View original document

The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.

REVIEW
FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF RICHMOND
R I C H M O N D 1 3, V I R G I N I A

SEPTEMBER 3D, 194B

Business Conditions
EAD JU STM EN TS in the levels of business ac­
tivity are in process in the Fifth Federal Reserve
District. Four of the major industries of the District
this summer have shifted their status from a seller’s
market to a buyer’s market. These industries are cotton
textiles, the District’s largest employer, bituminous coal,
the second largest employer, lumber, and hosiery, both
important sources o f livelihood for large numbers of
people in this area.
Prices in these industries have been soft and still are
not yet stabilized. This is not true of good quality lum­
ber, but does apply to the poorer grades. Prices of nu­
merous cotton goods and yarns have experienced con­
siderable weakness during much of the year to date, but
these prices still show much larger increases relative to
pre-war than the rank and file of commodities. Offgrade coal, which along with the clean, graded and sized
products, had been in very strong demand prior to this
summer, now is practically without a market, and some
of the better grades of coal require considerable selling
effort. A few producers of women’s full-fashioned
hosiery have again marked prices down recently after
some fairly general cuts several months earlier, and this
was in the face of a 7 per cent rise in the price of nylon
yarn.
There has, however, been nothing in the line of price
weakness that formerly was characteristic of many of
these commodities, and it is becoming more apparent
that, for the time being, at least, adjustments to lower
demand are likely to occur more in production than in
price. This is only natural where price supports or
other inflexible costs have raised the break-even point
so that it becomes unprofitable to reduce prices very
much in order to continue full production. There may
be, however, a strong urge to continue high-level pro­
duction and a consequent accumulation of inventories
even when demand runs short of production, with prices
at their high peaks and presumably vulnerable to reac­
tion. This urge may come through a decision to pro­
duce and maintain the working force intact rather than
shut down or cut hours of labor so much that the workers
would seek jobs elsewhere. When jobs are plentiful, as
they still are, industry is faced with the real problem of
whether to build inventories or cut back and run the risk
of losing a trained labor force. This summer, a good
part of the hosiery industry in the district tried both ap­
proaches : prices were cut and production was continued
at a level that resulted in a rise in inventories.

R




HOUSEHOLD APPLIANCES LEVEL OFF
700

$00

_ 1 ------ 1----- 1
-

SEASONALLY ADJUSTED
1942 » 100

500
400
300
200
100

0

1940

1941

1942

1943

1944

1945

1946

1947

1948

Trade
Trade levels in the nation are not showing any sub­
stantial increase of vitality, but they continue on a fairly
high level, with some forward progress. If this situation
holds, there is reason to believe that the price adjustments
taking place in the Fifth District will not be drastic or
continue for a very long period. Department store sales
in the Fifth District, which ran inordinately ahead of
national levels in June, have since been coming back in
line. Seasonally adjusted indices of sales for the Dis­
trict declined in July and again in August, bringing the
adjusted level of sales back to where it was in the spring.
While sales continued at a high level in August, there
was a drop of 7 per cent in inventories. As a result, the
stock-sales ratio, after allowing for seasonal changes,
was the lowest of any month this year. Even with retail
stores maintaining an ultra-conservative inventory poli­
cy, it would seem that some step-up in the rate of pur­
chase would be in order during October and November.
On this page o f this Review there appears a chart
showing seasonally adjusted sales and stocks of major
household appliances of those department stores in the
Fifth Federal Reserve District which report departmentally. The major household appliance departments con­
sist of refrigerators, washers, ironers, stoves and cabi­
nets. These products had been, in substantial part, re­
sponsible for the sharp rise in store sales volume in 1946
and 1947. The chart shows, however, that sales, al­
though remaining at a very high level, are no longer ris­

FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF RICHMOND

ing but have leveled off. Furthermore, inventories are
no longer rising but have turned down.*
In the wholesale trades, dry goods and hardware were
strong during August. The seasonally adjusted index
of dry goods sales in that month rose 30 per cent over
the July level to a point 10 per cent ahead of August,
1947. Wholesale hardware sales gained 37 per cent in
August over July, on an adjusted basis, and August,
1948 sales were 34 per cent higher than in that month
last year. Losses in adjusted sales were experienced in
industrial supplies, drugs and electrical goods from July
to August, while grocery sales held at July levels.
Cotton Textiles
The buyer’s market still persists in the District’s cot­
ton textile industry in all its segments. The movement
of industrial goods is somewhat steadier than that of
apparel construction, but even here consuming indus­
tries have apparently decided to shorten their period of
forward coverage and to maintain a more conservative
inventory position. An improved demand for bags has
brought forth an increase in purchase of bagging ma-

terials, but the paper competition in this area does not
give much hope for other than a temporary spurt. The
inventory position of apparel and household textiles
apparently has been more substantial than had been be­
lieved, business in these lines being slow and mainly for
nearby needs. Dry goods sales at wholesale in August,
however, give hope that some improvement may be ex­
pected in the amount of business written in October and
November.
Consumption of cotton in the District’s mills re­
covered more than seasonally from July to August (8
per cent), but the August level was still around 7 per
cent lower than in the first four months of the year. The
demand for export appears to be running at a steadily
declining rate. Moreover, domestic pipelines appear to
be full. Under these circumstances, the industry would
do well if it could hold its operating rate in the last half
of 1948 within 5 or 6 per cent of that in the first half,
without accumulating large inventories. Price sluggish­
ness in the industry does not signify urgency of demand.
Bituminous Coal

♦This is one series out o f 57 m a jor or sub-group departmental items
w hich have sim ilarly been measured in term s o f seasonally adjusted
index numbers. They run back to 1940 in the case o f sales and to June,
1941, in the case o f stocks. These are available to those who have need
fo r them.

Production in the District in August rose 5 per cent,
on a seasonally adjusted basis, and stood in that month
Continued on page 9

BUSINESS IND EXES—FIFTH FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT
AVERAGE D A ILY 1935-39 = 100— SEASONALLY ADJUSTED

Automobile Registration* _______________________
Bank Debits ___________________________________
Bituminous Coal Production ___________________
Building Contracts Awarded____________________
Apartments and Hotels_______________________
Commercial Construction Contracts__________
Manufacturing Construction Contracts----------One and Two Family Houses_________________
Public Works and Utilities___________________
Residential Construction Contracts___________
Building Permits Issued________________________
Business Failures—No. _________________________
Cigarette Production __________________________
Cotton Consumption ___________________________
Department Store Sales______ __________________
Department Store Stocks_______________________
Electric Power Production
__ __
Employment—Mfg. Industries* ________________
Furniture Orders
Furniture Shipments .
___
Furniture Unfilled Orders_______________________
<Furniture Sales—Retail ________________________
Gasoline Consumption _________________________
Life Insurance Sales____________________________
Wholesale Trade:
Automotive Supplies** ______________________
Drugs _______________________________________
Dry Goodsf _________________________________
Electrical Goods** __________________________
Groceries ____________________________________
Hardware __________________________________
Industrial Supplies** ________________________
Paper and Its Products**_____________________
Tobacco and Its Products**__________________
Cotton Spindle Hours__________________________
*Not seasonally adjusted
**1938-41 = 100
fSeasonal index revised.



Aug.
1948

254
255

July
1948
132
329
164r
347
190
414
453
434
259
404
323
35
223
131
328
308
260
133
309
211
584
265r
263

377
264
246
88
277
218
285
167
87
146

364
270
189r
93
276
159
342
146
98
125

365
172
337
___

348
284
38
265
142
315
289r

r2 1

June
1948
105
327
165
335
305
478
246
299
453
271
441
29
245
148
335
304
256
135
276
323
641
299
200
253

431
260
175r
77
273
175
391
161
93
155

Aug.
1947
105
308
163
306
636
339
463
313
162
431
294
25
233
138r
283
260
249
132
273
203
728
219
180
230

255
269
223r
74
271
163
311
166
98
142

% Change
Aug. 1948 from
+ 11
+ 5
— 3

+ 19
+ 6
+ 10

—
—
+
+
+
—
—

—
+
+
+
+
+

14
12
9
19
8
4
6

— 4
— 3
+
—
+
—
+
—
+
—
+

4
2
30
5
0
37
17
14
11
17

— 19
3
52
14
3
11
11

+~16

+
+
—
+
+
4+
—
+
—
+

11
48
2
io
19
2
34
8
1
11
3

SEPTEMBER 1948

MONTHLY REVIEW

An Economic Classification of Fifth District Farms
Did you know that:
1. Half of the farms in the Fifth District are
small-scale units which produce less than 10 per
cent of the value of farm products sold?
2. The only practical way most small-scale far­
mers can materially increase their income is by offfarm work or materially enlarging their farms?
3. Less than half of the farms in the Fifth Dis­
trict are commercial family farms?
4. Although many family farms can be advan­
tageously enlarged, most of them will find it pos­
sible to raise farm income primarily through in­
creased production efficiency, mechanization and
changes in farm organization ?
5. Less than 1 per cent of all farms are large-scale
units, but they produce about 12 per cent of the
value of farm products sold in the District?

W e are accustomed to thinking of most farms in this
area as family farms, and to regarding the maintenance
of family farms as a desirable objective. Public policy
for agriculture in general accepts this view. In recent
years such legislation as the Bankhead Jones Tenant
Purchase Act has emphasized the desirability of estab­
lishing owner-operated family farms. The ideal of the
family farm seems consequently to be an important one
for agriculture. It is the purpose of this paper to de­
scribe the different classes of farms in this area and in
particular to evaluate the importance of family farms.
What Is a Family Farm?
When we speak of family farms we usually are think­
ing of farms of a fairly definite size. In fact, family
farms are often called family-sized farms. W e usually
believe that a family farm is one small enough so that
the farmer and his family do most o f the work or at
least a large part of the work. Although a family farm
may use hired labor, it normally is operated mainly with
the labor of the farmer and members of his family. In
general, if half or more of the labor on a farm is hired,
we would suspect that the particular farm is somewhat
larger than a family farm, and it might be called a largescale unit or some similar term. Similarly, if the farm
is so small that the farmer and his family cannot keep
themselves occupied profitably most of the time with
farm work, we would usually consider that particular
farm smaller than a family farm. It would probably
be called a small-scale farm, a small holding, a part-time
farm, or by some similar description to indicate that it
is smaller than a family farm.
The family farm is also a commercial farm. By com­
mercial we mean that a substantial share, usually more




m

than half, of the farm income comes from producing
products for sale. Such farms may and usually do pro­
duce considerable amounts of products for the use of
the farm household. However, production for sale is
the most important source of farm income. If produc­
tion for use of the farm household is the most important
source of farm income, the particular farm would usual­
ly be considered smaller than a family farm and would
be a small-scale unit of some kind.
The concept of the family farm implies a farm large
enough to produce, under normal conditions, an “ ade­
quate” or “ satisfactory” income for the farm family. It
is here that the concept becomes most vague although it
is still present and important. There is no general agree­
ment on what an adequate income for the farm would
be. W e might all agree that a $600 gross value of pro­
ducts would result in an inadequate income and a $5,000
gross value would result in a fully adequate income. But
for an intermediate figure of, say, $1,500 there are more
likely to be difference of opinion. The final decision as
to whether income is adequate or not rests with the farm
family and is dependent upon the size of the family and
the level of living the family wishes to maintain. Farm­
ers on farms which provide small incomes relative to
their needs are often under considerable pressure to in­
crease their income and frequently seek off-farm work.
Most of the farmers reporting off-farm work in this
area are operators of small units.
Finally, the idea of the family farm is a changing one.
The use of improved farm machinery, tractors, and im­
proved methods has considerably increased the size of
farms which can be handled by the farmer and his fam­
ily. For example, a typical Piedmont cotton family farm
at present consists of about 40 acres with 20 acres of
crop-land including 6 acres of cotton. Little livestock is
kept. With mechanization and improved methods a
family can handle in that area around 270 acres with 120
acres of cropland. Cotton acreage could be increased to
12 acres or more depending on the degree of mechani­
zation. Other land in crops could increase from 14
acres to over 100. In addition, the farmer would be able
to milk 10 or 12 cows and possibly more. This larger
farm would still be a family farm. The difference is
that improved methods and mechanization has enabled
the farm family to handle more land and livestock and
produce a greater volume of farm products efficiently.
The above example illustrates the effect of mechani­
zation and technological improvement on family farms.
It shows that family farms may be relatively large and
mechanized and still be family farms. Also, if family
farms are to efficiently utilize family labor and provide
adequate incomes they must be fairly large and medianized. It is, of course, not possible in most areas for
every individual farmer to enlarge his farm in this man­
ner. Therefore, we can say that mechanization und
other technological developments tend to result in fewer
and larger commercial family farms. As industrializa­

FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF RICHMOND

tion develops there is a tendency for farmers who do not
care to enlarge their farms or who cannot do so to en­
gage in off-farm work. This results in an increase in
part-time farms and other small-scale units. Two trends
may, therefore, be observed in farms in this area. There
is a trend toward fewer and larger full-scale commer­
cial family farms. Second, there is an increase in small
non-commercial farms because the increased nonfarm
employment of farm people has resulted in more parttime farms and rural residences.
W e distinguish, therefore, three general classes of
farm s: large-scale units which are larger than family
farms, commercial family farms, and small-scale farms
which are generally smaller than family farms and are
usually not commercial farms. Previous to the 1945
Census of Agriculture we had no data on farms accord­
ing to this classification. The 1945 Sample Censue of
Agriculture, however, made a classification of farms on
the primary basis of the value of products sold or used
in 1944. A secondary basis of classification was the val­
ue of land and buildings. The amount of work o ff the
farm was also considered. As is usual in Censue studies,
each cropper and tenant unit was reported as a separate
farm.1 Consequently, the term “ large-scale unit” does
not refer to plantations and other multiple-family farms
operated with cropper labor. Instead large-scale units
are large farms where most of the labor is hired and the
farmer devotes nearly all of his time to supervision and
management.
This Census divided all farms into classes on the
primary basis of the value of products sold or used by
the farm household in 1944. Farms with a gross value
of products of $20,000 or more are large-scale units
and are almost always larger than family farms. Those
farms with a gross value of products from $1,200 up to
$20,000 may be called commercial family farms and may
be further divided into three size groups. The large
family farms are generally those with a gross value of
products of $8,000 to $19,999. Medium family farms
had $3,000 to $7,999 value of products, and the small
family farms had $1,200 to $2,999. Farms with less
than $1,200 value of products are primarily small-scale
non-commercial farms and include part-time farms,
small holdings, and nominal units. However, the lar­
gest family farms may be quite similar to large-scale
units and the smaller family farms may resemble smallscale units in many ways.
Only 55 per cent of the farms in the United States are
classed as commercial family farms. A small propor­
tion, 2 per cent, are large-scale units, whereas, 43 per
cent comprise a miscellaneous group of small-scale
farms. This last group is composed of family farms in
the sense that each farm has a family living on it. How­
ever, these small-scale farms are usually not commercial
farms because the amount of production per farm is
^ h e Census o f A gricu ltu re definition o f a farm i s : “ A farm , fo r Census
purposes, is all the land on which some agricultural operations are per­
form ed by one person, either by his ow n labor alone or with the assistance
o f members o f his household, o r hired employees. . . . W hen a landowner
has one or m ore tenants, renters, croppers, or m anagers, the land operated
by each is considered a farm . . . . Do n ot report as a farm any tract of
land o f less than 3 acres, unless its agricultural products in 1944 were
valued at $250 or m ore.” — U nited States Census o f A gricu ltu re : 1945,
“ Special R eport on the 1945 Sam ple Census o f A gricu ltu re,” p. 8.




4

quite small. About two-thirds of these small-scale farms
are part-time farms and nominal units where the farmer
and his family depend on nonfarm sources for part or
all of their income.
CHART I

DISTRIBUTION OF FARMS BY ECONOMIC CLASS
UNITED STATES AND FIFTH DISTRICT, 1945
P E R CENT OF A LL FARMS

0

10

20

30

40

50

LARGE-SCALE
UN ITS

LARGE FAMILY
FARM S

MEDIUM FAMILY
FARMS

SM A LL FAMILY
FARMS

SM A LL-SC A L E
UNITS

The Fifth Federal Reserve District had about 750,000
farms enumerated in the 1945 Census of Agriculture.
As noted above each cropper unit is classed as a separate
farm. Less than half of Fifth District farms, or 48 per
cent, are commercial family farms. On the other hand,
less than 1 per cent of our farms are large-scale units
where the farmer depends primarily upon hired labor
and not upon his own labor and that of his family in
operating the farm. In other words, less than half of
the farms in this District are large enough to justify the
full-time labor of a farmer. Most of the farms not in
the commercial family farm category are small-scale
units where the gross production is too small to furnish
an adequate living for the farm family and where a part
or most of the family living is obtained from the farm
in the form of farm products for home consumption and
from work off the farm. About 52 per cent of the Dis­
trict’s farms are in this latter group.
CHART 2

D I S T R I B U T I O N OF F A R M S A N D V A L U E OF FARM
P R O D U C T S S O L D , B Y E C O N O M I C C L A S S OF FARM
F I F T H D I S T R I C T , 1945
P E R CENT OF T O T A L

0
LARGE-SCALE
UNITS

LARGE FAMILY
FARMS

MEDIUM FAMILY
FARMS

SM A LL FAMILY
FARMS

SM A LL-S C A L E
UNITS

10

20

30

40

50

SEPTEMBER 1948

MONTHLY REVIEW

TABLE 1
PERCENTAGE OF FARMS, FARM POPULATION, CROPLAND HARVESTED
AND VALU E OF FARM PRODUCTS, BY ECONOMIC CLASS
FIFTH FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT, 1945*

Class

Number
of
Farms
Per cent

Farm
Population
Per cent

Cropland
Harvested
Per cent

100.0
100.0
100.0
All Farms
1.8
0.6
5.5
Large-scale units
47.9
52.8
Commercial family farms
70.1
4.0
2.5
9.9
Large
13.4
16.3
24.7
Medium
32.5
32.0
35.5
Small
45.4
51.5
24.4
Small-scale units
13.7
13.3
4.6
Part-time farms
15.9
12.7
18.0
Small holdings
15.8
7.1
20.2
Nominal units
*Includes only products sold and used by the farm household.
Compiled from Special Report on the 1945 Sample Census of Agriculture, Table 29.

Gross Value
of Farm
Production5'
1
Per cent
100.0
9.8
75.4
13.2
29.8
32.4
14.8
4.0
7.8
3.0

Value of
Farm Pro­
ducts Sold
Per cent
100.0
11.8
79.4
15.3
32.5
31.6
8.8
1.7
5.7
1.4

than 2 per cent of the farms in the United States and
only 0.6 per cent of the farms in the Fifth District are
in this group. Large-scale farms represent a size of
business and method of operation that in general differ
considerably from commercial family farms. Much la­
bor is hired, and the operator devotes more of his time
to supervision and management than does the operator
of a family farm.

Large-Scale Units
Large-scale units are defined primarily as farms with
a gross value of products of $20,000 or more and a land
and building value of at least $15,000. Where the in­
vestment in land and buildings is $70,000 or more, farms
with a value of products of $8,000 to $19,999 are in­
cluded. These large-scale units are not numerous. Less

TABLE 2
NUMBER AND IM PORTANT CHARACTERISTICS OF FARMS, BY ECONOMIC
CLASS
FIFTH FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT, 1945

Average per Farm*
Value of
Value of Im­
Number
plements &
of Cropland Land and
Machinery
Farms Harvested Buildings
Class
Dollars
Number Acres
Dollars
4,096
331
23
747,172
All Farms
47,006
5,684
4,387
219
Large-scale units
5,243
491
34
357,669
Commercial family farms
16,904
92
1,930
18,730
Large
6,382
43
100,163
676
Medium
301
26
3,851
238,776
Small
2,542
121
11
385,116
Small-scale units
2,325
124
8
99,473
Part-time farms
16
2,277
138
134,675
Small holdings
2,922
103
150,968
8
Nominal units
*Average of all farms in each class.
Compiled from Special Report on the 1945 Sample Census of Agriculture, Table 29.
While large-scale units are not numerous in the Dis­
trict they are of considerable importance when considered
in regard to the total agricultural production of the
area. They are also of importance from the standpoint
of capital invested in agriculture and the employment of
the farm population. In the Fifth District large-scale
units had an average of over 14 persons per farm, where­
as the average for all farms was less than 5 persons per
farm. The average value of machinery and implements
on large-scale units was $3,684 as compared to a $331




Gross Value
of Products
Sold or Used
Dollars
1,873
31,196
2,949
9,823
4,163
1,900
539
565
813
277

Value of
Products
Sold
Dollars
1,510
30,293
2,505
9,196
3,662
1,494
258
190
481
103

average for all farms. The average value of land and
buildings in the District was $4,096 and large-scale units
had an average land and building value of $47,006. Simi­
larly, large-scale farms averaged 625 acres of which
cropland harvested comprised 219 acres, while the aver­
age farm in the District had 79 acres of which 23 acres
represented cropland harvested. The gross value of
farm products in 1944 on large-scale farms was $31,196
or more than 16 times the average for all farms in the
District.

[5 ]

FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF RICHMOND

Although large-scale units comprise only 0.6 per cent
of the number of farms in the District, they accounted
for 11.8 per cent of the value of farm products sold in
1944 and 9.8 per cent of the gross value of farm pro­
ducts, including home-used products. Within largescale units were included 4.6 per cent of the District’s
total land in farms and 5.5 per cent of the cropland har­
vested. Similarly, these farms represented a large pro­
portion of the total capital invested in agriculture in this
District. In large-scale units were found 10.1 per cent
of the total value of implements and machinery and 6.7
per cent of the total value of land and buildings.
The gross value of production per person on farms is
high on large-scale units. Large-scale farms averaged
14 persons per farm and a gross value of products of
$31,196. The average value of products per person was,
accordingly, about $2,200 and was about five and onehalf times the average for all farms in the District. Both
the large scale of operation and this high production per
person were reflected in the high proportion of largescale farms reporting modern facilities and motor ve­
hicles. Large-scale farms were highly mechanized with
82 per cent reporting tractors as compared to 11 per
cent for all farms in the District. The proportions re­
porting motor trucks, automobiles, running water, elec­
tricity, and telephones were similarly far above the
average for all farms in the District.
TABLE 8
PE R C E N T A G E D IST R IB U T IO N OF F A R M S A N D V A L U E OF FA R M
PR O D U C TS SOLD, B Y ECONOM IC C LA SS OF F A R M
FIFTH D ISTR IC T B Y STA TE S, 1945

Class

F ifth
Dist.

W est
Va.

N . C.

S. C.

A ll Farm s

100.0

100.0

0.6

1.4

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

0.7

0.2

0.7

Com m ercial fam ily
farm s
L arge
Medium
Small

0.3

47.9
2.5
13.4
32.0

57.9
10.0
24.8
23.1

39.0
2.6
10.4
26.0

20.5
1.1
4.0
15.4

60.9
2.6
18.8
39.5

48.3
1.1
9.5
37.7

Sm all-scale units
P art-tim e farm s
Small holdings
N om inal units

51.5
13.3
18.0
20.2

40.7
12.5
10.3
17.9

60.3
17.3
17.1
25.9

79.3
27.9
17.9
33.5

38.4
8.1
16.1
14.2

51.4
9.4
25.0
17.0

Per cent o f Farm Products Sold
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

Md.

V a.

Per cent o f A ll Farm s
L arge-scale units

100.0

100.0

Large-scale units

11.8

17.9

18.8

13.5

7.7

8.2

Com m ercial fa m ily
farm s
Large
Medium
Small

79.4
15.3
32.5
31.6

79.2
36.5
32.4
10.3

70.8
18.9
27.2
24.7

68.5
18.1
24.8
25.6

85.9
9.8
38.6
37.5

77.5
8.2
26.3
43.0

Sm all-scale units
P art-tim e farm s
Small holdings
N om inal units

8.8
1.7
5.7
1.4

2.9
0.9
1.6
0.4

10.4
2.0
5.2
3.2

18.0
6.1
9.3
2.6

6.4
1.1
4.7
0.6

14.3
1.9
11.0
1.4

A ll Farm s

Compiled from Special R eport on the 1945 Sam ple Census o f A griculture,
Table 29.

Commercial Family Farms
About 48 per cent of the farms in the Fifth District
are commercial family farms. This group forms a large
proportion of the farms in each state, although the pro­
portion varies between states. In North Carolina 61
per cent of the farms are commercial family farms, but
in West Virginia only 20 per cent are in this class.




fy

Commercial family farms are defined primarily as
farms with a value of products of $1,200 to $19,999 in
1944. They are divided into three size groups. Large
family farms are generally those with a value of pro­
ducts of $8,000 to $19,999 and an investment in land and
buildings under $70,000. Farms with at least $3,000
gross value of products are included if the investment
in land and buildings is $30,000 to $69,999. Medium
family farms are primarily those with a value of pro­
ducts ranging from $3,000 to $7,999 and a land and
building investment less than $30,000. If the value of
land and buildings is $20,000 to $29,999, farms with
$1,200 to $2,999 value of products are included. Finally
small family farms are primarily those with $1,200 to
$2,999 value of products and a land and building value
less than $20,000. If the value of land and building is
at least $8,000, farms with $500 to $1,199 are included
in this group.
All family farms, which taken together comprise 48
per cent of the number of farms in the District, ac­
counted for 75 per cent of the gross value of all farm
production and for 79 per cent of the value of farm pro­
ducts sold. They had 53 per cent of the District’s farm
population, 70 per cent of the cropland harvested, 71
per cent of the investment in implements and machinery,
and 61 per cent of the value of land and buildings.
Large commercial family farms, $8,000 to $19,999
gross value of products, represent a size of business
which usually employs a considerable amount of hired
labor. In some cases they approach the size of largescale units. On an average, large family farms in the
District had 92 acres of cropland, land and buildings
valued at $16,904, a gross value of products of $9,823,
and an investment of $1,930 in implements and ma­
chinery. In this group are 2.5 per cent of the District’s
farms with an average of 7.5 persons per farm.
Medium family farms, $3,000 to $7,999 gross value
of products, include 13.4 per cent of the District’s farms.
They averaged 5.7 persons per farm and a gross value
of products of $4,163. Investment in land and buildings
was $6,382 per farm and in implements and machinery
only $676. While 25 per cent of the total cropland har­
vested was in medium family farms, the average per
farm was only 43 acres.
Small family farms are the most numerous single
class of farms in the District. In general they had
$1,200 to $2,999 gross value of products per farm.
Thirty-two per cent of all farms are in this group. The
group is more numerous because each cropper tract is
reported as a farm in the Census and most cropper units
would be in this class of small family farms. On these
farms was 32 per cent of the farm population, and the
average number of persons per farm was 4.8.
Many o f these farms may be considered inadequate
units in terms of acreage, investment, and production.
The average gross value of products for small family
farms in the District was $1,900. In four of the five
states the average was less. The average value of farm
products sold from these farms was less than $1,500 in
1944 when prices of farm products were fairly satis­

SEPTEMBER 1948

MONTHLY REVIEW

factory. In the case of cropper units, about one-half
of this would be income for the cropper. In the District
small family farms averaged 26 acres of cropland har­
vested per farm, while $301 was invested in implements
and machinery and $3,851 in land and buildings.
A general association of size of farm and the propor­
tion of farms reporting motor vehicles and modem
household facilities is found on family farms. For ex­

ample, 55 per cent of the large family farms reported
tractors. On medium family farms the proportion fell
to 24 per cent, and tractors were found on only 11 per
cent of the small farms. Similarly, modern household
facilities like running water, electricity, and telephones
were reported more often on large family farms than
on medium farms, and on medium farms more often
than on small farms.

TABLE 4
FARMS REPORTING SPECIFIED FACILITIES, BY ECONOMIC CLASS OF
FARM
FIFTH FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT, 1945

Motor
trucks

Auto­
Running
Tractors
mobiles
Water
Per cent of Farms Reporting
14.0
11.1
49.6
18.4
All Farms
81.8
87.1
79.3
74.9
Large-scale units
16.7
59.2
18.6
20.5
Commercial family farms
55.1
83.0
48.9
55.0
Large
23.9
69.5
23.8
24.2
Medium
10.7
14.1
53.0
16.2
Small
5.0
40.3
9.0
15.8
Small-scale units
12.8
5.7
53.1
22.6
Part-time farms
5.3
8.5
37.5
11.7
Small holdings
4.4
34.4
7.0
15.0
Nominal units
Compiled from Special Report on the 1945 Sample Census of Agriculture, Table 29.
Class

Small-Scale Units
This is a miscellaneous group of part-time farms,
small holdings, and nominal units which generally have
a value of products less than $1,200. About 52 per cent
of the District’s farms are in this group, but only 15
per cent of the gross value of farm production and only
9 per cent of the value of farm products sold originated
on these farms. These farms had 45 per cent of the
District’s farm population, but they had only 24 per cent
of the cropland harvested, 19 per cent of the value of
implements and machinery, and 32 per cent of the value
of land and buildings.
Part-time farms are defined as “ farms with a value of
products of $250 to $1,199, a value of land and buildings
of less than $8,000, and the farm operator working off
the farm 100 days or more.” This type of farm repre­
sents a combination of farm and nonfarm employment
for the operator. The farm family is probably depen­
dent on the farm for half or less of the family living.
Part-time farms in the District had a small average
gross value o f farm products, $565. Nearly two-thirds
of this was used at home, and sales of farm products
amounted to only $190 per farm. Total investment per
farm was small. About $2,300 was invested in land and
buildings and $124 in implements and machinery.
Such part-time farms include about 13 per cent of the
total number of farms in the District. They are most
important in West Virginia where 28 per cent of the
farms are in this class. In North Carolina only 8 per
cent of the farms are classed as part-time. If nonfarm
employment increases in the District, part-time farms
may be expected to increase. This will result in part




Elec­
tricity

Tele­
phone

37.8
84.2
40.4
73.3
46.8
35.1
34.9
46.9
28.1
33.0

12.2
64.6
13.3
42.2
15.3
10.2
10.6
13.3
8.3
10.8

from some movement of urban workers into rural areas
where they can combine farming and other employment.
An increase in part-time farms may also come about as
operators of small inadequate farms cease to rely entire­
ly on farming for an income and supplement their farm
income with nonfarm employment.
Small holdings are quite similar to part-time farms,
but the operator works off the farm less than 100 days.
They are also similar to small family farms, but the
gross value of products is less. These farms had a gross
value of products of $500 to $1,199 and little income
from non farm employment. In some areas this class
may include many cropper units.
In the District 18 per cent of all farms are in the
small holdings class. South Carolina has the largest
proportion of farms in this class, 25 per cent, of the
states in the District. These farms had 16 per cent of
the District’s farm population, but produced only 6 per
cent of the products sold. Although these farms ap­
pear to depend primarily on income from farm products,
the average gross value of farm products was only $813
and over a third of this was used at home.
Nominal units include all farms not included in the
above classes. They comprise a miscellaneous group of
farms including institutions, rural residences, country
estates, and farms having a high value of land and build­
ings because of being located near urban centers. Most
of these farms are small in terms of acreage and value
of products. The average nominal unit in the District
had about $300 gross value of products and sold onethird of it. Cropland harvested per farm was less than
10 acres and, like small holdings and part-time farms,

[7 ]

FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF RICHMOND

the value o f machinery and implements was low. Nomi­
nal units had an average of 52 acres and a value of land
and buildings of $2,922.
O f all farms in the District, 20 per cent are classified
as nominal units. These farms included 13 per cent of
all land in farms and 7 per cent of the cropland harvest­
ed. Only 1.4 per cent of the value of products sold
came from nominal units. This indicates that they are
in large part the rural residences of persons engaged
almost entirely in other occupations.
Small-scale units seldom had tractors or motor trucks.
From one-third to one-half had automobiles. Part-time
farms include a group of farmers with appreciable in­
come from both farm and nonfarm work. Probably be­
cause of the non farm income more part-time farms re­
ported automobiles, electricity, running water, and simi­
lar modern facilities than were reported for small hold­
ings and nominal units.
Adequate and Inadequate Farms
The above descriptive analysis shows, first, that the
commercial family farm, long held up as a desirable ob­
jective, is not as important or numerous as generally
believed. Less than half of the District’s farms are in
this group. In West Virginia the proportion falls to 20
per cent. Agricultural adjustment programs, research
programs, and agricultural credit policies that are con­
ceived primarily in terms of commercial family farms
do not fully apply to and meet the needs of at least half
of the farms in this District.
Second, the analysis shows that more than half of
our farms are so small that they do not efficiently utilize
the available labor of the farmer and his family and can
supply only a relatively low level of living to the farm
family unless farm income is supplemented from other
sources. W e may call these farms inadequate units.
Included in our inadequate units are rural residences
and nominal units, part-time farms, small holdings, and
many of the small commercial family farms. These
four groups of farms are characterized by small acre­
ages of cropland and pasture and small investment with
a resulting low output per worker. Only in the cases
of part-time farms and possibly rural residences is the
low output partially explained by off-farm work in sig­
nificant amounts. The low level of income on these
small farms obviously has adverse effects on the demand
for the products of and employment in other industries
in the District.
O f these inadequate farms in the District the average
cropland harvested ranged from 8 acres for part-time
farms and nominal units to 26 acres for small family
farms. The average value of products sold in 1944, a
year when farm product prices were generally satisfac­
tory, was $1,494 for small family farms and ranged
down to $103 for nominal units. Similarly investment
was low. Each class of inadequate farms averaged un­
der $400 worth of machinery and implements.
The problem of raising farm income on these farms
appears difficult. In some cases, as on small family
farms, it may be possible to increase the investment.
However, a higher machinery investment may be justi­




fied only if acreage is increased. Any individual farmer
can acquire more land by lease or purchase, but it is ob­
vious that all farmers with small inadequate farms can­
not follow this course.
Some increase in production can be obtained, even on
these small farms, by use of improved practices and by
a reorganization of crop and livestock enterprises. But
even where this is done it is probable that the small
average size will prevent any major increase in output
and income. Government programs to maintain agricul­
tural prices and provide certain payments to farmers
are of help, of course, at least in the short run, in main­
taining and raising farm incomes. It is doubtful, how­
ever, that any reasonable program of price support and
payments would be sufficient to raise the incomes of
these farmers to a satisfactory level. When a farmer
sells so few farm products in the boom year of 1944
that their value totaled only $481, the average for small
holdings in the District in 1944, it seems impossible to
justify raising prices high enough to give such farmers
an adequate income.
The most promising approach to the problem of far­
mers on inadequate farms is for these farmers to shift
to other occupations where they will have an opportunity
to earn higher incomes. This may involve a continua­
tion of the migration from farms to towns and cities
which has been observed for many years in this District.
It is also likely that the efforts of small farmers to sup­
plement farm income with non farm income will lead to
an increase in the number of part-time farms and rural
residences. If more industrial plants can be developed,
particularly in rural areas, many of these small farmers
w ill be able to combine a limited amount of farm work
T
with other occupations. In some cases they may rent
their cropland to other farmers and use their farms only
as residences and as sources of the family food supply.
The field of part-time farming is a promising one for
farm management workers. Ideally, on part-time farms
significant contributions to the family income are de­
rived from both the farming activities and the nonfarm
work. In too many cases the farm does not help much.
In fact, it often represents a serious drain on the income
derived from other work. Additional attention on the
part of farm management workers is needed in deter­
mining the most profitable crop and livestock organiza­
tion of part-time farms in the various areas of the Dis­
trict. This may involve additional farm management
research. It, nevertheless, is particularly important be­
cause these farms are usually too small to justify much
investment in labor-saving machinery and yet the time
and labor the farmer can give to the farm is limited.
In general we may call medium and large family farms
adequate farms. They represent, on the average, fairly
high investments in land, buildings, and machinery, and
achieve better output per worker. Only 16 per cent of
the District’s farms are in these classes, but they pro­
duced in 1944 nearly one-half of the value of products
sold. These farms, together with large-scale units, gen­
erally have different adjustment problems from the
smaller farms. On the small inadequate farms the
problem generally lies primarily in increasing the size

[81

SEPTEMBER 1948

MONTHLY REVIEW

of farm, obtaining more off-farm employment, or both.
In the case of medium and large family farms and largescale units, farm management problems consist chiefly
of deciding on the most profitable organization of the
farm in regard to what crops and livestock to produce
and of deciding on the more economical methods of pro­
duction. O f course, in many cases further enlargement
of the farm may be profitable. It is to this relatively
small group of farms that the chief benefits of price sup­
port and benefit payments go because these farms ac­
counted for about 60 per cent of the value of farm pro­
ducts sold in this District.
Conclusion
Less than half of the farms in the District are com­
mercial family farms. Over half are small-scale units
which produce less than a tenth of the value of products
sold. A few farms are large-scale units and are larger
than family farms. This small group of large-scale units
produced nearly 12 per cent of the value of products
sold.

Small-scale units and small family farms make up a
class of generally inadequate farms. They are charac­
terized by small cropland acreages, small investments,
and low output per worker. In order to raise the level
of income on these farms it is necessary that the farms
become larger in terms of acreage and investment. It
is also necessary that more of these farmers enter other
occupations, either on a full or part-time basis, where
they can earn higher incomes. Government agricultural
programs to raise prices of farm products are of limited
benefit to most operators of inadequate farms because
of the small amount of farm products sold.
Medium and large family farms and large-scale units
include primarily farms with a gross value of products
of $3,000 and up. These farms may be termed adequate.
Their adjustment problems consist chiefly of deciding
on the most advantageous combination of crops and
livestock and on the most profitable methods of produc­
tion. Price support programs are of considerably more
benefit to this group than to others because of the large
amount of products sold per farm.

Business Conditions
Continued from page 2

at a level 6 per cent ahead o f the same month last year.
Recent trade estimates indicate a demand for coal in the
year 1948 perhaps 20 million tons below the 1947 level.
This is not an excessive reduction but it is enough, ap­
parently, to stop the rise in coal prices and may prove to
be enough to affect further wage demands. The ex­
ports of coal are mainly responsible for the slack in de­
mand. These are running 40 per cent below a year ago
and now seem likely to amount to less than 45 million
tons, compared with 69 million tons in 1947. Domestic
stocks are rising and may continue to rise further, but
not at advancing prices. If stocks do not continue to
rise the demand for coal will probably fall considerably
more than the estimated 20 million tons. Indications
from the coal fields are that the small mines, known as
“ snow-birds” , with little or no equipment for cleaning
and sizing coal, are closing down for lack of demand
for low-grade coal. Strippers, who also are without




cleaning and sizing equipment, are reported to be shut­
ting up.
Conclusion
The post-war readjustments have arrived for sev­
eral of the major industries o f the Fifth District. With
the present economic forces in general maintaining their
vitality for the next 6 months or so, it is not expected
that the repercussions of these adjustments on the Fifth
District's economy will be severe. There is not likely to
be a serious unemployment problem, but moderate cut­
backs in working time are likely ; in fact they are already
operative. With price supports for the major agricul­
tural products of the District in effect, and with these
limiting the extent of price reaction in manufactured
and semi-manufactured products in the area, it is not
likely that the over-all price level of the Fifth District
will fall very much in relation to the national price level
in the next six or eight months.

r oi

FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF RICHMOND

AVERAGE DAILY TOTAL DEPOSITS* OF
MEMBER BANKS
Last Half of July Last Half of August
% of
% of
$ thousands U.S. $ thousands U.S.
.94
Maryland
.94 1,001,939
1,003,565
.60
634,066
.59
Reserve city banks 636,854
Country banks
366,711
.34
367,873
.35
877,505
.82
.83
District of Columbia 881,107
.81
.80
855,232
Reserve city banks 858,914
.02
Country banks
22,193
22,273
.02
Virginia
1,279,308 1.20 1,288,023 1.21
.28
Reserve city banks 303,337
303,054
.29
Country banks
975,971
.92
984,969
.92
W est Virginia
602,279
.56
603,043
.56
North Carolina
821,400
.77
825,090
.77
Reserve city banks 380,687
.36
379,705
.35
Country banks
440,713
.41
445,385
.42
South Carolina
418,781
.39
422,309
.40
Fifth District
5,006,440 4.69 5,017,909 4.70
U. S. (millions)
106,671 100.0
106,748 100.0
♦Excluding interbank demand deposits




ri oi

SEPTEMBER 1948

MONTHLY REVIEW

D E B ITS TO IN D IV ID U A L A CC O U N TS

F E D E R A L R E S E R V E B A N K OP RICH M O N D
(A ll Figures in Thousands)
September 15,
Chg. in A m t. From
1948
8-18-48
9-17-47

ITEM S

(000 om itted)

Total Gold Reserves.............................$1,105,360
Other Reserves .....................................
15,944
Total Reserves ................................... 1,121,304
Bills Discounted ...................................
15,122
Industrial Advances .............................
44
Govt. Securities, T otal........................ 1,377,141
Bonds ....................................................
549,075
N otes ....................................................
116,081
313,494
Certificates .........................................
Bills ......................................................
398,491
Total Bills & Securities...................... 1,392,307
U ncollected Items .................................
310,329
Other Assets ...........................................
25,402
T otal Assets ....................................... 2,849,342

+
—
+
—
—
—
+
—
—
—
—
+
+
+

53,848
29
53,819
7,270
10
22,450
67,856
4,559
19,565
66,182
29,730
60,411
418
84,918

Federal Reserve Notes in Cir.........$1,679,157
Deposits, Total .......................................
855,656
Members’ Reserves ..........................
791,236
U. S. Treas. Gen. A c c t.................
42,185
F oreign ................................................
18,610
Other Deposits ...................................
3,625
Def. A vailability Items......................
274,563
Other Liabilities ...................................
628
Capital A ccounts .................................
39,338
Total Liabilities ............................... 2,849,342

+
—
+
—
+
+
+
+
+
+

47,189
13,468
72,134
87,725
436
1,687
50,088
5
1,104
84,918

—
+
+
+
—
+
+
—
+
+

A ugust
1948

+ 202,350
+
2,846
-{“ 205,196
+
9,091
+
14
— 200,721
+ 505,195
+ 87,162
— 114,849
— 678*229
— 191,616
—
2,613
+ 10,067
+ 21,034

Dist. o f Columbia
W ashington .............
$
M aryland
B altim ore ................
Cumberland ............
Frederick
.................
H agerstow n .............
N orth Carolina
A sheville ...................
Charlotte ...................
Durham .....................
Greensboro ...............
Kinston .....................
Raleigh .....................
W ilm in gton .............
W ilson .......................
W inston-Salem .......
South Carolina
Charleston ...............
Columbia ...................
Greenville .................
Spartanburg .............
V irginia
Charlottesville ........
Danville .....................
L ynchburg ...............
N ew port News .........
N orfolk .....................
Portsm outh ...............
Richm ond .................
R oanoke ...................
W est V irgin ia
Bluefield .....................
Charleston ...............
Clarksburg .................
H untington .............
Parkersburg ............. .........

39,903
46,320
22,240
23,998
255
337
11,412
523
3,728
21,034

51 R EP O RT IN G MEM BER B AN K S— 5th D ISTRICT
(A ll Figures in Thousands)
September 15,
1948

ITEM S

Chg. in A m t. From
8-18-48
9-17-47

Total Loans ........................................... $ 870,719**
405,884
Bus. & A g r i........................................
Real E state Loans.............................
200,631
A ll Other Loans.................................
269,903
T otal Security H oldin gs...................... 1,694,796
U . S. Treasury Bills ............... .........
44,126
202,773
U . S. Treasury Certificates ............
U . S. Treasury N otes ......................
91,916
U. S. Govt. Bonds ............................... 1,223,028
132,953
Other Bonds, Stocks & Sec...........
Cash Items in Process o f Col...........
267,204
Due from B anks.....................................
187,590*
Currency & Coin...................................
65,961
Reserve w ith F. R. Banks................
525,768
47,538
Other Assets .........................................
Total Assets ..................................... 3,659,576

+ 23,372
+ 19,322
+
3,072
+
1,003
— 10,770
+
5,010
—
5,921
+
7,157
— 17,509
+
493
+ 54,346
+ 36,516
+
1,626
+ 46,622
+
528
+ 152,240

+ 134,848
+ 59,927
+ 45,486
+ 35,134
— 157,613
+ 13,349
— 11,898
— 13,757
— 154,069
+
8,762
+ 39,024
+
672
+
788
+ 20,675
—
3,415
+ 34,979

T otal Demand Deposits.................... $2,819,180
Deposits o f Individuals .................. 2,087,092
Deposits o f U. S. Govt.........................
60,727
Deposits o f State & Local Govt........
174,101
Deposits o f Banks ............................
450,061*
Certified & Officer’s Checks........
47,199
Total Tim e Deposits............................
600,983
580,576
Deposits o f Individuals..................
Other Tim e Deposits......................
20,407
Liabilities fo r B orrow ed M oney........
3,700
20,089
A ll Other Liabilities..........................
C apital A ccounts .................................
215,624
Total Liabilities ............................... 3,659,576

+ 15 9 ,8 3 4
+ 106,899
— 11,631
— 13,514
+ 74,162
+
3,918
—
1,461
—
2,754
+
1,293
—
9,000
+
1,926
+
941
+ 152,240

+
+
+
—
+
+
—
—
+
+
+
+
+

D istrict

STATE S

$33,852,000
M aryland
....................
Dist. o f Columbia........
8,870,000
16,506,000
V irgin ia ........................
W est V irgin ia ............
7,970,000
N orth C arolina ..........
15,709,000
South Carolina .......... ........ 6,653,000
F ifth D istrict ..........
$89,560,000
Source: F. W . Dodge Corp.

M ONTHS

67
74
26
40
10
12
39

$192,056,000
50,322,000
125,150,000
62,352,000
118,965,000
56,878,000
$605,723,000

17
11
11
122
71

439
420
287
3,402
2,218

$ 283,000
195,000
165,000
$3,007,000
3,686,000

689,863

+ 15

$ 5,756,835

+ 13

950,014
22,499
18,094
26,249

+ 14
+ 10
+ 8
+ 9

7,618,372
169,235
148,310
210,860

+ 10
+ 4
+ 8
+ 9

48,621
255,094
152,125
69,558
23,396
112,019
37,422
22,942
131,532

+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+

13
34
25
9
48
22
13
39
18

397,942
1,853,288
814,213
584,111
104,445
877,642
278,634
118,466
963,443

+ 14
+ 18
h 6
-18
- 8
-16
- 4
- 3
- 9

58,738
88,798
74,178
45,331

+
+
+
+

17
14
12
13

447,076
720,462
622,799
367,532

+
+
+
+

13
12
16
17

22,031
24,915
33,600
32,556
179,375
17,725
528,654
74,274

+
+
—
+
+
—
+
+

7
17
2
7
12
2
36
3

171,780
198,088
298,489
251,913
1,425,636
155,973
3,666,774
666,968

+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+

6
2
11
7
14
8
17
16

46,437
130,995
32,642
56,354
26,031

+
+
+
+
+

30
12
17
22
3

335,034
1,043,677
253,190
454,345
211,344

+
+
+
+
+

23
13
19
21
9

+ 18

$31,186,876

$ 4,032,062

+ 13

A ugust
1948
F ifth D istrict States:
Cotton consumed ................................... ............
Cotton G row ing S tates:
Cotton consumed ................................... ............
Cotton on hand A ug. 31 in
consum ing establishments .............. ............
storage & com presses........................ ............
U nited S tates:
Cotton consumed ................................... ............
Cotton on hand A ug. 31 in
consum ing establishments .............. ............
storage & com presses........................ ............
Spindles active, U. S.............................. ............
S ou rce: Departm ent o f Comm erce

38,900
31,271
12,750
12,144
6,219
804
17,509
17,720
211
2,700
3,547
7,341
34,979

COTTON

359,126

645,214

630,389

999,692
1,687,498

917,675
792,152

728,732

712,864

1,246,848
1,723,616
21,352,000

1,155,481
840,201
21,188,000

D ISTRIC T

(In Bales)
N. Carolina S. C arolina

M O NTH S

% Chg.
fro m
7 Mos. ’ 47

August
1947

370,736

C O N SU M PT IO N — F IFT H

A ugust 1948........................
197,359
July 1948.............................
168,767
A ugust 1947........................
185,047
8 M onths 1948.................. 1,711,905
8 Months 1947.................... 1,673,788
S o u rce : Departm ent o f Commerce.

156,591
135,656
156,483
1,315,889
1,348,559

V a.

Dist.

16,786
14,482
17,596
140,627
146,166

370,736
318,905
359,126
3,168,421
3,168,513

P R IC E S OF U N F IN ISH ED C OTTON T E X T IL E S
A ug.
1948

+ 31
+ 12
+ 8
+26
+ 28
+ 53
+ 24

July
1948

A ug.
1947

77.06
85.40
62.99
91.51
67.77
121.96
62.04

A verage,

79.04
86.92
63.59
99.71
69.27
128.15
63.23

90.16
116.76
74.82
96.79
66.20
121.06
62.54

T w ill
Drills,
Sateen
Duck,

(1) ............... .
average (4)..
(1) ................
average (2)..

N o te :

T he above figures are those fo r the approxim ate quantities o f
cloth obtainable from a pound o f cotton with adjustm ent fo r
salable waste.

C OM M ERCIAL F A IL U R E S
Number o f Failures
Total Liabilities
District U.S.
D istrict
U.S.

A ugust 1948..... ....................
July 1948......... .....................
A ugust 1947. .....................
8 Months 1948.. ....................
8 Months 1947- ....................
S ou rce: Dun & Bradstreet




+
+
+
+
+
+
+

...........

% Chg.
from
8 Mos. ’ 47

8 Mos.
1948

COTTON CON SU M PTIO N A N D ON H A N D — B A L E S

♦Net Figures, reciprocal balances being elim inated.
**Less losses fo r bad debts.
C O N STR U C TIO N C O N TRA C TS A W A R D E D
% Chg.
July
from
July 1947
1948
7 Mos. ’ 48

Totals

% Chg.
fro m
A ug. 1947

$ 21,442,000
13,876,000
14,903,000
$132,656,000
147,848,000

D E P O SIT S IN M U T U A L S A V IN G S B A N K S
8 Baltim ore Banks
A ug. 31, 1948
T otal

rm

Deposits

..............$392,133,804

July 31, 1948

A ug. 31, 1947

$392,484,523

$387,111,504

FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF RICHMOND

RAYON YARN

B U ILD IN G PE R M IT FIG U R ES

SH IP M E N T S A N D

CITIE S
M aryland
B altim ore .................................................................. $3,725,950
$
Cumberland ..............................................................
104,510
Frederick ..................................................................
58,865
Hagerstown ..............................................................
62,885
Salisbury ..................................................................
147,617
V irgin ia
D anville .....................................................................
112,533
Lynchburg ................................................................
246,506
N orfolk .......................................................................
632,460
Petersburg ................................................................
162,850
Portsm outh ..............................................................
117,080
Richm ond ..................................................................
1,832,827
Roanoke ....................................................................
660,508
W est V irginia
Charleston ................................................................
1,015,282
Clarksburg ................................................................
135,405
H untington ..............................................................
519,934
N orth Carolina
Asheville ..................................................................
334,424
Charlotte ..................................................................
1,073,298
Durham .......................................................................
625,666
Greensboro ................................................................
551,730
H igh P oint ................................................................
745,120
R aleigh .......................................................................
1,617,128
R ock y M ount ..........................................................
229,000
Salisbury ..................................................................
289,100
W inston-Salem ........................................................
561,450
South Carolina
Charleston ................................................................
178,976
Columbia ..................................................................
373,030
Greenville ..................................................................
460,550
Spartanburg ............................................................
134,665
District o f Columbia
W ashington ..............................................................
4,162,395
D istrict Totals ......................................................$20,871,744
8 Months ................................................................... 194,032,571

3,092,805
79,850
115,965
569,762
159,350

175,221
1,310,320
389,975
513,196
210,256
956,967
421,950
53,325
455,469
184,875
1,088,363
71,400
242,900

A ug.
1948

REGION S
W est V irginia .........
V irgin ia .......................
Maryland .....................
F ifth D istrict .........
U nited States .........
% in D istrict...........

A ug.
1947

15,748
1,842
106
17,696
53,450
33.1

14,759
1,815
169
16,743
50,870
32.9

+
+
—
+
+

7
1
37
6
5

N et Sales
A ugu st 1948
com pared with
A u g.
July

1947
+ 38
+ 17
+ 24
+ 9
+ 11
+ 11
+ 7
+ 15

LIN ES
A uto supplies (5)*....
E lectrical goods (5 )*
Industrial supplies (3)*..
Drugs & sundries ( 12)*
Dry goods (1 1 )*....
Groceries (5 5)* ....
Paper & products ( 5 ) *
T obacco & products (7 )*
Miscellaneous (7 2)* ...........
District A verage (186)*

+

%
Chg.

107,771
13,172
1,116
122,059
384,051
31.8

113,719
12,319
1,380
127,418
401,822
31.7

—
+
—
—
—

5
7
19
4
4

62,900,000
18,600,000
7,700,000
6,400,000

Stocks
A ugu st 31, 1948
Compared with
July 31
A ug. 31

1948
+ 12
— 7
+ 12
— 14
— 3
+ 41
—

1947
+ 12
+ 30
+ 45

"o
— 7
+ 2

+ io
+ 24
+ 22

+ 9

+ 11
— 7
+ 3

— ”'i
+ 15
+ 7

1

+ 11
— 11
+ 20

5

+ 13
+ 13

1948

— 9
— 6

— 3

S ource: Departm ent o f Commerce.
♦Number o f reporting firms.

R E P O R T ON R E T A IL F U R N IT U R E S ALE S
P ercentage com parison o f sales in
periods named with sales in same
periods in 1947
A ug. 1948
8 Mos. 1948

STATE S
M aryland (5 )* .........................
Dist. o f Columbia (6 )* .........
V irginia (1 8)* .........................
W est V irgin ia (1 0)* .............
N orth Carolina (1 3 )* ...........
South Carolina (1 0 )* ...............
D istrict (6 2)* .....................

8 Mos.
1947

72,300,000
22,200,000
9,400,000
4,200,000

W H O L E SA L E T R A D E , 186 FIRM S

$ 21,630,496
141,087,033

8 Mos.
1948

%
Chg.

A ug.
1947

S ource: Rayon Organon

3,986,805

SOFT C OAL PR O D U C TIO N IN T H O U SAN D S OF TONS

July
1948

R ayon yarn shipments, lbs................. 71,400,000
Staple fiber shipments, lbs..................... 21,800,000
R ayon yarn stocks, lbs............................ 10,500,000
Staple fiber stocks, lbs.............................. 4,700,000

318,212
569,590
2,403,850
54,450
205,900
1,070,157
1,086,743
610,332
685,193
547,315

STOCKS

A ug.
1948

T otal Valuation
A ugust 1948
A ugust 1947

+ 40

+ 15

+12
0
+20
+

+
+
+
+
+

7

+ 7
+ 17

Individual Cities
Baltimore, Md., ( 5 ) * ...............
W ashington, D. C., (6 )* .... .
Richm ond, V a., (6 )* ...............
Lynchburg, V a., ( 3 ) * ...............
Charleston, W . V a., ( 3 ) * .......
Charlotte, N. C., (4 ) * ...........
Columbia, S. C., (3 )* ...............

+ 40

+ 15

+ 12
+ 2
—

5
6
3
8
7

+ 5
—1

8

+

+20

7

+ 1
+ 8

1
+ 1

—

— 4

♦Number o f reporting firms.

TOBACCO

D E P A R T M E N T STORE T R A D E

M A N U F A C T U R IN G
% Chg.
from
A ug. 1947

A ug.
1948
Sm oking & chewing tobacco
(Thousands o f lb s.)..................
17,978
Cigarettes (Thousands) ..............34,066,601
505,228
Cigars (Thousands) ......................
Snuff (Thousands o f lb s .)............
3,223

— 5
+ 17

+ 8
—2

8 Mos.
1948
130,553
233,603,698
3,700,020
27,533

% Chg.
from 8
Mos. ’ 47

+2
+6
+2
+ 7

Source: Treasury Departm ent

A U C T IO N TOBACCO M A R K E TIN G
Producers’ tobacco sales, lbs. P rice per cwt.
Aug.
Aug.
1948
1947
1948
1947
South Carolina .........
77,881,097
N orth Carolina
...........146,053,886
T otal .......................
223,934,983




47,699,003
59,768,902
107,467,905

$52.67
51.34
51.80

$46.03
45.12
45.52

Richm ond
B altim ore
W ashington
Other Cities
D istrict
Percentage chg. in A ug. ’ 48 sales com pared with sales in A ug. ’ 47

+12

+ 6

+ 7

+12

+

8

P ercentage
+ 9
P ercentage
— 6
P ercentage
— 18
P ercentage
+ 39
P ercentage
31
P ercentage
15

chg. in 8 mos. sales 1948 com pared with 8 mos. in ’ 47
+ 2
+ 5
+10
+ 6
chg. in stocks on A ug. 31, ’ 48 com pared with A ug. 31, ’ 47
+ 6
+11
+19
+ 7
chg. in outstanding orders A ug. 31, ’ 48 from A ug. 31, '47
— 13
— 12
— 19
— 14
chg. in receivables A ug. 31, ’ 48 from those on A ug. 31, '47
+16
+23
+23
+24
o f current receivables as o f A ug. 1, ’ 48 collected in A ugust
58
48
47
43'
o f instalm ent receivables as o f A ug. 1, ’ 48 collected in A ug.
21
23
23
22

Maryland

Dist. o f Col.

V irgin ia

W . V irgin ia

N. Carolina S. Carolina

Percentage change in A ug. 1948 sales from A ug. 1947, by states:
+ 6
+ 7
+13
+18
+ 6
+12
Percentage change in 8 m onths 1948 sales from 8 m onths 1947 sales:
+ 2
+ 5
+10
+16
+ 7
+ 6

[ 12]


Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, One Federal Reserve Bank Plaza, St. Louis, MO 63102