|
HISTORIC NOTE
The publications in this collection do
not reflect current scientific knowledge
or recommendations. These texts
represent the historic publishing
record of the Institute for Food and
Agricultural Sciences and should be
used only to trace the historic work of
the Institute and its staff. Current IFAS
research may be found on the
Electronic Data Information Source
(EDIS)
site maintained by the Florida
Cooperative Extension Service.
Copyright 2005, Board of Trustees, University
of Florida
June 1959
Agricultural Economics Mimeo Report No. 59-11
Producers' Opinions
of the
Flue-Cured Tobacco
Acreage Control
and
Price Support Program
by
Charles D. Covey
Department of Agricultural comics
Florida Agricultural Experi et Station "
Gainesville, Florida cSM
- CONTENTS
Page
Introduction.........**..*.,* ..** .....*,.**.......**....*............*.....
The Industry in Florida....***..*...**...* ......,*..,........................ 2
Method of Study.......... ............................... ........... 2
Opinions about Existing Program ..........*.., *.....,..................* 5
Acreage Size and Additional Acreage 5
Program Equitability 8
Program Likes 11
Program Dislikes 11
Program Discontinuation 15
Program Improvements 16
Opinions about Alternative Control Methods .................................. 18
Acreage Increases and Support Price Reductions 18
Minimum Size Allotments 18
Poundage Allotments 21
Sliding Scale Allotment Adjustments 21
Allotment Rentals and Transfers 23
Familiarity with and Participation in the Program *.........*.....*.....*...... .. 25
Producer Familiarity with Committeemen 25
Producer Participation in Elections 28
Producer Understanding of Program Objectives 30
Summary *...o.,......... **0......**.....**..*..........****..******* *** 32
Acknowledgments .,.......... .............3..,,,......,...4....... 34
PRODUCERS' OPINIONS OF THE FLUE-CURED
TOBACCO ACREAGE CONTROL AND
PRICE SUPPORT PROGRAM1
by
Charles D. Covey2
Introduction
The formulation of agricultural policy is a dynamic process. Those individuals charged
with the responsibility of drafting and implementing agricultural policy should continually
evaluate present policy legislation to determine if it is in keeping with ever changing needs
and should examine the feasibility of alternative measures in relation to new goals. Agricul-
tural policy will continue to be formulated whether or not adequate, factual information is
available. Recognition of this fact magnifies the importance of information contributory to
rational policy decisions.
Presumably tobacco farmers are keenly aware of the fact that the acreage control and
price support program has directly affected their economic welfare. This study was undertaken
to provide some insight into the farmer's evaluation of the tobacco program which imposes
certain restrictions on individual actions.
1An analysis of data obtained in connection with Florida contributing project 796,
supported in part by IRM-1 funds. The original draft of this publication was part of a thesis
presented to the Graduate Coun;il of the University of F1oride in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the deg-ee of i/Mter ci Science in Agriculture.
2Assistant in Research, University of Florida, Agricultural Experiment Stations.
The Industry in Florida
Viewed from the national or state level, flue-cured tobacco production in Florida is
not a major industry. Florida has about 1.9 per cent of the national allotted acreage, and
produces about 1.5 per cent of the total production of flue-cured tobacco. By way of con-
trast, North Carolina alone accounted for about one-third of the total production of flue-
cured tobacco in 1957.
In 1954 the gross sales of flue-cured tobacco in Florida amounted to 14.8 million dollars.
This was 3.2 per cent of all farm products sold in the state during 1954. However, in the nine
county sample area, flue-cured tobacco is the largest single agricultural enterprise. In 1954
gross sales from tobacco in this area amounted to 12,8 million dollars. In these nine counties,
which contain 88.5 per cent of all flue-cured tobacco acreage in the state, gross income from
tobacco was 48.0 per cent of the value of all farm products sold and 71.2 per cent of the value
of all crops sold during 1954.
Method of Study
The opinions expressed in this study were obtained by personal interview from 176 flue-
cured tobacco producers in nine North Florida counties. The producers were chosen from a
probability sample of all flue-cured tobacco allotment holders in the nine counties.3
3The data used in this study were obtained as part of another study which did not include
producers of over 15 acres of tobacco. Thus, the opinions expressed here do not represent those
of producers harvesting more than 15 acres of tobacco. However, the number of allotment
holders with over 15 acres represents only 0.4 per cent of the total allotments and 4.2 per cent
of the total acreage in the state.
The Industry in Florida
Viewed from the national or state level, flue-cured tobacco production in Florida is
not a major industry. Florida has about 1.9 per cent of the national allotted acreage, and
produces about 1.5 per cent of the total production of flue-cured tobacco. By way of con-
trast, North Carolina alone accounted for about one-third of the total production of flue-
cured tobacco in 1957.
In 1954 the gross sales of flue-cured tobacco in Florida amounted to 14.8 million dollars.
This was 3.2 per cent of all farm products sold in the state during 1954. However, in the nine
county sample area, flue-cured tobacco is the largest single agricultural enterprise. In 1954
gross sales from tobacco in this area amounted to 12,8 million dollars. In these nine counties,
which contain 88.5 per cent of all flue-cured tobacco acreage in the state, gross income from
tobacco was 48.0 per cent of the value of all farm products sold and 71.2 per cent of the value
of all crops sold during 1954.
Method of Study
The opinions expressed in this study were obtained by personal interview from 176 flue-
cured tobacco producers in nine North Florida counties. The producers were chosen from a
probability sample of all flue-cured tobacco allotment holders in the nine counties.3
3The data used in this study were obtained as part of another study which did not include
producers of over 15 acres of tobacco. Thus, the opinions expressed here do not represent those
of producers harvesting more than 15 acres of tobacco. However, the number of allotment
holders with over 15 acres represents only 0.4 per cent of the total allotments and 4.2 per cent
of the total acreage in the state.
The nine sample counties represent a contiguous production area as shown in Figure 1.
From the records of the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Committee, the producers
were classified within each county by size of allotment. An attempt was made to obtain approx-
imately the same number of producers in each acreage size group. An equal number of inter-
views in each group was not obtained because some producers rented additional acreage (Table 1).
Consequently, classification by harvested acres shifted some producers who rented additional
acreage into a larger size group.
TABLE 1
DISTRIBUTION OF FLUE-CURED TOBACCO PRODUCERS
INTERVIEWED BY COUNTY AND BY NUMBER OF
HARVESTED ACRES
Number of Harvested Acres
County 0- 1.60- 3.10- 4.60- 6.10- 7.60- 9.10- Total
1.59 3.09 4.59 6.09 7.59 9.09 15.09
Number of Producers
Alachua 2 2 2 3 5 4 7 25
Baker 1 1 .. 0. 1 .. .. 3
Columbia 6 4 4 .. 3 1 1 19
Gilchrist 1 3 1 .. .. 5
Hamilton .. 2 .. 5 7 6 10 30
Lafayette 1 3 2 4 1 2 2 15
Madison 6 3 5 3 1 2 2 22
Suwannee 5 9 9 6 7 7 6 49
Union 1 1 4 .. 1 1 .. 8
Total 23 28 27 21 26 23 28 176
.ONLES / JACKSON
! I .-. NASSAU.
- -- ", .. .... ......L.. ". .... ......... -, 7
--- .. HOLV S /I
duJf: f \
.- -.---- .,- -.. .
I__-I
L E LA
S 'OL ANO
?E5O----
M JOYA A' MAUI! A 'r
PASC KIK.I. .
j 5 i _
OSCEOLA
LI r.-! y
S T .....Oi ES .... -
..L IS OA O#
i
Fig. 1 .--Location of the nine flue-cured tobacco
producing counties in Florida used in the sample.
----- -- -
producing counties in Florida used in the sample.
Opinions about Existing Program
Acreage Size and Additional Acreage
Florida farmers are overwhelmingly of the opinion they don' t have enough tobacco acre-
age. In response to the question of whether they had enough tobacco acreage, 157 farmers, or
94 per cent, gave "no" as an answer (Table 2). When asked how much additional acreage they
could handle with their present facilities, the number of additional acres asked for by these 157
producers was usually equal to or less than their present acreage. This appears to be in line with
existing facilities based on the fact that most of them had produced about twice as many acres of
tobacco in 1947. The fact that many producers asked for somewhat fewer additional acres than
their present allotment suggests that their requests may have been influenced by increased current
yields per acre and labor procurement difficulties, as well as existing facilities.
In the smallest acreage group(0-1 .59 acres), the relatively larger number who asked for
more acreage than they now harvest suggests this group is experiencing the impact of inefficient re-
source use and inadequate income more acutely than those tobacco producers with larger allotments.
After determining the amount of additional tobacco acreage the producer thought he
could handle, he was asked why he had decided on this amount. In almost all instances, the an-
swers were in terms of the availability of either adequate labor, barn space, or equipment (Table 3).
Nearly 65 per cent of the respondents indicated adequate barn space and/or equipment was
available for additional acres of tobacco. This appears to confirm the general belief that the
acreage control program has resulted in considerable unused physical resources in the production
of tobacco. Although only four producers explicitly stated they would be willing to invest the
capital necessary to handle the additional acreage asked for, the general impression obtained by
Opinions about Existing Program
Acreage Size and Additional Acreage
Florida farmers are overwhelmingly of the opinion they don' t have enough tobacco acre-
age. In response to the question of whether they had enough tobacco acreage, 157 farmers, or
94 per cent, gave "no" as an answer (Table 2). When asked how much additional acreage they
could handle with their present facilities, the number of additional acres asked for by these 157
producers was usually equal to or less than their present acreage. This appears to be in line with
existing facilities based on the fact that most of them had produced about twice as many acres of
tobacco in 1947. The fact that many producers asked for somewhat fewer additional acres than
their present allotment suggests that their requests may have been influenced by increased current
yields per acre and labor procurement difficulties, as well as existing facilities.
In the smallest acreage group(0-1 .59 acres), the relatively larger number who asked for
more acreage than they now harvest suggests this group is experiencing the impact of inefficient re-
source use and inadequate income more acutely than those tobacco producers with larger allotments.
After determining the amount of additional tobacco acreage the producer thought he
could handle, he was asked why he had decided on this amount. In almost all instances, the an-
swers were in terms of the availability of either adequate labor, barn space, or equipment (Table 3).
Nearly 65 per cent of the respondents indicated adequate barn space and/or equipment was
available for additional acres of tobacco. This appears to confirm the general belief that the
acreage control program has resulted in considerable unused physical resources in the production
of tobacco. Although only four producers explicitly stated they would be willing to invest the
capital necessary to handle the additional acreage asked for, the general impression obtained by
interviewers working on this study was that most farmers would be willing to invest the capital
necessary to handle more tobacco acreage.
TABLE 2
ADDITIONAL ACRES OF TOBACCO WANTED, BY NUMBER OF HARVESTED
ACRES, 157 FLUE-CURED TOBACCO PRODUCERS, FLORIDA, 1957a
Harvested Acres
Acres
Wanted 0 1.60- 3.10- 4.60- 6.10- 7.60- 9.10- Total
1.59 3.09 4.59 6.09 7.59 9.09 15.09
Number of Producers
0 1.4 12 12 5 1 1 1 .. 32
1.5- 2.9 9 13 8 5 6 5 3 49
3.0- 4.4 2 2 8 8 6 5 1 32
4.5- 5.9 .. .. 1 4 7 1 2 15
6.0- 7.4 .. .. .. 1 4 3 8
7.5- 8.9 .. .. .. 1 .. 1 3 5
9.0- 9.9 .. .. .. 2 .. 3 5
10.0 19.9 .. 1 .. .. 2 6 9
Over 19.9 .. .. .. .. ., .. 2 2
Total 23 28 22 19 23 19 23 157
aThe entries above and to the right of the diagonal line roughly indicate those
requests which were equal to or less than the acreage harvested in 1957. Those below and
to the left of the line, roughly indicate requests which were larger than the 1957 havested
acres.
TABLE 3
RESPONSE TO THE QUESTION, "WHY DID YOU DECIDE ON THIS AMOUNT
(ADDITIONAL ACRES OF TOBACCO)?" BY NUMBER OF HARVESTED ACRES,
157 FLUE-CURED TOBACCO PRODUCERS, FLORIDA, 1957
Harvested Acres
Response 0- 1.60- 3.10- 4.60- 6.10- 7.60- 9.10- Total
1.59 3.09 4.59 6.09 7.59 9.09 15.09
Number of Producers
Adequate labor available 11 8 8 7 7 8 4 53
Adequate barn space and/or
equipment available 15 21 22 20 18 17 21 134
Cheaper to produce
this amount 2 6 .. .. 3 .. 2 13
Willing to invest necessary
capital 2 .. 1 .. 1 4
Other, miscellaneous 1 2 .. .. .. .. .. 3
Total 31 37 30 27 29 25 28 207a
OSome respondents gave more than one answer.
Those producers who said that adequate labor was available for the additional acreage
wanted may have been using the past labor situation as the basis for their response. With the
declining agricultural population in this area, it is doubtful that the labor necessary to handle
widespread increases in acreage would be available.
Program Equitability
Most tobacco producers feel that the acreage control program is being administered
fairly by the local county committee (Table 4). There is apparently no significant difference
of opinions about the fairness of the program between producers with different acreage size,
age, color, or in different counties.4 The fact that there is no perceptible difference of opin-
ion on this question between counties indicates the program is operated with about equal fair-
ness in all nine counties. There was, however, a significant difference of opinion about the
fairness of the program between producers with different levels of management ability (Table 5)05
Apparently there were relatively more dissatisfied producers in the lower management levels
than there were in the higher levels of management.
There were forty-eight producers, or 27 per cent, who felt the program was not fair in
their counties. When asked how the program was unfair, fifteen producers could not or would
not give any reason for their answer. Of those responding to the question of how the program
was unfair, fifteen said their committee favored some growers over others. There were
fourteen producers who said the program was not fair because the tobacco acreage was not
allotted according to the number of acres presently under cultivation.6 This complaint was
4Use of the word "significant" in this publication indicates that the data referred to has
been subjected to a Chi-square test of significance.
5Relative management ability was determined by testing the producer's familiarity with
recommended tobacco production practices and other accepted general farming methods.
6Allocating allotment acreage on the basis of cultivated land was tried with other
commodity control programs and eventually was changed to allocation on a historical basis.
Presumably this was changed on the basis of equity considerations.
particularly heard among the younger, more aggressive producers who have been buying and
clearing land. In addition, four growers said that large producers exerted undue influence
on the committee.
TABLE 4
RESPONSE TO THE QUESTION, "DO YOU THINK THE TOBACCO PROGRAM IS
FAIR IN THIS COUNTY?" BY COUNTY, 176 FLUE-CURED TOBACCO
PRODUCERS, FLORIDA, 1957
County Response Total
Yes No No Opinion Not Ascertained
Number of Producers
Alachua 23 1 .. 1a 25
Baker 2 1 .. .. 3
Columbia 12 5 2 .19
Gilchrist 4 1 .. .. 5
Hamilton 22 7 1 .. 30
Lafayette 12 3 .. .. 15
Madison 12 9 1 .. 22
Suwannee 30 17 2 .. 49
Union 4 4 .. .. 8
Total 121 48 6 1 176
X2 = 18.62, not significant at the 90
aNot included in Chi-square test.
per cent level.
TABLE 5
RESPONSE TO THE QUESTION, "DO YOU THINK THE TOBACCO PROGRAM IS
FAIR IN THIS COUNTY?" BY LEVEL OF MANAGEMENT ABILITY,
175 FLUE-CURED TOBACCO PRODUCERS, FLORIDA, 1957
Response Level of Management Ability0 Total
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Number of Producers
Yes 1 2 1 1 10 15 23 30 37 120
No .. .. 5 3 6 3 14 8 9 48
No opinion .. 1 .. 1 1 1 2 .. .. 6
Not ascertained .. .. .. 1b 1
Total 1 3 6 5 17 19 39 38 47 175
X2 = 22.15, significant at the 95 per cent level.
aOne indicates low management ability, 9 indicates high management ability.
btot included in Chis4uare f&st.
The farmer's concept of program fairness is most likely conditioned by his own experi-
ence with the county committee and by the size of his tobacco allotment relative to that of
his neighbors' Furthermore, allocation of acreage through the Relationship Reserve probably
created resentment among some producers, particularly among those who didn't receive any
additional acreage from this source.7
7Each year the county committee is assigned allotment acreage called the Reserve for
Relationship Adjustments. If, in the judgment of the county committee, a producer needs
additionatacreage to make his allotment fair and equitable in relation to other farms in the
community, it is granted out of this reserve, subject to approval by the state committee.
Many of the producers who said the program was fair were quick to point out that, in
their opinion, this had not always been the case in the past. This notion of past unfairness
probably stems from the fact that in previous years county committeemen had considerably
more acreage in the Relationship Reserve to allocate to producers.8 In more recent years,
county committees have had very little acreage to allot.
Program Likes
When compared with program dislikes, there was a noticeable lack of variety in the
reasons why producers liked the acreage control and price support program. More than 92 per-
cent of those producers responding to the question of what they liked about the tobacco program
said it was the price received for their tobacco which they liked the most (Table 6). A rela-
tively small number said they generally liked the program, but did not give any specific
reasons why. The three producers who gave price stability as their reason for liking the
program said this stability was responsible for the dependability of tobacco as a cash crop.
Price stability and cash crop dependability seems to have been implied by most of those pro-
ducers who said they liked the prices received for their tobacco.
Program Dislikes
There are certain aspects of the acreage control and price support programs which
farmers do not like. The most common complaint, heard from the tobacco farmers interviewed,
was their dislike of the substantial acreage reductions which have taken place over the past
1n 1952 the state Relationship Reserve was 111 acres, or .015 acres per allotment,
while in 1952 the Relationship Reserve was 19 acres, or .003 acres per allotment.
while in 1957 the Relationship Reserve was 19 acres, or .003 acres per allotment.
Many of the producers who said the program was fair were quick to point out that, in
their opinion, this had not always been the case in the past. This notion of past unfairness
probably stems from the fact that in previous years county committeemen had considerably
more acreage in the Relationship Reserve to allocate to producers.8 In more recent years,
county committees have had very little acreage to allot.
Program Likes
When compared with program dislikes, there was a noticeable lack of variety in the
reasons why producers liked the acreage control and price support program. More than 92 per-
cent of those producers responding to the question of what they liked about the tobacco program
said it was the price received for their tobacco which they liked the most (Table 6). A rela-
tively small number said they generally liked the program, but did not give any specific
reasons why. The three producers who gave price stability as their reason for liking the
program said this stability was responsible for the dependability of tobacco as a cash crop.
Price stability and cash crop dependability seems to have been implied by most of those pro-
ducers who said they liked the prices received for their tobacco.
Program Dislikes
There are certain aspects of the acreage control and price support programs which
farmers do not like. The most common complaint, heard from the tobacco farmers interviewed,
was their dislike of the substantial acreage reductions which have taken place over the past
1n 1952 the state Relationship Reserve was 111 acres, or .015 acres per allotment,
while in 1952 the Relationship Reserve was 19 acres, or .003 acres per allotment.
while in 1957 the Relationship Reserve was 19 acres, or .003 acres per allotment.
TABLE 6
RESPONSE TO THE QUESTION, "WHAT DO FARMERS IN THIS AREA LIKE ABOUT
THE TOBACCO PROGRAM?" BY COUNTY, 176 FLUE-CURED
TOBACCO PRODUCERS, FLORIDA, 1957
Response Total
Couy Prices Received Price Sciablity Like Program Not
for Tobacco of Program in General Other Ascertained
Number of Producers
Alachua 23 .. 2 .. 25
Baker 1 1 .. 1 3
Columbia 14 1 2 .. 2 19
Gilchrist 5 .. .. .. .. 5
Hamilton 27 .. .. .. 3 30
Lafayette 13 .. 1 .. 1 15
Madison 20 .. 2 .. .. 22
Suwannee 43 1 .. 2 3 49
Union 7 .. .. .. 1 8
Total 153 3 7 2 11 176
several years (Table 7). Of the 165 producers responding to the question of what they dis-
liked about the program, 65 per cent referred to acreage reductions as their most compelling
dislike (Table 8). There were nine producers who said that tobacco allotments should be taken
away from those people who do not depend upon them for the greater part of their income. This
feeling was usually directed at people outside of agriculture who bought farms and then either
rented out the tobacco allotment or placed it in the Soil Bcnk. When questioned further on
this point, most were quick to admit this feeling did not apply to widows and retired farmers
who rented out their allotments. Very likely, the producers who expressed~ disapproval of the
proviskin which permits the accumulation of tobacco acreage through the purchase of farms and
the producers who favored taking allotments away from those who do nct depend on them for a
livelihood, were aiming this criticism at the scme group of absentee owners of tobacco allotments,
TABLE 7
SIZE CHANGES OF 1WO SAMPLE TOBACCO ALLOTMENTS USING
YEARLY FLUE-CURED FACTORS, FLORIDA, 1948-57
Year Factor Percentage Increase Sample
or Decrease Allotments
Per :t~nt Acres Acres
1947 *... e... 10.00 5.00
1948 0.7248 -27,52 7.25 3.62
19 49 1.0508 5.08 7.62 3.81
1950 1.0030 0.30 7.64 3.82
1951 1.1474 14.74 8.77 4.38
1952 0.9997 0.03 8.76 4.38
1953 0.9200 8,00 8.06 4.03
1954 1.0017 0.17 8.08 4.04
1955 0.9429 5.01 7:67 3.04
1956 0.88 1 -11 89 6.76 3.38
1957 0.8001 -19.99 5.41 2.70
allotments are multiplied by this number to accorinish the yearly increase or
decrease in allotment acreage as determined by the Secretary of Agricultu:e.
Source: Records of the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Committee,
State Office, Gainesville, Florida.
14
TABLE 8
RESPONSE TO THE QUESTION, "WHAT DO FARMERS IN THIS AREA DISLIKE
ADOUT THE TOBACCO PROGRAM?" BY COUNTY, 176 FLUE-CURED
TOBACCO PRODUCERS, FLORIDA, 1957
County
Response C 0 -
I--0
V i0 0 i
S a 0
Recent acreage reductions
Ownership of allotments by
those who don' t depend on
them for a living
Florida does' t have its
fair share of tobacco
acreage
Restriction of freedom
Accumulation of tobacco
acreage by purchase
Allotments not based on
the amount of cultivated
land
Non-support of undesirable
varieties
Support price not
high enough
23 2 11 3 16 10 13 25 4 107
* t
1 1 1
0. .* 1
.. .. 1
.. i
.. 1
.. 4 2 9
.. 3 2
.. 2 1 1 1
.. 1 1
.. 6
S 6
0.. .. 3
.. ** *o. 2
*.. .. .. *.. .. 2
5 .. .. .. *. 1 ..
.. 3
.. 2
.. 1
Other, miscellaneous
.. 4
.. 7 2 3 10 1 28
Not ascertained
1 1 1 1 2
.. 1 3 1 11
25 3 19 5 30 15 22 49 8 176
- -- -
Total
The small number of producers who thought Florida did not have a fair share of the total
flue-cured acreage did not seem to know why Florida should have more, except that it would
add to their own allotments. A number of producers felt program objectives and administra-
tive policies were determined in North and South Carolina, because of the large number of
producers and acreage in that area.
There were only six farmers, or 3.6 per cent, who said they resented being told what
to do under the program. Apparently tobacco farn.ers in general are not too concerned over
restrictions imposed by the program. Further support of this notion, in an indirect sense, is
evident from the general agreement among farmers that some form of government program for
agriculture will continue in the future. In a recent survey of 472 farmers in states of the
Cornbelt, Dairy, Great Plains, and Southern regions, 71 per cent of those farmers interviewed
said they expected to have some type of government price support program in agriculture for
at least the next fifteen years.9
Program Discontinuation
It is the general belief of farmers in those areas affected by price supports and acreage
controls that the government has some responsibility in the area of farm prices and income.10
There appears to be widespread agreement among Florida tobacco producers that the acreage
control and price support programs should not be abolished (Table 9). This belief is held des-
pite the fact that farmers have experienced appreciable acreage decreases under the program.
Apparently tobacco farmers are willing to live with the program and submit to acreage reduc-
tions rather than risk receiving lower prices and incomes.
9Gene McMurtry, J. C. Bottum, R. L. Kohis, and J. 0. Dunbar, Farmer's Attitudes
Toward the Income Problem and itsSolution, Purdue University Agricultural Experiment Station,
Mimeo EC-157, August 1958, p. 9.
10lbid., pp. 10-13.
TABLE 9
RESPONSE TO THE QUESTION, "WOULD YOU BE IN FAVOR OF
ABOLISHING TOBACCO CONTROLS AND PRICE SUPPORTS?"
BY COUNTY, 176 FLUE-CURED TOBACCO PRODUCiERS,
FLORIDA, 1957
Resoonse
County .."-- Total
Yes No Don'C IKnow
Number of Producers
Alachua 1 23 1 25
Baker .. 3 .. 3
Columbia 1 17 1 19
Gilchrist .. 5 .. 5
Hamilton 5 25 .. 30
Lafn)latte 3 12 .. 15
Madison 3 18 1 22
Suwannee 1 47 1 49
Union 2 6 .. 8
Total 16 156 4 176
Program Improvements
Nearly 65 per cent of the farmers interviewed believed the tobacco program could be
improved, while 20 per cent admitted they didn' t know whether it could be improved or not.
However, of the 114 producers who thought the program could be improved, only seventy-six
had any positive suggestions to offer (Tuble 10).
In answer to the question of program improvements, thirty-three producers said that
acreage not tended by the owner should be taken away and redistributed among those producers
who were producing tobacco for a substantial portion of their livelihood. It will be recalled
17
TABLE 10
RESPONSE TO THE QUESTION, "WHAT DO YOU THINK ARE SOME NEEDED
IMPROVEMENTS (IN THE TOBACCO PROGRAM)?" BY COUNTY, 114
FLUE-CURED TOBACCO PRODUCERS, FLORIDA, 1957
County
Responsea c
16. 0
S.0 0i i
Number of Producers
Redistribute acreage not tended
by owner
Increase the number of acres
Establish minimum size allotments
Allot acreage on the basis of
cultivated land
Raise the support price
Adopt poundage control
Distribute tobacco acreage on
basis of need
Early measurement of tobacco
Provide some. recourse from
administrative mistakes
Reverted acreage should not be
lost by the county
Provide for the buying and
selling of allotments
Develop new markets for tobacco
Don' t know
Not ascertained
Total
1 1 0.. 3
go .. 00 I0 3
.. .. 0. *. 1
I I
1.
1.
& 0
*0 00
*. s s o I
1
2 33
1 14
1 8
8
S 5
S 3
1 3
S 2
S*. .. 2
.@ ** .. .. o *0 l0 2
.. *0. 9 .. .00 0. I I0 1
.. .. 1 s.. .. .. .. I 1
5 .. 3 .. 3 1 3 8 1 24
2 .. .. 4 2 1 5 .. 14
12 2 14 4 24 10 16 32 6 120b
"Some of the suggestions are provided
additional legislation.
bSome respondents gave more than one
for in present regulations, others would require
-- --
from Table 8 that nine producers gave an almost identical reason for disliking the program.
Assuming suggestions for improvement can be associated with dislikes, the above responses
imply that actually more than :nine producers disliked the aspect of the program which permits
the retention of allotments by those who do not engage in tobacco production.
Opinions about Alternative Control Methods
Acreage Increases and Support Price Reductions
When tobacco producers were asked what they thought of the idea of an increase in
acreage but a lower support price, the usual response was, "Why should I raise more and get
less for it?" In fact, this proposal was flatly rejected by 81 per cent of the producers inter-
viewed (Table 11). The unfavorable response to this question indicates that farmers are aware
of the necessity of reducing acreage to maintain prices and income.
Minimum Size Allotments
The acreage control program does not provide a minimum size allotment for flue-cured
tobacco producers. Minimum size allotments have been in effect for burley tobacco producers
since 1943 when Congress established a minimum allotment of one-half acre. The 1957 tobacco
regulations provide that, in the case of burley tobacco, the farm acreage allotment shall not be
less than the smallest of (a) the 1956 allotment, (b) fifty-hundredths of an acre, or (c) 10 per
cent of the cropland in the farm, provided that no 1956 burley tobacco allotment of seventy-
hundredths of an acre or less shall be reduced more than one-tenth of an acre, and no 1956
burley tobacco allotment of eight-tenths., of an acre or more will be reduced to less than six-
tenths of an acre."
"1Commodity Stabilization Service, U.S.D.A., Tobacco Marketing Quota Regulations,
1957-58 Marketing Year, Section 725.817
from Table 8 that nine producers gave an almost identical reason for disliking the program.
Assuming suggestions for improvement can be associated with dislikes, the above responses
imply that actually more than :nine producers disliked the aspect of the program which permits
the retention of allotments by those who do not engage in tobacco production.
Opinions about Alternative Control Methods
Acreage Increases and Support Price Reductions
When tobacco producers were asked what they thought of the idea of an increase in
acreage but a lower support price, the usual response was, "Why should I raise more and get
less for it?" In fact, this proposal was flatly rejected by 81 per cent of the producers inter-
viewed (Table 11). The unfavorable response to this question indicates that farmers are aware
of the necessity of reducing acreage to maintain prices and income.
Minimum Size Allotments
The acreage control program does not provide a minimum size allotment for flue-cured
tobacco producers. Minimum size allotments have been in effect for burley tobacco producers
since 1943 when Congress established a minimum allotment of one-half acre. The 1957 tobacco
regulations provide that, in the case of burley tobacco, the farm acreage allotment shall not be
less than the smallest of (a) the 1956 allotment, (b) fifty-hundredths of an acre, or (c) 10 per
cent of the cropland in the farm, provided that no 1956 burley tobacco allotment of seventy-
hundredths of an acre or less shall be reduced more than one-tenth of an acre, and no 1956
burley tobacco allotment of eight-tenths., of an acre or more will be reduced to less than six-
tenths of an acre."
"1Commodity Stabilization Service, U.S.D.A., Tobacco Marketing Quota Regulations,
1957-58 Marketing Year, Section 725.817
from Table 8 that nine producers gave an almost identical reason for disliking the program.
Assuming suggestions for improvement can be associated with dislikes, the above responses
imply that actually more than :nine producers disliked the aspect of the program which permits
the retention of allotments by those who do not engage in tobacco production.
Opinions about Alternative Control Methods
Acreage Increases and Support Price Reductions
When tobacco producers were asked what they thought of the idea of an increase in
acreage but a lower support price, the usual response was, "Why should I raise more and get
less for it?" In fact, this proposal was flatly rejected by 81 per cent of the producers inter-
viewed (Table 11). The unfavorable response to this question indicates that farmers are aware
of the necessity of reducing acreage to maintain prices and income.
Minimum Size Allotments
The acreage control program does not provide a minimum size allotment for flue-cured
tobacco producers. Minimum size allotments have been in effect for burley tobacco producers
since 1943 when Congress established a minimum allotment of one-half acre. The 1957 tobacco
regulations provide that, in the case of burley tobacco, the farm acreage allotment shall not be
less than the smallest of (a) the 1956 allotment, (b) fifty-hundredths of an acre, or (c) 10 per
cent of the cropland in the farm, provided that no 1956 burley tobacco allotment of seventy-
hundredths of an acre or less shall be reduced more than one-tenth of an acre, and no 1956
burley tobacco allotment of eight-tenths., of an acre or more will be reduced to less than six-
tenths of an acre."
"1Commodity Stabilization Service, U.S.D.A., Tobacco Marketing Quota Regulations,
1957-58 Marketing Year, Section 725.817
19
TABLE 11
RESPONSE TO THE QUESTION, "WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THE SUGGESTION
TO INCREASE ALLOTTED ACRES AND REUCE THE SUPPORT PRICE?'
BY COUNTY, 176 rLUE-CURED TOBACCO PRODUCERS,
FLORIDA, 1957
Respo,'-"5e
County .espo. ..e Total
Favorahbe Unifaverable Don' t Know Not Ascertained
Number of Producers
Alachua 1 22 1 1 25
Baker 1 2 .. .* 3
Columbia 4 11 2 2 19
Gilchrist .. 5 .. .. 5
Hamilton 5 24 1 .. 30
Lafayette 2 12 1 .. 15
Madison 1 19 2 22
Suwannee 5 42 .. 2 49
Union 1 6 1 .. 8
Total 20 143 6 7 176
About 85 per cent of those tobacco farmers interviewed favored the establishment of a
minimum size allotment for flue-cured tobacco (Table 12). However, the farmer's concept
of what the minimum size should be was usually about three acres or the capacity of one barn.
This is somewhat in excess of the 1957 average size allotment (2.22 acres) in the state.
TABLE 12
RESPONSE TO THE QUESTION, "WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THE IDEA OF
HAVING A MINiMUM SIZE ALLOTMENT BELOW WHICH A FARMER
WOULD NOT BE REDUCED?" BY COUNTY, 176 FLUE-CURED
TOBACCO PRODUCERS, FLORIDA, 1957
Response Total
County M Total
Favorable Unfavorable Don' Know Not Ascertained
Number of Produce:s
Alachua 20 3 .. 2 25
Baker 3 .. .. 3
Columbia 17 1 1 .. 19
Gilchrist 4 .. 1 .. 5
Hamsnton 25 5 .. ** 30
Lafayette 9 4 2 .. 15
Madison 19 2 1 .. 22
Suwannee 45 3 *. 1 49
Union 7 1 .. 8
Total 149 19 5 3 176
Since the establishment of a minimum acreage size would benefit small producers more
than large producers, a different response to the question of minimum size allotments might be
expected between producers with different size production units. However, no sigr.ifcant
difference in response to this question was noted between proJ!ucers with different sI~; hcr"ertesd
acres. This may stem from the fact that many of the producers, who have been classified as
relatively large producers in this study, think of themselves as sma! producers; hence, are
sympathetic to the idea of minimum size allotments.
Poundage Allotments
Prior to 1939, the tobacco program limited the number of pounds of tobacco a producer
could market from a given number of acres. In 1939 Congress changed marketing quotas for
individual farms to the actual production from the allotted acreage. Following this, the
coniri program did not inhibit producers from increasing inputs and expanding outputs by
more intense production on a given number of acres. As a result of this and other technological
advances, the average yield per acre for flue-cured tobacco in the United States and in Florida
has continuously increased. The average yield for all flue-cured in the United States was
922 pounds per acre in 1939 and 1,481 pounds per acre in 1957.
Nearly 74 per cent of those flue-cured producers interviewed reacted unfavorably to
the proposal to establish poundage or marketing quotas rather than acreage controls (Table 13).
Many of the objections to poundage controls or marketing quotas took the form of
doubts about the fairness of establishing new poundage bases. Many producers felt this type
of control would tend to maintain the status quo to a greater extent than the present acreage
control; moreover, it would inhibit the adoption of new, more efficient production methods
among those.producers whose base was set relatively low. Several farmers said poundage
control might be acceptable if the producers were allowed a two or three-year grace period
during which time they would be permitted to even out good and bad crop years.
Sliding Scale Allotment Adjustments
As an alternative to the idea of minimum size allotments, tobacco producers were asked
what they thought of the idea of a sliding scale of adjustment percentages whereby the allot-
ment acreage of the small producer would be cut a smaller percentage than would the large
producer. This plan would, of course, have much the same effect on the small producer as
would minimum size allotments; however, the burden of acreage reduction would fall more
heavily on large producers as opposed to the average or medium size groups.
TABLE 13
RESPONSE TO THE QUESTION, "WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THE SUGGESTION
TO CONTROL THE NUMBER OF POUNDS SOLD RATH-ERP THAN THE ACRES
PRODUCED?" BY COUNTY, 176 FLUE-CURED TOBACCO
PRODUCERS, FLORIDA, 1957
Response
County Respons. Total
Favorable Unfavora-e Don't Know Not Ascertained
Number of Producers
Alachua 5 18 1 1 25
Ba1er 3 ... .. 3
Columbia 4 14 .1 19
Gilchrist .. 3 1 1 5
Hamilton 5 25 .. 30
Lafayette 3 11 o. 1 15
Madison 4 15 2 1 22
Suwannee 10 38 1 ,, 49
Union 2 6 .. 8
Total 36 130 5 5 176
Nearly 61 per cent of those producers interviewed favored the idea of a sliding scale
of acreage reductions. This is about 24 per cent less than the number who favored a minimum
size allotment for flue-cured tobacco. Port of this difference is probably explained by the
simplicity of the minimum size allotment idea as compared to the idea of a sliding scale of
acreage adjustments.
23
When only those producers who gave a definite response to this question are considered,
a significant difference in response wcs noted between producers with different size harvested
acres (Table 14). There appears to be a tendency for small producers to favor a sliding scale
of acreage reduction while large producers tend to be opposed to the idea.
TABLE 14
RESPONSE TO THE QUESTION, "WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THE IDF.A OF A
SLIDING SCALE OF ACREAGE CUTS WHEREBY THE SMALL PRODUCER
WOULD BE CUT A SMALLER PERCENTAGE THAN THE LARGE
PRODUCER?" BY NUMBER OF HARVESTED ACRES, 166
FLUE-CURED TOBACCO PRODUCERS, FLORIDA, 1957
Harvested Acres
Response Total
0- 1.60- 3.10- 4.60- 6.10- 7.60- 9.10-
1.59 3.09 4.59 6.09 7.59 9.09 15.09
Number of Producers
Favorable 18 22 18 7 12 15 15 107
Unfavorable 3 6 8 13 11 8 10 59
Total 21 28 26 20 23 23 25 166
X2 = 16.13, significant at the 95 per cent level.
Allotment Rentals and Transfers
Regulations concerning the renting and moving of tobacco allotments between farms
provide that all of the rented farm must be included in the rotation system of the combined
units. The degree of adherence to this provision depends almost entirely upon the integrity
of the renter and the alertness of the county committee. In order to determine if farmers
considered the present system of renting adequate, they were asked what they thought of
allowing farmers to rent and move allotments from one form to another. Slightly more than
66 per cent of those producers interviewed said they favored provisions for renting and moving
allotments (Table 15). There were eleven producers, out of the 117 favoring the rental pro-
vision, who qualified their answers in terms of the requirement to cultivate at least part of
the rental farm. Of the eleven producers giving qualified answers, five said that the renter
should be required to cultivate the remainder of the farm, and six said that he should not be
required to cultivate any of the rented farm.
While this evidence is by no means conclusive, it does indicate there is some feeling
among tobacco producers concerning the desirability of renting tobacco allotments without
renting the entire farm, or perhaps, even creating a market for the purchase and sale of
tobacco allotments alone. In a recent study of tobacco underplantings in North Carolina, the
12
possibility of creating a market for the purchase and sale of tobacco allotments is discussed.1
In this study it is pointed out that many farmers, who find alternative enterprises more profitable,
plant their full tobacco allotment one year out of two or three in order to retain the tobacco
allotment and hence maintain the added value of their farm accruing from the allotment. A
market for tobacco allotments, freed from land transactions, would reflect the capitalized
value of a "right" to produce not directly related to land values. Separation of allotments from
land would allow a more fluid adjustment in acreages of those producers who found additional
tobacco production more profitable.
12 E. Bishop, W. R. Henry, and A. L. Finker, Underplanting Tobacco Allotments,
Factors Affecting Tobacco Planting Decisions in Forsyth County and the Northern Piedmont,
A. E. Information Series No. 42, Department of Agricultural Economics, North Carolina State
College, March 1955, p. 30.
TABLE 15
RESPONSE TO THE QUESTION, "WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THE IDEA OF
ALLOWING FARMERS TO RENT AND MOVE ALLOTMENTS FROM ONE
FARM TO ANOTHER?" BY COUNTY, 176 FLUE-CURED TOBACCO
PRODUCERS, FLORIDA, 1957
Response
County Response Total
Favorable Unfavorable Don' t Know Not Ascertained
Number of Producers
Alachua 17 8 .. .. 25
Baker 3 .. .. .. 3
Columbia 14 3 1 1 19
Gilchrist 3 2 ., .. 5
Hamilton 21 9 .. .. 30
Lafayette 6 9 .. .. 15
Madison 12 10 .. .. 22
Suwannee 37 11 1 .. 49
Union 4 4 .. .. 8
Total 117 56 2 1 176
Familiarity with and Participation in the Program
Producer Familiarity with Committeemen
A farmer' s familiarity with members of the County Agricultural Stabilization and
Conservation Committee, seemingly, would give a crude indication of whether he is keeping
posted on current developments in the administration of the program in his county.
Over 45 per cent of those producers interviewed were unable to name one county
committeeman in their county.13 There was a significant difference in response to this question
13Credit was given if they named either the present committeeman or the immediate
past committeeman.
TABLE 15
RESPONSE TO THE QUESTION, "WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THE IDEA OF
ALLOWING FARMERS TO RENT AND MOVE ALLOTMENTS FROM ONE
FARM TO ANOTHER?" BY COUNTY, 176 FLUE-CURED TOBACCO
PRODUCERS, FLORIDA, 1957
Response
County Response Total
Favorable Unfavorable Don' t Know Not Ascertained
Number of Producers
Alachua 17 8 .. .. 25
Baker 3 .. .. .. 3
Columbia 14 3 1 1 19
Gilchrist 3 2 ., .. 5
Hamilton 21 9 .. .. 30
Lafayette 6 9 .. .. 15
Madison 12 10 .. .. 22
Suwannee 37 11 1 .. 49
Union 4 4 .. .. 8
Total 117 56 2 1 176
Familiarity with and Participation in the Program
Producer Familiarity with Committeemen
A farmer' s familiarity with members of the County Agricultural Stabilization and
Conservation Committee, seemingly, would give a crude indication of whether he is keeping
posted on current developments in the administration of the program in his county.
Over 45 per cent of those producers interviewed were unable to name one county
committeeman in their county.13 There was a significant difference in response to this question
13Credit was given if they named either the present committeeman or the immediate
past committeeman.
between white and nonwhite producers (Table 16).
producers, as compared to 41 per cent of the white
county committeeman.
Slightly over 76 per cent of the nonwhite
producers, were unable to name one
TABLE 16
NUMBER OF COUNTY COMMITTEEMEN KNOWN, BY COLOR OF OPERATOR,
176 FLUE-CURED TOBACCO PRODUCERS, FLORIDA, 1957
Number of Committeemen Known
Color of Operator Total
0 1 2 3
Number of Producers
White 64 44 27 20 155
Nonwhite 16 4 1 .. 21
Total 80 48 28 20 176
X2 = 10.12, significant at the 99 per cent level.
At least part of the voting apathy among flue-cured tobacco producers may arise from
the method used to elect county committeemen. In counties which are comprised of more than
one community, farmers do not vote directly for the county -committeemen, but instead, vote on
a slate of community committeemen who in turn nominate and elect the county committeemen
at a county caucus. In a single community county the voting is direct; i.e., farmers vote on
a slate of candidates and three receiving the highest number of votes become the county
committeemen, In the nine sample counties, there were four multiple and five single community
counties. A significant difference was found in the number of committeemen known between
the single community counties and the multiple community counties (Table 17). The percen-
tage of producers who knew one, two, or three of the county committeemen tended to be
higher in the single community counties than in the multiple community counties.. However,
some of the difference shown in Table 17 may be attributed to the fact that single community
counties are usually small counties in which the probability of knowing any of the county
committeemen is greater than it would be in a large county.
TABLE 17
NUMBER OF COUNTY COMMITTEEMEN KNOWN BY TYPE OF COUNTY
AGRICULTURAL STABILIZATION AND CONSERVATION COMMUNITY
ORGANIZATION, 176 FLUE-CURED TOBACCO
PRODUCERS, FLORIDA, 1957
Number of County Committeemen Known
Type Total
0 1 2 3
Number of Producers
Single 10 22 17 12 61
Multiple 70 26 11 8 115
Total 80 48 28 20 176
X2 = 34.07, significant at the 99 per cent level.
"Baker, Gilchrist, Hamilton, Lafayette, and Union Counties.
bAlachua, Columbia, Madison, and Suwannee Counties.
Producer Participation in Elections
Participation in the program referendums every three years appears to be greater than
participation in the yearly election of county committeemen. Over 75 per cent of those
producers interviewed said they had voted in the last program referendum, while 55 per cent
sadc they had voted in the last election of county committeemen (Tables 18 and 19).
TABLE 18
RESPONSE TO THE QUESTION, "DiD YOU VOTE !N THIS YEAR'S ELECTION
FOR COMMUNITY COMMITTEEMEN?" BY COLOR OF OPERATOR, 175
FLUE-CURED TOBACCO PRODUCERS, FLORIDA, 1957
Response Color of Operator Total
White Nonwhite
Number of Producers
Yes 90 7 97
No 64 14 78
Total 154 21 175
X2 = 4.72, significant at the 95 per cent level.
In response to both the question concerning voting for committeemen and voting in the
referendum, there was a significant difference between white and nonwhite producers (Tables
18 and 19). In both cases the participation by white producers was greater than by nonwhite
producers.
Management ability appeared to be quite closely associated with election participation
(Table 20). In general, those producers with high levels of management were more prone to
participate in referendum voting.
TABLE 19
RESPONSE TO THE QUESTION, "DID YOU VOTE IN THE LAST PROGRAM
REFERENDUM (1955)?" BY COLOR OF OPERATOR, 176 FLUE-CURED
TOBACCO PRODUCERS, FLORIDA, 1957
Color of Operator Total
Response a
White Nonwhite
Number of Producers
Yes 125 8 133
No 30 13 43
Total 155 21 176
X2 = 18.14, significant at the 99 per cent level.
TABLE 20
RESPONSE TO THE QUESTION, "DID YOU VOTE IN THE LAST PROGRAM
REFERENDUM (1955)?'BY LEVEL OF MANAGEMENT ABILITY, 175
FLUE-CURED TOBACCO PRODUCERS, FLORIDA, 1957
Level of Management_
Response Total
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Number of Producers
Yes .. 1 2 3 8 13 31 31 43 132
No 1 2 4 2 9 6 8 7 4 43
Total 1 3 6 5 17 19 39 38 47 175
X2 = 27.99, significant at the 99 per cent level.
Producer Understanding of Program Objectives
Do farmers really understand the underlying objectives of the acreage control and price
support programs? When the answers to several questions are considered together, it appears
that, even though they seemingly act contrary to the object ives of the program, tobacco
farmers have a reasonably accurate idea of what the program is attempting to accomplish.
Despite the fact that flue-cured tobacco acreage has been nearly halved since 1947,
89 per cent of those producers interviewed were not in favor of abolishing the control and
price support program (Table 9). Apparently, for most producers, the reduction in acreage
has been more than offset by increased net returns from tobacco. If farmers were receiving
less net return for their tobacco than they did before these reductions, it is not, likely that
they would be so heavily in favor of retaining the control program. Assuming the sample is
representative of all tobacco producers in the nine county sample, it appears that if all pro-
ducers voted in the program referendum, the control program would be retained but not by the
95 per cent or greater margin which has been the case since 1947.
When asked if they thought the price of tobacco would be as high as it was in 1957 if
all farmers were allowed to grow as much tobacco as they wanted, 94 per -cent of those pro-
ducers responding gave a negative reply (Table 21). This indicates that tobacco farmers have
a fair idea of how prices are maintained at the present relatively high level.
Farmers' understanding of the inverse relationship between production and price is
partially demonstrated in the response to the question of what they thought of the idea of
increasing allotted acres and reducing the support price. Although this question did not make
specific reference to the inverse relationship between quantity and price, it does :seem.
noteworthy that not one respondent questioned the implied relationship.
31
TABLE 21
RESPONSE TO THE QUESTION, "DO YOU THINK THE PRICE OF TOBACCO
WOULD BE AS HIGH AS IT WAS THIS 'YEAR IF EVERY FARMER W;-RE
ALLOWED TO GROW AS MUCH TOBACCO AS HE WANTED TO?"
BY COUNTY, 176 FLUE-CURED TOBACCO PRODUCERS,
FLORIDA, 1957
Response
County Response Total
Yes No Don't Know
Number of Producers
A!ochua .. 24 1 25
Baker .. 3 .. 3
Columbia .. 19 .. 19
Gilchrist .. 5 5
Hamilton 4 25 1 30
Lofayette 1 14 .. 15
Madison 1 20 1 22
Suwannee .. 48 1 49
Union .. 8 .. 8
Total 6 166 4 176
Evidently, tobacco producers are able to distinguish the difference between the nature
of their individual economic interests and the common interest they share with all members of
the industry. This conclusion follows from the notable difference in the answers given to two
questions concerning the desirability of increasing tobacco acreage. In response to the ques-
tion of whether the farmer would individually like to have more acreage, 94 per cent of the
producers interviewed gave affirmative answers. On the other hand, 81 per cent were opposed
to increasing tobacco acreage for all producers and reducing the support price.
Summary
This report deals with the opinions of flue-cured tobacco producers in Florida regarding
aspects of the tobacco control program. Since tobacco production in Florida represents only a
relatively small part of the total flue-cured tobacco production, no claim is made that these
opinions are representative of members of the entire flue-cured industry. However, it is felt
that they do reflect the views of the majority of tobacco producers in Florida.
Tobacco producers have considerable unused resources which are in part the result of
acreage reductions. Unused physical resources were given as the principle reason for desiring
more tobacco acreage. Unused capital facilities are more evident than unused labor.
Most producers feel the program is being administered by local committees with an
acceptable degree of fairness. There is some resentment toward absentee allotment owners
but this does not appear to be a vital issue with tobacco farmers.
There appears to be no clear-cut thinking among tobacco farmers concerning how the
present program could be improved even though the majority think there is room for improvement.
Most producers favor the establishment of a minimum size allotment and are almost equally in
favor of a sliding scale of percentage adjustments to favor small producers. On the other hand
they are strongly opposed to establishing poundage or marketing quotas. Two-thirds of the
farmers interviewed favored the present provision for renting and moving allotments from one
farm to another, although there was evidence of some disagreement on whether the entire farm
should be rented and cultivated.
White tobacco farmers tend to participate more in program elections and are more
familiar with county committeemen than are nonwhite producers.
33
Producers like the prices they receive for their tobacco and appear willing to accept
reasonable acreage reductions to maintain relatively high prices. Tobacco producers are
opposed to the idea of increasing the acreage of all producers and at the same time reducing
the support price, while as individuals most of them would like to have more acres. As a group,
tobacco producers generally understand the mechanics of price determination and are in agree-
ment that removal of production controls would result in increased production and lower
tobacco prices.
Acknowledgments
The author is indebted to numerous persons who contributed materially to the comple-
tion oF this publication. Those singled out for special recognition are: Dr. Clyde Murphree
end Mr. Floyd Williams for their guidance and counsel during the early phase of the study;
Mr. O. P. McArthur, State Administrative Officer, Florida Agricultural Stabilization and
Conservation Committee, for reviewing the manuscript and making state and county records
available; and Mrs. Minnie Carr, of the State Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation
Office, for her patient understanding and help in gathering the secondary data used in the study.
Special thanks go to Mr. Levi A. Powell, Sr., for his wise counsel and critical review
of the final manuscript.
Finally, the cooperation of the flue-cured tobacco producers from whom this information
was obtained is gratefully acknowledged.
|
RSS
HIDE
