has been made in improving various aspects of this
situation through the cooperative farming program initiated
in 1952, but much remains to be done if the economic status
of the group is to be raised to a level comparable to the
higher income counties of the state. The small average
farm income reported for the period may be attributed pri-
marily to the small size of the farms, the small investment
in modern farm machinery and equipment, and the part-time
nature of farming followed in the community. As a direct
result of this situation, there has been a tendency for
established farmers to discontinue farming in recent years.
Others have reduced the number of acres cultivated and have
taken up part-time employment outside the community. This
is indicated by the large number of tillable acres lying
idle (See page 6.) or growing up in inferior grades of
timber.
The situation that existed in the community was
further complicated by the passage of state legislation in
15
1951 requiring the fencing of livestock. The effect of
this was to reduce still further the acreage planted in
crops since pasture had to be provided for the livestock
kept. Although livestock numbers were small, as will be
shown, the increased acreage used for this purpose affected
the income of farmers appreciably.
I. Farming Pattern
In the Shadeville Community there were forty-eight
Negro and four white farming units. Most of the farmers
follow a general type of farming. Corn, peanuts, hogs,
and poultry constitute the principal crop and livestock
enterprises.
Size of Farming Units. As previously stated, the
average size of the farming unit in the Shadeville Community
is small in terms of acreage and capital invested. It will
be seen in Table I that the average size of the farm units
studied varied from 52.4 acres in 1949 to 68.8 in 1954.
The average number of acres cultivated by the twenty-
five farmers surveyed increased from 20.0 in 1949 to 31.9
in 1954, representing an increase of 11.9 acres.
16
TABLE I
AVERAGE SIZE OF FARMING UNITS OPERATED BY TWENTY-FIVE FAR-
MERS IN THE SHADEVILLE COMMUNITY, 1949-1954
Item 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954
Farming units (Acres) 52.4 52.9 52.7 52.7 62.1 68.8
Acres owned 39.7 39.7 40.2 38.6 40.2 40.2
Acres rented 12.7 13.2 12.5 14.1 21.9 28.6
Acres cultivated 20.0 19.2 19.7 21.7 26.6 31.9
Acres in pasture and
timber 32.2 32.8 31.3 29.6 34.4 35.5
Most of the increase was accounted for by proportionate
increases in the number of acres rented for the same period.
The number of acres owned remained practically the same
throughout the period covered by this survey. The average
acreage increase of land used for pasture and timber was
three and three-tenths acres per farm unit during the 1949-
1954 period.
Of the crops cultivated, corn occupied the largest
acreage with peanuts ranking second for the period 1949-
1954. Most, or 98.2 per cent of the increase in acreage
reported was devoted to corn and peanuts. For other crops
the acreage cultivated remained relatively constant, or the
increase was negligible.
TABLE II
AVERAGE NUMBER OF ACRES IN PRINCIPAL CROP ENTERPRISES, 1949-
1954
Enterprise 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954
i/ il ii |111 . . . .. . .
Corn 11.0 9.9 9.9 9.6 12.7 19.7
Peanuts 7.3 7.6 8.0 10.4 11.9 10.3
Truck crops, general 1.2 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.7 1.5
The livestock and poultry enterprises remained
relatively stable showing only slight increases. (See Table
III.) Of the twenty-five farmers interviewed, ten had dairy
cattle, twenty-three had breeding hogs, and twenty-three had
poultry. This was true for each year covered by this in-
vestigation. It is significant that none of the farms
studied reported raising beef cattle. The small size of
the average farm unit and the pasture requirement for beef
cattle combined to restrict this enterprise.
18
TABLE III
AVERAGE SIZE OF LIVESTOCK AND POULTRY ENTERPRISES,
1949-1954
Kind of Livestock or 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954
Poultry
Cattle, dairy (head) 1.3 1.3 1.3 .9 .9 1.0
Hogs, breeding (head) 3.2 3.3 3.5 3.5 4.0 3.1
Poultry layers (head) 20.0 21.6 22.7 22.9 19.8 17.4
II. Land Tenure
The tenure status of the twenty-five farmers inter-
viewed remained relatively steady for the period 1949-1954.
(See Table IV.) The three-year period reflected small
changes in most tenure categories, but these changes were
not significant. It remains to be seen whether activities
of the cooperative will reflect themselves in an increase
in farm operators in the area. It should also be pointed out
that the number of full-time farmers continued to decrease
while the part-time farmers increased. This reflects the
precarious situation existing in the community to which
reference has already been made. The low farm income has
forced farmers to seek off-farm employment. This is
especially true of the smaller than average farms where
incomes derived from farm operations have not been sufficient
19
to sustain them on even the lowest standards.
TABLE IV
TENURE STATUS OF TWENTY-FIVE FARMERS IN THE SHADEVILLE
COMMUNITY, 1949-1954
Item 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954
Number of operators 23 23 24 25 25 25
Number of owners 11 10 12 13 13 13
Number of part-owners 9 10 10 9 9 9
Number of tenants 3 3 2 3 3 3
Number of full-time
farmers 12 12 12 13 11 11
Number of part-time
farmers 11 11 12 12 14 14
III. Capital Investment Per Farm Unit
The average capital investment per farm unit for the
twenty-five farmers interviewed showed a steady increase
from 1949-1954. (See Table V.) Average investment in land,
household goods, farm machinery, livestock and poultry, and
automobiles showed increases. The investment in farm build-
ings and in workstock decreased during the period. This
decrease was due in part to depreciation in value of existing
buildings and workstock.
20
Average capital investment in land showed an
increase from $686.39 in 1949 to $881.60 in 1954. This may
be attributed to the fact that two farmers who did not own
land purchased land during the period, and two other farmers
purchased additional land. There was no land sold on any
of the twenty-five farms surveyed.
There was a slight decrease in capital investment in
buildings. This may be attributed, in part, to the fact
that more interest was exercised in farming operations, and
considerably more capital invested in farm machinery during
the latter part of the period than at the beginning.
Capital investment in household goods remained
relatively constant during the period. The average in-
vestment showed an increase of about five dollars. This
may also be attributed to the use of available funds for
purchase of modern farm machinery and equipment following
organization of the cooperative.
The average capital investment in farm machinery
showed a substantial rise in 1954 over 1949. The increase
was sharp in 1952 and 1953. This was due primarily to the
introduction of three farm tractors with attachments, a
peanut picker, and hay baler; and the increased purchase of
farm trucks during the latter part of the period covered by
this study. The rise was from an average investment of
$86.28 in 1949 to an average investment of $451.80 in 1954.
TABLR V
AVERAGE CAPITAL INVESTMENT PER FARM
1949-1954
Capital Investment 1949\ 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954
Land $ 686.39 $ 810.22 $ 826.49 $ 824.60 $ 855.60 $ 881.60
Buildings 1,313.04 1,300.00 1,280.00 1,278.00 1,278.00 1,290.00
Household goods 630.43 656.52 631.25 617.60 625.60 635.00
Farm machinery 86.28 80.39 75.00 269.40 458.80 451.80
Livestock and poultry 222.52 234.91 243.04 225.20 250.24 225.60
Workstock 58.04 57.39 56.25 48.60 37.80 37.20
Automobiles 97.83 228.13 227.08 220.00 228.00 218.00
Average per farm $3,090.11 $3,367.69 $3,339.08 $3,484.40 $3,734.04 $3,543.18
ro.
HJ
22
Investment reached the peak in 1953 with an average capital
investment per farm unit of $458.80. This represents an
increase of more than 500 per cent over 1949. The increase
in capital investment reflects primarily the efforts of the
members of the Wakulla County Negro Farmers' Cooperative, as
the investment of non-members remained practically steady
during the period covered by this study.
The average capital investment in livestock and
poultry remained relatively stable throughout the period
covered by this study. The average investment in productive
livestock and poultry for 1949 was $222.52. This was in-
creased to an average of $225.60 in 1954. This represents
an increase of 1.4 per cent.
The average capital investment in workstock showed
a steady decrease. By 1954 there had occurred a 35.1 per
cent decrease in capital investment under 1949. This may be
attributed to three factors: (1) fewer workstock owned by
farmers in 1954, (2) capital investment in tractors, and
(3) value decrease of workstock due to age. Twelve farmers
maintained workstock for the entire period covered. Eight
owned workstock for a portion of the period, and five farmers
did not own workstock for any year covered.
Of the twenty-five farmers interviewed only one owned
a truck for the entire period covered by this study. Four
owned trucks for a portion of the years covered. The total
4s,
23
Capital investment in trucks increased from $450.00 in 1949
Sto $1,525.00 in 1954, representing a 238.9 per cent increase.
Two of the farmers owned trucks in 1949 and five in 1954.
Average capital investment per farm unit in auto-
mobiles increased from $97.83 in 1949 to $218.00 in 1954,
representing an increase of $120.17 or 122.8 per cent. Six
of the twenty-five farmers owned automobiles for the entire
period covered by this report of investigation, and six
owned automobiles for a portion of the period. Of the
twenty-five farmers, six owned automobiles in 1949 and eleven
in 1954.
By separating the capital investment in livestock and
poultry into the kinds of livestock and poultry making up
the total investment, it may be noted that the total capital
investment in hogs for all twenty-five farms increased from
$2,355.00 in 1949 to $3,040.00 in 1954. (See Table VI.)
This represents an increase of $685.00 or 29.1 per cent
during the period covered. Twenty-two farmers maintained
one or more breeding hogs for each year of the period
covered with the exception of 1949 and 1950 during which
time two of the twenty-two farmers were not carrying on farm-
ing operations and did not own breeding hogs. Three of the
farmers did not have breeding hogs for any year during the
period covered by this study.
TABLE VI
TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT IN LIVESTOCK AND POULTRY BY TWENTY-
FIVE FARMERS IN THE SHADEVILLE COMMUNITY, 1949-1954
Kind 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954
Hogs, breeding $2,355.00 $2,560.00 $2,705.00 $3,060.00 $3,810.00 $3,040.00
Cattle, dairy 2,010.00 2,030.00 2,240.00 1,675.00 1,600.00 1,980.00
Poultry, layers 753.00 813.00 888.00 920.00 846.00 720.00
Total all farms $5,118.00 $5,403.00 $5,833.00 $5,655.00 $6,256.00 $5,640.00
. ............ .... ,L I IIL, ._ ......I, I" -..... 2 .. -: ... _.."...
r)
-pr-
25
IV. Farm Income
One of the best methods for determining the success
of farm operations is to measure the income produced over
a period of years. The farm income received by the twenty-
five farm units included in this study before and after
the organization of the Wakulla County Negro Farmers'
Cooperative should reveal, to some extent, benefits result-
ing from cooperative efforts.
It will be seen that the total farm income for the
twenty-five farmers under study increased from $22,747.00
in 1949 to $34,662.50 in 1954. This represents an increase
of $11,915.50. For the same period the average farm income
per farm unit increased from $987.39 to $1,386.50, repre-
senting an increase in average income of $399.11 or 40.4 per
cent. The most substantial rise occurred in 1952 when the
average rose from $599.08 in 1951 to $1,240.46 in 1952.
Of the total farm income in 1949, income from crops
contributed 28.2 per cent; income from livestock and poultry
contributed 25.3 per cent; and value of products used on
the farm accounted for 46.4 per cent.
In 1954, of the total farm income of the twenty-five
farmers constituting this study, income from crops contri-
buted 28.8 per cent, income from livestock and poultry con-
tributed 37.4 per cent, and value of products used on the
TABLE VII
FARM INCOME OF
TWENTY-FIVE FARMERS IN THE SHADEVILLE COMMUNITY,
1949-1954
Source of Income 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954
Crops $ 6,423.00 $ 6,211.00 $ 6,699.00 $10,887.00 $11,319.00 $ 9,967.00
Livestock and
poultry 4,749.00 5,511.50 6,518.00 7,810.00 11,281.30 12,973.00
Timber 0 0 0 200.00 0 314.00
Products Used on 10,575.00 10,411.00 10,761.00 12,114.00 12,080.00 11,408.50
farm
Total income per
farm unit $22,747.00 $22,135.00 $23,978.00 $31,011.50 $34,680.30 $34,662.50
Average income
per farm unit $ 987.39 $ 962.33 $ 999.08 $ 1,240.46 $ 1,387.21 $ 1,386.50
---- -- ---; -- ---------------- ---- --- --- ----;---- ---now- --
01)
27
farm accounted for 30.3 per cent.
For the most part, farm income from each major
source showed an increase for the period covered by this
investigation. Income from crops increased from $6,423.00
in 1949 to $9,967.00 in 1954, representing an increase of
$3,544.00. Income from livestock and poultry increased
from $5,749.00 in 1949 to $12,973.00 in 1954, showing an
increase of $7,224.00. Value of products used on the farm
rose from $10,575.00 in 1949 to $11,408.00 in 1954, repre-
senting an increase of $833.50.
Most of the farmers in the Shadeville Community do
part-time farming and engage in off-farm work to supplement
their low farm income. Therefore, off-farm income is con-
sidered in this study. (See Table VIII.) Income is divided
into three categories: (1) cash farm income, (2) non-cash
farm income, (value of products used on the farm), and (3)
cash off-farm income.
Income from all sources for the twenty-five farm
units increased from $37,134.00 in 1949 to $52,262.50 in
1954, representing an increase of $15,128.50. For the same
period the average income from all sources per farm unit in-
creased from $1,614.52 to $2,090.50, representing an increase
of $475.98 or 29.9 per cent.
TABLE VIII
INCOME FROM ALL SOURCES OF TWENTY-FIVE FARMERS IN THE SHADEVILLE
COMMUNITY, 1949-1954
Item 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954
Cash farm income $12,172.00 $11,722.00 $13,217.00 $18,897.00 $22,600.00 $23,254.00
Non-cash farm
income 10,575.00 10,411.00 10,761.00 12,114.00 12,080.00 11,408.50
Cash non-farm
income 14,387.00 15,560.00 17,722.00 18,845.00 18,045.00 17,600.00
Total for all farms $37,134.00
Average per farm $ 1,614.52
$37,693.00 $41,200.00
$ 1,638.83 $ 1,716.67
$49,586.00
$ 1,998.24
$52,725.00
$ 2,109.00
$52,262.50
$ 2,090.50
00
O
now&
momop"
W"
posum
~IIC~llllllk~L- --I-- .-- ~~---Ynk~-l-~ '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' --~~ -CllplaCb~ -- --I----~~IIILIIII-LIIL-L~I Ill~a(l~Pll~a~CLII~~IIIC-ll -Yi
29
Of the total income from all sources, cash farm
income contributed 44.5 per cent in 1954. Cash off-farm
income contributed 38.7 per cent in 1949 and 33.6 per cent
in 1954.
For the period covered by this study the combined cash
income of the twenty-five farms surveyed rose from $26,559.00
in 1949 to $40,894.00 in 1954, representing a rise of
$14,335.00 or 54.0 per cent. There was a sharp rise in 1952
when the total cash farm income rose from $13,217.00 in
1951 to $18,897.00 in 1952.
It may be noted in Table VIII that with the excep-
tion of the years 1952, 1953, and 1954 the cash off-farm
income was substantially higher than cash farm income.
This may be attributed to the fact that the cash farm
income was relatively lower during the years 1949, 1950,
and 1951 than 1952, 1953, and 1954. The increase in cash
farm income during the years 1952-1954 put cash farm income
slightly in the lead in 1952, and substantially in the lead
in 1954 over cash off-farm income. This reverse in lead
was due primarily to the increase in number of acres cul-
tivated resulting in a greater yield, and to the increase
in average market price received in 1953.
Cash off-farm income increased from $14,387.00 in
1949 to $17,600.00 in 1954, representing an increase of
$3,213.00 or 22.3 per cent. This increase may be
30
attributed, in part, to the operation of the Wakulla
County Negro Farmers' Cooperative's modern farm machinery
on a custom basis. This enabled farmers to carry on their
normal farming operations with less of their personal time
devoted to these activities. This also gave farmers more
time to do off-farm work. Some of the farmers used all or
portion of this time to expand the size of their farming
business. Others used the time doing off-farm work.
31
income increased from $14,387.00 in 1949 to $17,600.00
in 1954, representing a combined increase of $3,213.00 or
?2.3 per cent. With the exception of 1952, 1953, and 1954,
the combined cash received from off-farm work by the
twenty-five farmers surveyed was greater than the combined
cash received from the sale of farm products.
CHAPTER III
COOPERATIVE FARMING IN THE SHADEVILLE COMMUNITY
The period 1949-1954 covered by this study includes
two three-year periods for purposes of comparison. The
period 1949-1951 represents the non-cooperative farming
period in the Shadeville Community and the period 1952-
1954 represents the cooperative farming period in the com-
munity.
The purpose of this chapter is to make a compari-
son of various aspects of farming in the community during
each of the selected periods in order to determine the
relative merits of the cooperative program initiated in
1952.
I. Economic Problems Facing the Shadeville Community Farmers
The farmers in the Shadeville Community have been
faced for many years with the problem of carrying on farm-
ing operations with very little of the resources necessary
for success. It will be seen in Table I that the average
size of the farming unit is small considering acres farmed
and farm income received. Of the total acreage in farms,
less than fifty per cent of this was cultivated during the
years 1949-1954.
A diversified system of farming was followed with
corn and peanuts being the principal crops grown. Of the
33
total acreage cultivated, corn represented 55.4 per cent
in 1949 and 61.8 per cent in 1954. Peanuts accounted for
34.7 per cent of the combined acreage cultivated in 1949
and 32.2 per cent in 1954.
According to information gained from the surveys,
peanuts and hogs contributed the major portion of the cash
farm income. Peanuts contributed 29.2 per cent to the com-
bined cash farm income in 1949 and 14.1 per cent in 1954.
Corn was fed primarily to livestock and poultry. As shown
in Table VII, the average farm income was relatively low
for the entire period covered by this study.
II. Capital Investment in the Wakulla County ero Farmers'
Cooperative
Individual capital resources of the farmers in the
Shadeville Community were found by the investigator to be
very limited at the time of this study. On the other hand,
the need for capital to carry on farming operations more
efficiently was evident on every farm in the community.
The farmers were faced with the following major problems.
First, inability to operate their farms efficiently due to
an almost complete lack of modern farm machinery and capable
workstock. Before 1952 no farm tractor was owned by any
34
Negro farmer in the Shadeville Community. Second, in-
ability to harvest and market their peanut crops efficiently
due to lack of peanut harvesting machinery. Several far-
mers had lost entire crops of peanuts after they were stacked
in the fields because of the lack of available machinery
for picking the crop. Third, lack of adequate trucking
facilities for hauling their products to market. The major
products marketed were hogs and peanuts. Most of the farmers
sold these products on their farms for much less than what
they could have received on the open market.
The Wakulla County Negro Farmers' Cooperative was
organized in 1951 with the objective of improving the farm-
ing status of the Shadeville Community. To realize this
broad objective, steps were taken to purchase the necessary
farm machinery and equipment which would permit more effi-
ciency in farming operations than was possible under in-
dividual farmers.
The initial cooperative efforts embraced the purchase
of a farm tractor with attachments, a peanut picker, hay
baler, and truck. Operations on a cooperative basis in
preparing land and performing other services for members
and non-members began in the early part of 1952.
At the end of the 1954 farm year the eleven members
of the Wakulla County Negro Farmers' Cooperative had a net
capital investment of $4,050.00 in machinery and equipment
35
purchased cooperatively.
III. Services Performed b2 the Cooperative for Members and
Non-Members
In an attempt to give some degree of relief to the
economic problem facing most of the farmers in the Shade-
ville Community, the Wakulla County Negro Farmers'
Cooperative rendered custom services for non-members as
well as members. Custom services mean the performing of
certain jobs by the Cooperative for members and non-members
at their request. A service charge was set up by the poopera-
tive for each service offered. The non-members for whom
services were rendered were known as customers of the
cooperative. The nature and extent of these services are
shown in Table IX. During the 1952-1954 period the services
performed fell into ten job categories ranging from clearing
land to hauling products to market. (See Table IX.)
Of the eleven members of the cooperative each had
been served by the cooperative in some capacity. Services
had been performed by the cooperative for most of the non-
member farmers in the community. The number of members
served during the period 1952-1954 ranged from a low of
three in clearing land to a high of ten in harrowing, ferti-
lizing, and hauling. The number of non-members served ranged
from a low of zero in clearing land and fertilizing to a high
36
of thirty-four in harrowing. No requests were made by non-
members for clearing land and fertilizing. These Jobs were
performed by hand and with mules.
The scope of service rendered members ranged from a
low of sixty-one acres of land cleared to a high of 643
acres harrowed. For non-members the range was from a low
of zero acres cleared and fertilized to a high of 1,542
acres harrowed. Five-thousand eight hundred and eighteen
miles of hauling had been performed for members and 379 miles
for non-members.
According to information gathered from the members
of the Wakulla County Negro Farmers' Cooperative, the wide
range in scope of services for members and non-members may
be explained as follows: clearing land represents the low
in number for number served for members and non-members,
and low in scope of service for members and non-members.
But, on the other hand, clearing land represented much
greater effort and time per acre than did any other service
performed by the cooperative. This was due primarily to
the fact that much of the land cleared had been growing
up for a considerable length of time, and had never been
cleared for tractor cultivation. Much more land had been
cleared by hand.
Harrowing represents the high for the number of
members and non-members served, and scope of service of
37
members and non-members. This may be attributed to three
factors: First, the operation of harrowing or preparing
land for planting was begun far before the time for planting,
thereby giving more time for the service to be rendered.
Second, the service was in demand by most of the small far-
mers who did not cultivate but one to three acres and did
not have workstock. Third, much of the land was rough with
vegetation and harrowing wasespecially desired.
The jobs of fertilizing, planting, rotary hoeing,
and cultivating were performed during the rush of the farm-
ing season and were done in routine cycles. The scope of
these jobs, therefore, are controlled by the capacity of the
available machinery for doing the jobs. For the reason
as stated, the service performed by the Cooperative during
the period 1952-1954 in fertilizing, planting, rotary hoe-
ing, and cultivating are relatively the same in scope and
are limited primarily to members. As the demand increased
for these services by members, plans were made to purchase
another tractor and attachments. This, undoubtedly, would
put the organization in a position to broaden these ser-
vices to members and non-members as more land is cleared
for tractor cultivation.
38
TABLE IX
SERVICES PERFORMED BY THE WAKULLA COUNTY NEGRO FARMERS'
COOPERATIVE 1952-1954
tC~~l~ m II ... ..... .. t -:L ,_,~ C ,, .. ., ,_- .....m .. : ,. .
NUMBER
SERVICES PERFORMED :
: Members
Clearing land (acres)
Harrowing (acres)
Fertilizing (acres)
Planting (acres)
Rotary hoeing (acres)
Cultivating (acres)
Plowing up peanuts (acres)
Picking peanuts (acres)
Baleing hay (tons)
Hauling (miles)
3
10
10
5
5
5
4
6
6
10
SERVED
Non-
:Members
0
34
0
2
2
2
.1
3
3
7
:Men
,-.
6
32
31
31
E
23
9
581
SCOPE OF
SERVICE
Non-
abers :Members
;1 6
[3 1542
?0 0
52 8
.8 8
.0 8
39 10
[4 27
)9 12
.8 379
mow&
*o
w
- -r---a rrarrasr- _.s -ra~---
-.I ---~ --
a~rrr r rrrr 411r- r- r- -~r- Il ~1
39
The services of picking peanuts and baleing hay
S were needed only by the farmers with peanut allotment.
Peanut marketing was under the control of the Production
Marketing Administration. The cooperative had served all
of the six members needing and requesting services in
these jobs. Three non-members had also been served.
The service performed by the cooperative organiza-
tion in hauling was of three general types: (1) general
hauling on the farm, (2) general hauling in the county, and
(3) general hauling out of the county. Hauling on the farm
was primarily done in the distribution of fertilizer,
clearing of land, and hauling materials for construction
and repairs. Hauling in the county consisted mainly of
hauling of building materials, fertilizer, feed and hogs.
Hauling out of the county consisted mainly of hauling
fertilizer, seed, and hauling products to market.
Hauling relative to marketing farm products has
brought about a major change in the marketing custom of
farmers in the Shadeville Community. As has been previous-
ly stated, before 1952 farmers marketed most of their
products on their farms because of a lack of trucks to
haul their products to the open markets. Since the pur-
chase of a truck by the Wakulla County Negro Farmers'
Cooperative in 1952, cooperative marketing of hogs and
peanuts have brought to farmers participating the
40
realization of receiving prevailing market prices for
products marketed. Approximately one-hundred tons of
peanuts have been harvested and marketed cooperatively by
the members of the Cooperative organization, and ap-
proximately two-hundred head of hogs. Through the pooling
of products for market by the small farmers in the community,
a sizable sum has been saved in the cost of hauling by
those participating.
IV. Effects of Cooperative Farming in the Shadeville Com-
munity
The effectiveness of cooperative farming in the
Shadeville Community will be determined by dividing the
broad topic into related categories and investigating
each. The period 1949-1954 is divided into two periods,
1949-1951 and 1952-1954, to provide a basis for comparison
of the non-cooperative farming period, 1949-1951, with
the cooperative farming period, 1952-1954.
To determine the effects of cooperative farming in
the community the following aspects will be compared for
the two periods mentioned: capital investment per farm
unit, farm income, size of farm units, acres cultivated,
ownership and operation of farm machinery, adoption of
appr~v d farming prac ticoes, purchase of farm Isupplies,
community's economy, farm and home improvement, and marketing
principal crops and livestock. The purpose of the
succeeding sections is to determine the effects coopera-
tive farming has had on each of the above stated aspects
of farming in the Shadeville Community.
Capital Investment Per Farm Unit. Reference has
been made elsewhere in this study to the small size of the
farm unit in the Shadeville Community. Reference has also
been made to the small capital outlay and the part it has
played in bringing about the conditions existing among
farmers in the community, especially prior to 1952. To
what extent these conditions have been changed since the
organization of the cooperative is a legitimate subject
of this inquiry. For this purpose a comparison is made of
the average capital investment per farm unit for the two
periods under study. The results are shown in Table V.
The average capital outlay per farm unit was
$3,265.63 for the 1949-51 period and $3,587.31 for the
1952-54 period. This represents an increase of 9.8 per
cent. This increase is relatively small and cannot be
considered significant of itself. Since the years 1952-54
represent the period following organization of the coopera-
tive, its indirect effects on individual farmers should
also be considered. One of the functions of a cooperative
is to perform services in areas where individuals are
42
unable to perform themselves. This is especially true
where expensive machinery and equipment are involved.
Services of this nature were performed on a broad basis by
the Cooperative in the Shadeville Community during these
years.
It seems logical to conclude, therefore, that the
increase in capital investment per farm unit is largely
accounted for by the purchase of tractors and other farming
equipment on a cooperative basis rather than as individuals
working alone. It also must follow that services performed
by the cooperative for members and non-members remove
part of the necessity for purchase of similar equipment
on an individual basis. The situation described here re-
flects itself in a lower capital outlay per farm unit
than would have been necessary to carry on the same opera-
tions on an individual basis.
Farm Income. The income derived from any business
indicates in large measure the success or failure of that
business. This is also true with the business of farming.
Farm income is influenced by a number of factors, some of
which are controlled by the farmer. Just how the farm in-
comes of the twenty-five farmers in the Shadeville Community
were affected during the cooperative farming period of
1952-1954 will be discussed.
43
For the period 1949-1951 the average farm income
per farm was $982.93, and for the period 1952-1954 it was
$1,338.06. This represents an increase of $355.13 or
36.1 per cent per farm unit. Average cash farm income
during the cooperative farming period showed an increase
of $494.82 or 134.2 per cent over the non-cooperative
farming period, 1949-1951.
The increase in average farm income for the period
1952-1954 may be attributed primarily to the four following
causes: (1) an increase in total yield, (2) farmers
carrying their major products to marketing centers rather
than marketing them on their farms, (3) a higher grade of
peanuts marketed due to the availability of peanut harvest-
ing machinery, and (4) a higher market price received for
hogs in 1953 than any other year covered by this study.
Size of Farm Units. Throughout this report of in-
vestigation reference has been made to the small size of
the farm units in the Shadeville Community. Prior to 1953
there was a relative freeze in the size of the farm units
as is shown in Table I. The effects cooperative farm
operations have had on size of farm units will be discussed
in terms of comparison of the two farming periods.
The average size of farm units for the twenty-five
farmers constituting this study for the period 1949-51 was
52.7 acres, and for the period 1952-54 the average size of
44
farm units was 61.2 acres. This represents an increase of
8.5 acres of 16.1 per cent. This increase was due primarily
to the introduction of modern farm machinery by the Wakulla
County Negro Farmers' Cooperative in 1952 and the purchase
of two additional individual tractors by two members of the
cooperative.
Acres Cultivated. Size of farm unit may not give a
true picture of the volume of business on a given farm.
One of the best methods of measuring volume of business of
a farm is in terms of acres cultivated or tilled. Acres
cultivated gives, more nearly, the portion of a farm which
is in productive use. According to the report of the twenty-
five farmers in the Shadeville Community, the average
number of acres cultivated for the period 1949-1951 was 20,6
acres. For the period 1952-1954 the average was 28.0
acres. This increase represents primarily the efforts
of the eleven members comprising the Wakulla County Negro
Farmers' Cooperative. The number of acres cultivated by
the fourteen non-members included in this study remained
relatively stable for the six-year period covered.
Ownership and Operation of Farm Machinery. During
the period 1949-1951 no farmer in the Shadeville Community
owned a farm tractor. Peanuts were grown for market but no
peanut picker was owned. Only two trucks were owned by the
45
twenty-five farmers comprising this inquiry. The average
capital invested in farm machinery was $80.56 per farm unit
for the period.
During the period 1952-1954 the following machinery
and equipment were purchased and put into operation. In 1952
the Wakulla County Negro Farmers' Cooperative purchased and
put into operation in the community one tractor with attach-
ments, one peanut picker, one hay baler, and one truck. In
1953 two members of the cooperative purchased two individual
tractors and put them into operation. This made a total
of three farm tractors in operation at the end of the period
1952-1954. The average capital invested in farm machinery
in 1954 was $393.33. This representsan increase of $312.77
or 388.0 per cent over the period 1949-1951.
Ad option of Approved Farmain Practices. Success in
farming is closely associated with the adoption of improved
and approved farming practices by farmers. An investigation
of the effects of cooperative 'farming in the Shadeville Com-
munity on the adoption of improved farming practices is the
objective of this section. It may be noted in Table X that
for each of the nine practices investigated there was a
substantial increase in participation by the twenty-five
farmers interviewed during the 1952-1954 period. The in-
creases in participation in approved farming practices may be
TABLE X
PARTICIPATION IN APPROVED FARMING PRACTICES BY TWENTY-FIVE FARMERS IN THE
SHADEVILLE COMMUNITY FOR THE PERIODS 1949-1951 AND 1952-1954
T 0 T A L S : INCREASES
:: Increase
PRACTICE : 1949-1951 : 1952-1954: Total in
: : : Increase : Per Cent
Cover Crops Planted (Acres) 79 182 : 103 130.4
Cover Crops Plowed In (Acres) 79 : 182 103 : 130.4
Fertilizer Used (Tons) 55 3/4 : 120 3/4 65: 116.3
Crops Fertilized (Acres) 422 : 1,195 : 773 183.2
Green, Winter Pasture Crops : :
Planted (Acres) 35 : 176 : 141 : 402.9
Land Reclaimed (Acres) : 63 : 373 : 310 492.1
Virgin Land Cleared 10 38 : 28 280.0
Land Grubbed or Stumped (Acres) : 37 : 433 : 396 : 1070.3
Certified Seed Planted (Acres) 695 1,682 997 129.1
9 9 :
S, m ___________________________________-:. -9. ........____._. ________________* 9- -- ..,,,.---,.- --------- ~-M Ii W l
47
attributed, in part, to three factors: (1) the introduc-
tion into the community of modern farm machinery during the
1952-1954 period, (2) the sharing of experiences by members
of the cooperative organization through their group meetings,
and (3) the supervision of cooperative activities by the
agriculture teacher in the Shadeville High School.
SPurchase of Farm Supplies. The cooperative purchase
of farm supplies by the farmers in the Shadeville Community
presents an open economic endeavor worthy of active partici-
pation. Very little was done in this area during .either
period under investigation in this chapter. Fertilizer
was being purchased by the members of the cooperative from
local dealers with small savings to each member concerned.
Ton prices were being paid rather than hundred pound bag
prices. Plans were set up for the purchase of fertilizer
in conjunction with a cooperative group of white farmers
in the county in carload or truckload lots. Under the plan
each farmer participating will realize a substantial
saving over what was realized at the time of this study.
Community's Economy. As has been stated elsewhere
in-this study, the broad purpose of the organization of the
Wakulla County Negro Farmers' Cooperative was to improve the
economic condition of the Shadeville Community. The effects
cooperative efforts have had on the farmers in the com-
munity have been discussed. At this point the effects of
cooperative effort on the community in general will be
explained.
During the period 1952-1954 the Wakulla County Negro
Farmers' Cooperative gave full time employment to one per-
son. It gave short-period employment to forty-one addi-
tional persons, including men, women, and children. This
does not include the persons employed by the individual
members of the organization. The cooperative paid to the
persons employed a total of $4,853.35. To local business
establishments the cooperative paid $2,851.55. This ex-
p nditure was primarily for farm supplies, fuel, lubricants,
parts, repairs, interest, and capital investment. The co-
operative paid to land owners in the community a total of
$271.00 for rent on land.
Farm and Home Improvement. In an attempt not to
leave uninvestigated any major factor on the farms of the
twenty-five farmers constituting this study which might
reveal effects of cooperative farming, farm and home im-
provements were investigated. Effects of cooperative
farming as well as individual farming may be reflected on
the farm and in the homes of farm families. To determine
the possible effects of cooperative farming on farm and
home improvement a comparison is made of imprcve:ments during
each of the two periods under investigation.
It has been shown in Table X that considerably more
improvement was made to farm land during the period 1952-1954
than during the 1949-1951 period. The increase in cover crops
planted, cover crops plowed in, land reclaimed, virgin land
cleared, and land grubbed or stumped indicate definite farm
improvements. (See Table X.) This was not found to be true
of the homes, however. Improvements made to the homes did not
off-set the decrease in value due to depreciation. This does
not mean that no homes were improved above depreciation. On
several farms surveyed the homes had been improved remarkably
in connection with painting, screening, lighting, and running
water.
When the farmers' incomes are increased sufficiently,
they will undoubtedly spend a larger sum for home improvement.
As a rule, w-hen a farmer does not have adequate funds to take
care of both home improvements and farming operations, he will
neglect home improvements in favor of farming operations.
He is aware that he must rely much more on farming operations
for a living than he does on home improvements.
Marketing Principal Crops and Livestock. Marketing is
an integral part of the farming business. Marketing as re-
lated to farming may be defined as the rendering of those
essential services which enable the consumer to utilize the
produce of the farm. Cooperative marketing as it relates to
50
farming is defined as the organized sale of farm products on
a non-profit basis in the interest of the individual grower.
To determine how ccoperative marketing has affected farming
in the Shadeville Comm'unity is the purpose of this section.
The small far-'s in the Shadeville Community were
especially adapted to cooperative marketing. The principal
products marketed were hogs and peanuts. Very few farmers
were marketing enough hogs to comprise a truck load. The
pooling of hogs and peanuts for transportation to market
was being practiced by the members of the Wakulla County
Ne.ro Farmers' Cooperative. This practice was being carried
out at a saving in hauling cost to each member participat-
ing.
As has been stated elsewhere in this chapter, prior
to 1952 only two farmers out of the twenty-five farmers in-
terviewed owned trucks for hauling their products to market.
During the period 1952-54, five trucks were owned by the
twenty-five farmers in the Shadeville Community.
It may be noted in Table VII that the farm income
from crops, and livestock and poultry, which.represents cash
farm income, made a sharp increase during the years 1952-,54,
over the years 1949-51. More trucks being available for
hauling peanuts and hogs to open markets was one of the con-
tributing factors responsible for this upsurge in cash farm
income.
51
SUMMARY
For the purpose of comparison, the six-year period
covered by this study was divided into two three-year
periods. The period 1949-1951, prior to the organization
of the Wakulla County Negro Farmers' Cooperative, repre-
sents the non-cooperative farming period, and the period
1952-1954 represents the cooperative farming period. In
order to determine the relative merits of the cooperative
farming program initiated in 1952, various aspects of farm-
ing in the Shadeville Community were investigated and
results compared for each period mentioned.
The farmers in the Shadeville Community had very
little of the necessary resources for success in farming.
On an average the size of the farms were small, and
the farm income relatively low. Corn and peanuts were the
principal crops grown.
Prior to 1952 the farmers in the community were
faced with the problems of not having the necessary capital
to carry on farming operations on a successful basis, and
an almost complete lack of modern farm machinery for har-
vesting and marketing their products.
By the end of 1954 each of the eleven members of the
Wakulla County Negro Farmers' Cooperative had a net coopera-
tive investment in machinery and equipment of $368.18 aside
52
from their individual investments. In 1953 two of the
members purchased individual tractors and attachments.
The cooperative rendered custom services for non-
members as well as members. The service rendered con-
sisted of most of the major farming operations ranging
from clearing land to hauling products to market. During
the three-year period of cooperative farming, harrowing
represented the most demanded service offered. A total of
1,542 acres were harrowed for thirty-four non-members and
643 acres were harrowed for ten members. Other services
were equally as helpful to those needing the service and
were served.
The average capital outlay per farm unit was
$3,265.63 for the 1949-51 period and $3,587.31 for the
1952-54 period. This represents an increase of 9.8 per
cent.
The average farm income increased from $982.93 for
the period 1949-51 to $1,338.06 for the period 1952-54.
This represents an increase of $355.13 or 36.1 per cent.
The average size of the farm units increased from
52.7 acres for the period 1949-51 to 61.2 acres for the
1952-54 period. This was an increase of 8.5 acres or 16.1
per cent.
For the period 1949-1951 the average number of
acres cultivated was 20.6 acres and 28.0 acres for the
period 1952-1954. This represents an increase of 7.4 acres
or 35.9 per cent.
During the period 1952-1954 the major pieces of
machinery which were purchased and put into operation by
the members of the cooperative either individually or
cooperatively included three tractors with attachments,
one peanut picker, one hay baler, and one truck. The
average capital investment in farm machinery increased
from $80.56 for each farm unit for the period 1949-1951
to $393.33 for the period 1952-1954. This represents an
increase of 388.0 per cent.
There was a substantial increase in participation
in approved farming practices during the 1952-54
period over the 1949-51 period. The per cent increase
ranged from 116.3 in tons of fertilizer used to 1,070.3
for land grubbed or stumped.
Very little had been done by the farmers in connec-
tion with the cooperative purchase of farm supplies. Plans
were set up for the purchase of fertilizer in conjunction
with a local white cooperative at a sizable saving to
those participating.
53
54
In connection with improving the economy of the
community, the cooperative organization has employed one
person on a full-time basis and forty-one other persons
at intervals for short periods. This employment has netted
the employees $4,853.35 for the three years of cooperative
farming. The cooperative has paid to local business es-
tablishments $2,851.55 and to land owners, as rent on
land, $271.00.
There were marked improvements to the farms surveyed
during the cooperative farming period over the non-coopera-
tive farming period. On an average, the homes were not im-
proved, although a few homes had been improved in regards
to painting, screening, lighting, and the installation of
running water. The greatest effort was in the direction
of farm improvement rather than home improvement.
The principal products being marketed by the farmers
in the community were hogs and peanuts. A cooperative owned
truck was of much value to the farmers in marketing these
products. A saving in hauling had been realized by the
members of the cooperative and a few non-members through
the pooling of these products for hauling to market. A
greater cash return had also been realized from these pro-
ducts by more farmers being able to carry their hogs and
peanuts to open markets during the cooperative farming
period of 1952-54 than during the non-cooperative period of
1949-51.
CHAPTER IV
I SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
This study has brought to light some significant
information concerning cooperative farming in the Shadeville
Community. But a follow-up study will undoubtedly be of
much value. No previous studies were found which were
made of the problem in the Shadeville Community, nor a
sectional area that includes the community. Literature with
direct bearings on the subject was found to be very limited.
The points which follow may be of assistance in
future studies of the problem.
1. Prior to the organization of the Wakulla County
Negro Farmers' Cooperative in 1952, poorly organized farms
and low farm income characterized the farming pattern of
the Negro farmers in the Shadeville Community. Many farmers
supplemented their farm income by off-farm activities,
frequently, at the expense of farming operations.
2. Farming and timbering were affording the major
sources of income. A steady exhaustation of timber was
being reflected in a steady decline in the number of persons
employed by the timber industry.
3. The farming units were small. Corn, peanuts,
and hogs comprised the major enterprises produced. Most or
98.2 per cent of the increase in acreage cultivated during
the period 1949-1954, was devoted to corn and peanuts.
4. The tenure status of the twenty-five farmers
studied remained relatively stable during the period.
There was an increase in part-time farmers and a decrease
in full-time farmers.
5. Capital investment per farm unit increased
from $3,090.11 in 1949 to $3,543.18 in 1954, representing
an increase of $453.07. Capital investment in farm ma-
chinery increased more than 500 per cent, representing the
greatest investment made during the period 1949-1954.
6. Average farm income rose from $987.39 in 1949
to $1,386.50 in 1954, representing an increase of $399.11
or 40.4 per cent.
7. Off-farm income increased from $14,387.00 in
1949 to $17,600.00 in 1954, representing a combined increase
of $3,213.00 or 22.3 per cent. With the exception of 1952,
1953, and 1954, the combined cash received from off-farm
work was greater than the combined cash received from the
sale of farm products.
By dividing the period 1949-1954 into the non-
cooperative farming period, 1949-1951, and the cooperative
farming period, 1952-1954; and comparing the results of
various aspects of farming during each of the two periods;;
the following information was revealed:
57
8. Prior to 1952 the farmers were faced with the
problems of not having the necessary capital to carry on,
farming activities on a successful basis, and an almost
complete lack of modern farm machinery for harvesting and
marketing their products.
9. By the end of the 1954 farm year the eleven
members of the Wakulla County Negro Farmers' Cooperative
had a total capital investment of $4,050.00 in machinery
and equipment purchased cooperatively.
10. The cooperative rendered custom service for
non-members as well as members. The services rendered con-
sisted of most of the major farming operations ranging from
clearing land to hauling products to market. During the
three-year period of cooperative farming, a total of 1,542
acres were harrowed for thirty-four non-members and 643
acres for ten members. Other services were equally as
helpful to those needing the service and were served.
11. The average capital outlay per farm unit was
$3,265.63 for the 1949-51 period, and $3,587.31 for the
1952-54 period. This represents an increase of 9.8 per
cent.
12. The average farm income increased from $982.93
for the period 1949-51 to $1,338.06 for the period 1952-54.
This represents an increase of $355.13 or 36.1 per cent.
13. The average size of farm units increased from
52.7 acres for the period 1949-1951 to 61.2 acres for the
period 1952-1954. This was an increase of 8.5 acres or
16.1 per cent.
14. For the period 1949-1951 the average number of
acres cultivated was 20.6 acres and for the period 1952-
1954 the average number of acres cultivated was 28.0.
This represents an increase of 7.4 acres or 35.9 per cent.
15. Average capital investment in farm machinery
increased from $80.56 per farm unit for the period 1949-1951
to $393.33 for the period 1952-1954, This represents an
increase of 388.0 per cent.
16. There was a substantial increase in the partici-
pation in approved farming practices during the 1952-1954
period over the 1949-1951 period. The per cent increases
ranged from 116.3 in tons of fertilizer used to 1,070.3
for land grubbed or stumped.
17. Very little had been done by the farmers in
connection with the cooperative purchasing of farm supplies.
Plans were set up for the future purchase of fertilizer
in conjunction with a local white cooperative at a sizeable
saving to those participating.
18. The community's economy has been improved in
a small measure through the cooperative farming program.
58
The cooperative organization has paid to employees
$4,853.35 during the three years of cooperative farming;
paid to local business establishments $2,851.55; and paid
to land owners, as rent on land, $271.00.
19. There was marked improvement made to the farms
during the cooperative farming period over what was made
during the non-cooperative farming period. This was not
true with the homes. In general, home improvement did
not off-set depreciation, although a few homes showed re-
markable improvement.
20. Hogs and peanuts were the principal crops mar-
keted. A cooperative owned truck was of much value to the
farmers in marketing these products. A sizeable saving
had been realized by the farmers through the pooling of
their products in hauling them to market. A greater cash
return had been received from the products marketed by the
farmers being able to carry their hogs and peanuts to open
marketing centers during the cooperative farming period.
59
BIBLIOGRAPHY
61
BIBLIOGRAPHY
A. BOOKS
App, Frank, and Allen G. Waller Farm Economics.
J. B. Lippincott Company, 1938
Chicago:
Black, John D., Marion Clawson, Charles R. Sayre, and Walter
W. Wilcox, Farm Management. New York: The Macmillan
Company, 1948.
Chapman, Paul W., Successful Farming in the South. Atlanta,
Georgia: Turner E. Smith and Company,r1942.
,and Roy H. Thomas, Southern Crops. Atlanta,
Georgia: Turner E. Smith and Company, 1947.
W. Gordon Leith, Frank P. King, and L. S.
Hardin, Efficient Farm Management. Atlanta, Georgia:
Turner E. Smith and Company, 1948.
Degraff, Herrell, and Ladd Haystead, The Business of Farming.
Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1948.
Hart, V. B., M. C. Bond, and L. C. Cunningham, Farm Manage-
ment and Marketing. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.,
1g9 .---
Hopkins, John A., Elements of Farm Management.
Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1939.
New York:
..___.__, Elements of Farm Management. New York: Prentice-
Hall, Inc., 1950.
Hunt, Robert L., Farm Management in the South. Danville,
Illinois: The Interstate Printers and Publishers, 1942.
Mears, Elliot Grinnell, and Mathew 0. Tobriner, Principles
and Practices of Cooperative Marketing. New York: Ginn
and Company, 1926.
Pearson, Handy S., Success on the Small Farm.
McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1946.
New York:
Robertson, Lynn S., and Ralph H. Woods, Farm Business Manage-
ment. Chicago: J. B. Lippincott Company, 1946.
62
B. PUBLICATIONS
Agricultural CooeQration i the. coastal Bd Area f TT&.
Department of Agricultural Economics and Sociology, Texas
Agricultural Experiment Station Progress Report, 1378.
Brooks, D. W., "C. P. A. Accounts for More Corn In South,"
News for Farmer Cooperatives (Farm Credit Administration,
United States Department of Agriculture, April 1952).
"Co-ops Shouldn't Relapse into Complacency," News for Farmer
Cooperatives, Farm Credit Administration, United States
Department of Agriculture, August 1952.
Duggan, I. W., "Three Essentials in a Successful Co-op,"
News for Farmer Cooperatives, Farm Credit Administration,
United States Department of Agriculture, April 1952.
Farmers Hel Everybody When T Work Together, United
States Department of Agriculture, Information Bulletin,
Number 3.
Fetrow, Ward W., and R. H. Elsworth Agricultural Coopra-
tion in the United States. United states D6ertment ef.oT
Agriculture, Bulletin Number 54, April 1947.
Five Questions About Farmer Cooperatives. United States
Department of Agriculture, Information Bulletin Number 4.
Hurst, Fred J.,"Alabama Co-op Aims for Abundance," News for
Farmer Cooperatives, United States Department of Agricul-
ture, February 1952..
Killinger, G. B., W. E. Stokes, Fred Clark, and J. D. Warner,
"Peanuts in Florida." University of Florida Agricultural
Experiment Station, June 1947.
Knapp, Joseph G., "Democratic Organization Greatest Asset,n
News for Farmer Cooperatives, Farm Credit Administration,
United States Department of Agriculture, August 1951.
Land of Plenty. Chicago: Farm Equipment Institute, 1950.
Lilliston Peanut Harvesting Equipment, Lilliston Implement
Company, Pamphlet, Albany, Georgia, 1953.
McKay, A. W., Farmers' Cooperatives in Our Community.
United States Department of Agriculture, Circular E-32,
May 1948.
63
Myers, J. Mostella, and Frazier Rogers, Mechanical
Drying and Harvesting of Peanuts. University of Florida,
Agriculture Experiment Station, Bulletin 507, November,
1952.
"New Implements to Speed Harvesting of Peanuts," Industrial
Progress in Florida. Florida State Department of Agri-
culture, August 22, 1952.
"Term Co-op Differs over the World," News for Farmer
Cooperative s, Farm Credit Administration, United States
Department of Agriculture, March 1952.
Timmons, D. E., Cooperative Agriculture in Florida, Florida
State Department of Agriculture.
10 United Census of Agriculture. United States Department
of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, V. 1, pt. 18, 1950.
Wakeley, Roy E., "Villages with Co-ops Grow Stronger," News
for Farmer Cooperatives, Farm Credit Administration,
United States Department of Agriculture, December 1951.
"Wakulla County," Know Florida. Florida State Department
of Agriculture, 1953~.
Why Co-ops? United States Department of Agriculture,
Pamphlet E. M. 23, G. I. Round Table, 1999.
C. UNPUBLISHED MATERIALS
Laird, A. S., "Annual Plan of Work for Wakulla County,
Florida." Unpublished Report of An Annual Plan of Work
for Wakulla County, Florida, 1954.
Lawrence, W. L., and W. J. Anderson, "How the Farmers' Co-op
in Marion County, Florida has Helped In-School and Out-
School Groups to do a Better Job of Farming." Unpublished
Committee Report to the Florida Negro Vocational Agri-
culture Teachers Conference, 1951.
Williams, Rufus, C. J. Randolph, W. W. Anderson, and L. A.
Marshall, "Report on the Function and Some of the Activi-
ties of the Sweet Home Community Farmers' Cooperative
Association." Unpublished Report of Committee on a field
trip to the Sweet Home Community Farmers' Cooperative
Association, Seguin, Texas, August 1951.
APPENDIX
QUESTIONNAIRE
1.
2.
3.
4.
Date____
Number of years organized
Present membership_
Name of organization
Date organized
Initial membership
Capital investment to date:
I tenm
Tractor
Harrow
Fertilizer attachments
Planting attachments
Rotary hoe
Peanut digging plows
Plows (as sweeps, etc.)
Truck
Peanut picker
Hay baler
Others (List)
Value
Amount owed on capital investment
Cash assets,
Net assets and capital investments per member
Amount owed on outstanding debts
Services rendered since organized:
Number Owned
__
~ ~UY -- ---~L~.----
-- --
I -- -- --- ---
-- --
__~, _
_._ __ ___ __
___~~
__ _I____
__ c_ -_..
I
~I --
---
66
: Number Served : Scope of Service
SERVICE PERFORMED : Non- Non-
Members : Members : Members : Members:
Clearing land (Acres) : : :
Harrowing (Acres) : : : :
Fertilizing (Acres) : :
Planting (Acres) : : :
Rotary hoeing (Acres) : : : :
Cultivating (Acres) : : :
Plowing up Peanuts (Acres) : :
SBaleing hay (tons) : : : :
S S *
Picking Peanuts (Acres) :
Hauling (Miles) : : : :
Others (List) : : : :
11. Services rendered the community's economy since organized:
Number of persons employed
Amount paid to persons employed ____M
Amount paid to local business establishments
Amount paid to community land owners for rent of land
12. Remarks:
-- C --L-l~- .- --.-l--L ~- --- --~~~--
.. -~ -L ----- C L -411-
67
QUESTIONNAIRE
Name of Farmer
Community
Number in Family_
Size of Farm Acres
Type of Farming
Date
Co-op Member Yes No
Farm Experience in Wakulla County
Acres in Timber AgeNo
Acres in Pasture
I. FARMING STATUS
Acres owned
Acres rented
Acres cultivated
Sharecropper (check)
Full-time Operator (check)
Part-time Operator (check)
If a part-time operator
what per cent of your
income was from your
farm
II. FARM CAPITAL
Land (Acres and Value)
Buildings (Value)
Household (Value)
Livestock and Poultry
Hogs, breeding (Number and Value)
Cattle, breeding (Number and Value)
YEARS
1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954
-II .~---o ~,
-- --~- II-~- II-~ -UI ~ -~c-~ -- --
MAIN
--------~r --C---____ ~CC I -*______. I_._ ~. _1-_~--__-_ LI__~~__~I __--- ___~~ L___.~_~
68
1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954
FARM CAPITAL, Continued
Workstock (Number and Value)
Poultry, layers (Number and Value)
Others
Tractor and Attachments
Tractor (Number and Value)
Harrow (Number and Value)
Planter (Number and Value)
Fertilizer distributor
(Number and Value)
Hay baler (Number and Value)
Peanut picker (Number and Value)_
Rotary hoe (Number and Value)_
Weeder (Number and Value)
Disc tiller (Number and Value)
Peanut digging plows (Number and Value)
Peanut shaker (Number and Value)
Cultivator (Number and Value)
Others
Truck (Number and Value)
Auto (Number and Value)
Trailer (Number and Value)
Horse equip ment and attachments
Wagon (Number and Value)
Single Stock (Number and Value)
69
Horse Equipment and Attachments, Continued
1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954
Double stock (Number and Value)
Harrow (Number and Value)
Weeder (Number and Value)
Cultivator (Number and Value)
Planter (Number and Value)
Fertilizer distributor
(Number and Value)
Others
Other machinery and equipment
(Number and Value)
III. CROPS PRODUCED
Peanuts (Acres)
Marketed (Acres and Value)
Hogged (Acres)
Used at home (Value)
Hay marketed (Tons and Value)
Hay used at home (Tons)
Corn (Acres)
Marketed (Bushels and Value)
Hogged (Acres)
Useda at home (Bushels and Value)
Watermelons (Acres)
Marketed (Melons and Value)
Used at home (Value)
CROPS PRODUCED, Continued
Sugarcane (Acres)_
Syrup marketed (Gallons and Vali
Syrup used at home (Gallons and
Value)
Sweet potatoes (Acres)
Marketed (Bushels and Value)
Hogged (Acres)
Used at home (Bushels and Value
Pasture, green (Acres)
Hay crops (Acres)
Hay marketed (Tons and Value)
Used at home (Tons)
Velvet beans (Acres)
Marketed (Bushels and Value)
Grazed or hogged (Acres and Val
Used at home (Bushels and Value
Truck crops (Acres)
Marketed (Value)
Used at home (Value)
Others
IV. Average distance to place where
crops were marketed
V. LIVESTOCK AND POULTRY PRODUCED
Hogs on hand, meat (Number and Valu
Hogs marketed (Number and Value)
1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954
ue)
) ____ _"m_ -m
ue)
)_____________________________
ue)I~~I -- I--rWIYIT~
---- --_ -._--___ 1-.-e -- -- --- --
--------------- -- --e -- ~-- ---~-~__ _.,
-- -- -- ---- ---- --I----~- -II ~-. --.--1 -- _
-- -- --- --- ------ -- -- -----
- _-_F I__ -- I __ __ __ -_ ---- I~___~_I_~~I_~
71
1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954
LIVESTOCK AND POULTRY PRODUCED, Continued
Hogs used at home (Number and Value)
Cattle on land, beef (Number and Value)
Cattle marketed (Number and Value)
Cattle used at home (Number and Value)
Milk and butter marketed (Value)
Milk and butter used at home
(Value)
Poultry, eggs (Number and Value)
Eggs marketed (Dozens and Value)
Eggs used at home (Dozens and Value)
Poultry, .meat (Head)
Marketed (Head and Value)
Used at home (Head and Value)
Others (List)
VI. Average distance to place
where livestock and poultry
were marketed
VII. JOBS PERFORMED OR PRACTICES
1. Cover crops planted (Acres)
2. Cover crops plowed in (Acres)
3. Fertilizer used (Tons)
4. Green, winter pasture
planted (Acres)
5. Crops fertilized (Acres)
6. Land reclaimed (Acres)
7. Virgin land cleared (Acres)
8. Land grubbed or stumped (Acres)
72
1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954
JOBS PERFORMED OR PRACTICES, Continued
Others (List)
VIII. Participation int the services
Offered by the Local Co-op
1. Clearing land (Acres)
2. Harrowing (Acres)
3. Crops fertilized (Acres)
4. Planting (Acres)
5. Rotary hoeing (Acres)
6. Cultivating (Acres)
7. Picking peanuts (Acres)
8. Plowing up peanuts
9. Bailinglhay (Tons)
10. Hauling crops to market (Miles)
11. Hauling hogs to market (Miles)
12. Other hauling (Miles)
IX. REMARKS
APALACM
4
*r"
COLA
'S
V .
NAL .
45 *,~ ~
.45 a..
4b :'.
r ;0~
r5
"4
\ E N I C 0
C 1
L-%
'V 1
/ ,-
WAKULLA COUNT'
FLORIDA
*Areas Investigated
Rif4
O- o.
....-1 ---
4'
NATION
V
)F*4r I
;Al. ~c
1
J
r .;
H) ~I~~.'~(I'~
r, rlh( ~~~II
,t ~-~IL ((~
~C
~- --~ -I~-
ru u.--\'. ~
|