The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
Publications
of the Division oF Social Research
Works Progress Administration
ReseQrch Monographs
'
I. ·Six Rurat Problem Areas, Relief-Resources-Rehaoili~ion
II. Comparative Study of Rural Relief and Non-Relief Houieholds
Ill. The Transient Unemployed
IV.
V.
VI.
VII.
VIII.
IX.
X.
~I.
JCII.
XIII.
XIV.
XV.
XVI.
Urban Worlcers on Relief
Landlord and Tenant on the Cotton Plantation.
Chronology of the Federal Emergency Relief Adminimation,
May 12, 1933, to O.cember 31, 1935
The Migratory-Casual Worker
Farmers on Relief and Rehabilitation
Part-Time Farming in tl,e Southeast
Trends in .Relief'Expendlt'ures, 1910-1935
Rural Youth on Relief
Intercity Differences in Com of Living in March 1935, .59 Cilia
Effects of the Works Program on Rural Relief
Changing Aspects of Rural Relief
Rural Youth: Their Situation ond Prospects
Farming Hazards in the Drought Area
Special Reports
Legislative Trends in Public Relief and Assistance, December 31, 1929,
to July 1, 1936
.
Survey of Cases Certified for Worb Program Emplr,,yment in 13 Cities
Survey of Worlcers Separated F.rom WPA Employment ln Eight Areas
During the Second Ouarter of 1936
A Survey of the Transient and Homeless Population in 12 Cities,
Sepfembff 1935 and September 1936
Areas of Intense Drought Distress, 1930-1936
The People of the Dro11ght States
Relief and Rehabilitation in the Drought Area
Five Yean of Rural Relief
Age of WPA Workers, November, 1937
Survey of Worken Separated from WPA Employment in Nine Areas, 1937
Workers on Relief in the United Statet in March 1935, Volume I, A Cemus
of Usual Occupations
Urban Housing: A Summary of Real Property lnvent01ie1 Condudecl m
Work Projects,_1934-1936
WORKS PROGRESS ADMINISTRATION
F. C. Harrlnston, Ad•inldrator
Corrln,ton GIii, Als/stant Ad•inlstrahw
DIVISION OF SOCIAL RESEARCH
Howard B. Myen, Dl,edor
FARMING HAZARDS
IN THE
DROUGHT AREA
By
R. S. Kifer
and
H. L. Stewart
of the
Bureau
oJ Agricultural Economics
RESEARCH MONOGRAPH XVI
1938
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON
Digitized by
Goog Ie
Digitized by
Goog [e
Letter of Transmittal
WORKS PROGRESS ADllnNISTRATION,
Washington, D. 0., December f7, 1938.
Sm: I have the honor to transmit an analysis of the natural and
economic factors which have determined the relief needs of farm
families in 13 selected areas of the Great Plains. The counties surveyed range from fertile farm sections practically untouched by
drought to counties laid waste by drought and its attendant disasters.
The report is based on an intensive analysis of the farm operations
of a selected group of almost 1,000 farmers and the effect on these
farmers of drought conditions. It has been possible to analyze the
rural relief and rehabilitation problems of the areas surveyed in terms
of specific, local conditions and to formulate suggestions for a longtime program of agricultural readjustment. This readjustment
involves increasing the size of many farms in order to provide farmers
with adequate incomes in good years to carry them over the frequent
drought periods. Larger acreages would also permit increased pasturage in some sections and give farmers the benefit of the more stable
income that comes with livestock production as opposed to crop
production.
The combination of farms or redistribution of holdings necessary
to effect the increase in size of farms would displace few farmers from
their county of residence in most of the regions surveyed. One
region studied, the Red River Valley of North Dakota, is favorably
situated and could absorb many displaced farmers from the drought
counties if costs of resettlement were not prohibitive.
The study was initiated by the Division of Research, Statistics,
and Finance of the Federal Emergency Relief Administration in cooperation with the Division of Farm Management and Costs of the
Bureau of Agricultural Economics, U.S. Department of Agriculture.
It was completed by the Division of Social Research, Works Progress
Administration, and the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, U. S.
Department of Agriculture.
This report was prepared under the direction of Howard B. Myers,
Director of the Division of Social Research, Works Progress Administration, and under the supervision of T. J. Woofter, Jr., Coordinator
of Rural Research, and C. L. Holmes of the Bureau of Agricultural
Economics. The data were collected and analyzed under the supervision of T. C. McCormick of the Federal Emergency Relief Administration and M. R. Cooper of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics,
U. S. Department of Agriculture.
Ill
M44081
D gillzed by
Goog [e
IV • LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
The report was written by R. S. Kifer, Senior Agricultural Economist, and H. L. Stewart, Assistant Agricultural Economist, both of
the Bureau of Agricultural Economics. It was edited by Ellen
Winston of the Division of Social Research, Works Progress Administration.
H. M. Pevehouse, formerly of the Works Progress Administration,
assisted in collecting and analyzing the data. Credit should also be
given to temporary employees of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the Federal Emergency
Relief Administration who collected the data in the field.
Respectfully submitted.
CORRINGTON GILL,
Assistant Administrator.
COL.
F.
C. HARRINGTON,
Works Progress Administrator.
o gi112Pd tiy
Goog Ie
Contents
Pag,
Introduction -
XIII
Summary - - - - - - - - _ _ _ _ _
XVII
Chapter I. The Notthem Great Plains -
1
Situation offarmers after the 1934 drought __
Reduction in incomes __
Insolvency _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
2
2
4
Farmers on relief rolls _
Types of fa.rming _ _ _ _ _ _ _
5
Natural factors affecting agriculture _
Topography _ _ _ _ _ _
7
6
7
7
Soils-------------Climate _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
10
Causes of crop damage
Crop yields _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Organization of farms _ _ _ _
16
17
19
Size of operating unit _ _
Size of relief clients' farms __
Use of land _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Livestock _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
20
21
23
26
29
31
32
32
34
Use of machinery and labor
Farm buildings _ _ _ _ _
Indebtedness _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Real-estate indebtedness
Crop and feed loans
Tax delinquencies
Relief clients' indebtedness
Tenure of operators and ownership of land _ _
Tenure of farm operators
Ownership of land _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
35
36
37
37
39
V
Digitized by
Google
VI • CONTENTS
Page
41
Chapter 11. The Central Great Plaim
Situation of farmers after the 1934 drought __ _
Reduction in incomes _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Farmers on relief and rehabilitation rolls
42
42
44
46
Types offarming _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Natural factors affecting agriculture
______ _
Topography
Soils-----------Climate - - - - - - - - - - - Population movements as affected by precipitation _
Causes of crop damage _ _ _ _ _
Crop yields _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Organization of farms _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Size of operating unit _ _
Size of relief clients' farms __
Use of land _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Livestock _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Use of labor and machinery
Farm buildings _ _ _ _ _
Indebtedness _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
47
47
48
50
53
55
56
58
58
60
60
64
65
66
67
Real-estate indebtedness
Crop and feed loans
Taxation and tax delinquencies _ _
Relief clients' indebtedness
Ownership of land and tenure of operators _ _
67
68
68
Chapter Ill. The Southem Great Plains - - - - - - -
73
Situation of farmers after the 1934 drought
Reduction in incomes _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Farmers on relief and rehabilitation rolls
Types of farming _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Natural factors affecting agriculture _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Topography
Soils _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Climate ______ _
Causes of crop damage
Digitized by
Google
69
69
74
74
76
77
78
78
79
79
83
CONTENTS • VII
Page
Crop yields _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
84
Organization of farms _ _ _ _
86
Size of operating unit _ _
Use of land _ _ _ _ _
Livestock _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
87
Use of machinery and labor
Farm buildings _ _ _ _ _ _
89
92
94
95
Indebtedness _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _
96
Real-estate indebtedness
97
Crop and feed loans
Taxation and tax delinquencies _
Relief clients' indebtedness _ _
Ownership of land and tenure of operators
98
98
99
99
Chapter IV. Prospects for rehabilitation of farmers - - -
103
Northwestern North Dakota and northeastern Montana_
Southwestern North Dakota _ _ _ _ _
_ __ _
Central North Dakota _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _
106
Central South Dakota
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
109
Red River Valley of eastern North Dakota
Southeastern South Dakota _ _ _ _ _ _ _
110
Loess Hills of central Nebraska
Southwestern Wheat Area of Nebraska _
Southeastern Wyoming _____ _
112
High Plains of eastern Colorado
North Plains of Texas _ _ _ _ _
115
South Plains of the Texas Panhandle
Upper South Plains of the Texas Panhandle and High
Plains of eastern New Mexico _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
117
107
108
111
113
114
116
118
Appendix A. Supplementary tables ____ - - __ - - _
123
Appendix B. Method and scope of the study - - _ - _ - - - -
195
Appendix C. List of tables - - _ - - - - - -
207
Index
213
o g,t, 7 Pd by
Goog Ie
VIII • CONTENTS
ILLUSTRATIONS
Asura
Figure
Page
1. Areas represented and counties of special study_ _
2. Major soil groups in the Great Plains _ _ _ _ _ _
3. Extent of wind erosion in the Great Plains, 1934 _ _
4. Average number of days without killing frost in the Great
Plains, 1895-1914 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
5. Annual and growing season precipitation, selected stations
in the Northern Great Plains, 1900-1936 _ _ _ _ _ _ _
6. Normal monthly precipitation and precipitation by months,
selected stations in the Northern Great Plains, 19271936
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
7. Average size of farm operated by relief clients and by all
farmers in representative counties in the Northern Great
Plains, 1935 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
8. Utilization of land on selected farms in representative
counties in the Northern Great Plains, 1934 _ _ _ _ _ _
9. Percent of cattle purchased under the Emergency Livestock
Purchase Program of the Agricultural Adjustment Administration _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
10. Average value of farm assets and amount of liabilities of
selected farmers in representative counties in the Northern Great Plains, by tenure, 1935 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
11. Normal monthly precipitation and precipitation by months,
selected stations in the Central Great Plains, 1927-1936 _
12. Annual and growing season precipitation, selected stations
in the Central Great Plains, 1900-1936 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
13. Average size of farm operated by relief clients and by all
farmers in representative counties in the Central Great
Plains, 1935 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
14. Utilization of land on selected farms in representative counties in the Central Great Plains, 1934 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
15. Average value of farm assets and amount of liabilities of
selected farmers in representative counties in the Central Great Plains, by tenure, 1935 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
16. Normal monthly precipitation and precipitation by months,
selected stations in the Southern Great Plains, 19271936 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
17. Annual and growing season precipitation, selected stations
in the Southern Great Plains, 1900-1936 _ _ _ _ _ _ _
18. Utilization of land on selected farms in representative
counties in the Southern Great Plains, 1934 _ _ _ _ _ _
19. Average value of farm assets and amount of liabilities of
selected farmers in representative counties in the Southern Great Plains, by tenure, 1935 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
D1gilized oy
G oog Ie
xv
8
9
11
13
14
22
24
27
38
51
53
60
62
71
81
82
90
102
CONTENTS • IX
Photosrapht
Page
Looking for rain _ _ _ _ _
A drought afflicted cornfield _
As the dust storm gathers _ _ _ _ _ _
No use for this harvester _ _
A typical farm in the drought area _
Twenty bushels from thirty-eight acres!
A typical barnyard _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
After the dust storm _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Drying water holes force cattle sales _
Drought refugees _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Once an excellent fanning section _ _
_ _
_
_
_
__
- _
_
_
___
_ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _
Facing
Facing
Facing
Facing
Facing
Facing
Facing
Facing
Facing
_ Facing
__ Facing
D gillzed by
XVI
xx
XXVI
18
32
56
66
84
92
106
114
Google
Digitized by
Goog Ie
Farming Hazards in the Drought Area
XI
D1g1tlzed by
Google
D1 llr
ea
G ogle
INTRODUCTION
AGRICULTURAL DISTRESS had been acute in many parts of the
Great Plains drought area for several years prior to 1934. Crop failures during the protracted drought of 1934, however, focused attention
upon a situation that had its origins prior to the drought and even
before 1928. By 1935 numbers of farmers in various parts of the
Great Plains had abandoned their farms, and many of those remaining
were in desperate need of financial aid.
The present survey was undertaken to analyze natural and economic
factors which contributed to rural distress and agricultural maladjustment in the Great Plains with a view to determining needed changes
in land use and farm organization and thus indicating the form any
relief and rehabilitation program should take.
AGRICULTURE OF THE GREAT PLAINS
Development
Agricultural problems in the Great Plains drought area have arisen,
in part, from the method of settlement. Settlement was the result,
chiefly, of the offer of free land under the various Homestead Acts, and
it increased with the penetration of the railroads. The eastern sections of the region were homesteaded about 1870, and by 1890 occupation had proceeded to the western parts of Kansas and the Dakotas.
Remote and less attractive areas were not occupied until 1910 or
after.
For many years following 1860 agriculture throughout most of the
Western Great Plains was confined to range cattle and sheep production. A boom in the cattle industry took place between 1880 and
1895, and overstocking and overgrazing soon became a problem. A
change in land use was under way by the turn of the century, and by
1919 cash-grain farming had largely replaced grazing in certain sections. The expansion of wheat production continued during the
1920's. Vast acreages of virgin soil were broken, and production of
wheat became the primary enterprise for farmers in many areas of
the region.
Several economic and natural factors contributed to this change in
farming practices. Among them may be cited the rapid increase in
XIII
D1g1tlzed by
Google
XIV• FARMING HAZARDS IN THE DROUGHT AREA
population, the improvement in transportation and marketing facilities, the introduction of modern machinery, and the influence of high
grain prices during the World War and post World War periods.
Natural factors favoring cash-grain production were the high productivity of the loam soils of the region and the large expanses of level
to rolling land which is admirably suited to large-scale grain farming.
Typa of Fanning
Wide differences in farming systems and farm organization are to
be found in the Great Plains region although the common characteristic
of moisture deficiency lends some similarity to the agriculture in all
sections. Differences in temperature and in length of growing season
affect crop adaptation in different latitudes. Within local areas
variations in the topography and soil bring about differences in the
type of production, while distance to market limits production of
certain products.
In the Northern Great Plains (fig. 1) approximately one-half of the
cultivated land is seeded to spring wheat. Other important cropsbarley, rye, oats, and flax-are also spring-seeded.
Before the feed shortage of recent drought years forced livestock
reductions, sheep, stock cattle, milk cows, and hogs were growing in
importance as sources of farm income in the Northern Great Plains.
In the central part of South Dakota farmers had shifted from a onecrop system of farming based on wheat to a system of farming in
which wheat remained the most important crop but in which corn and
feed grains replaced a large part of the former wheat acreage.
Corn is more important than wheat in those parts of South Dakota
and Nebraska usually not considered in the plains region but which
represent the western extension of the corn belt. Yields per acre are
lower than in the eastern corn belt and crop production is less certain,
but the systems of farming resemble those of the corn belt more closely
than they do those of the wheat belt.
In the Central Great Plains (fig. 1) farming systems are based
primarily on some combination of winter wheat, corn, barley, and
oats. In central and western Kansas winter wheat dominates the
agriculture. Here the topography and soil favor wheat production
with large-scale equipment, and the usual system of farming
approaches a one-crop system. Corn and grain sorghums are important in certain sections, particularly on the lighter soils. Spring wheat
is an alternate crop to winter wheat in the northern sections of this
area. Where the soils and climate are favorable for the production of
com and alfalfa hay, livestock production is important. In areas too
rough for cultivation range livestock predominates.
In that portion of the Southern Great Plains considered here
(fig. 1), winter wheat and grain sorghums dominate the cropping
o a,,,,pd by
Goog Ie
INTRODUCTION • XV
FIG. I -AREAS REPRESENTED AND COUNTIES OF SPECIAL STUDY
AREAS REPRESENTED
I Northwestern North Dokoto
ond northeostern Montono
2 Centrol North Dakota
3 Red River Volley of eastern North Dakota
4 Southwestern North Dakota
5 Central South Dokoto
6 Southeastern South Dakota
7 Southeastern WyominQ
8 Loess Hills of centrol Nebrosko
9 Southwestern Wheat Areo of Nebraska
10 HiQh Plains of eastern Colorado
11 North Plains of Texas
12 Upper South Ploins of Texos Ponhondle and
HiQh Plains of eastern New Mexico
13 South Plains of Texas Ponhondle
Note: trreQulor line bounds the
Greot Plains ReQion as delimited
by the Great Plains Committee.
AF•Z70t,WP&
o ri,1,zP.d by
Goog Ie
XVI• FARMING HAZARDS IN THE DROUGHT AREA
systems with com the alternate crop in the east and cotton the
important cash crop on the light soils of the southern sections.
On rough, broken, or extremely sandy soils from the northern to the
southern limits of the Great Plains region, range livestock production
has been maintained. The extent to which livestock production is
carried on in connection with farming is determined by the possibilities
for crop production.
SELECTION OF COUNTIES FOR STUDY
The survey was made in 13 widely-separated counties in the Great
Plains States (fig. 1). Each of the counties was considered broadly
representative of a contiguous group of counties within the same
geographic area. While the findings of this report are based on the
survey of 11 counties seriously affected by drought and 2 counties
affected slightly or not at all, they are believed to be generally applicable to the varied conditions in the Great Plains States.
Counties selected for the survey in the Northern Great Plains States
were Divide, Hettinger, Sheridan, and Traill Counties, N. Dak., and
Hyde and Moody Counties, S. Dak. In the Central Great Plains
States the counties chosen for the survey were Sherman and Perkins
Counties, Nebr., Goshen County, Wyo., and Cheyenne County, Colo.
No representative county from the wheat areas in Kansas was studied
because conditions in the distressed areas were fairly well represented
by counties in adjoining States. In the Southern Great Plains States
data were obtained from Dallam and Hale Counties, Tex., and
Curry County, N. Mex.
In addition to general information on the agricultural situation,
personal interviews with from 50 to 150 selected farmers in each
county provided information relating to the farming system followed,
the past record of crop yields, the financial condition of the farmers,
and their financial progress since they began farming in the area.
Records of almost 1,000 farmers in the Great Plains drought area
were thus examined. 1
1
See Appendix B-Method and Scope of the Study.
Digitized by
Goog Ie
R
e ltlem ent Atlmi11istratio11
(Roth HI Pi 11) .
Looking for Rain.
Dig1tizf>d by
Google
...
_._:
... .., .. . .
~ ...~~: . ~ ~~ : . . .. : ........
Digitized by
Google
SUMMARY
FARMERS IN many sections of the Great Plains were in a serious
financial condition in 1935 as a result of recurrent droughts and resultant low crop yields or failures. In many localities a large proportion
of the farmers was receiving relief. Their 1934 incomes had been
abnormally low and consisted largely of Government subventions in
the form of crop and feed loans, direct relief, or payments made in
connection with the livestock and crop control programs. Livestock
had been drastically reduced in number throughout the Great Plains
drought area.
The history of agriculture in the Great Plains indicates that the
1934 drought accentuated serious agricultural ills that had been accumulating for more than a decade. The land-use problems of the
Great Plains, as well as the economic insecurity of those farming in the
area, had arisen largely from the climate of the region-the light and
variable rainfall, the wide fluctuations in temperature, and the recurrence of severe drought-and from the failure or inability of Great
Plains farmers to adjust their farming systems to natural conditions.
THE NORTHERN GREAT PLAINS
Farmers in the central and western counties of the Northern Great
Plains were dependent for the most part on Government expenditures
in 1934. From two-thirds to three-fourths of the 1934 cash receipts
of farmers in Divide, Hettinger, and Sheridan Counties and twofifths of the receipts offarmers in Hyde County originated in Government expenditures, either as production control payments, emergency
livestock purchases, or relief grants. In addition many farmers obtained Government crop and feed loans. An abnormally high percentage of the 1934 cash receipts in Divide, Hettinger, and Sheridan
Counties came from livestock sales, most of these being made in connection with the Government's Emergency Livestock Purchase Program. Crop sales provided little or no cash receipts in 1934 to the
farmers surveyed, although normally they accounted for three-fifths
or more of the receipts on the farms in Divide, Hettinger, and Sheridan
Counties and for more than one-third of the receipts on the farms in
Hyde County.
XVII
D gillzed by
86869°-38---2
Goog [e
XVIII• FARMING HAZARDS IN THE DROUGHT AREA
In the eastern counties of the Dakotas, however, 1934 cash receipts
were more nearly normal. In Moody County the sale of livestock and
livestock products provided 64 percent of the average 1934 receipts,
which was slightly less than normal. In Traill County crops provided
69 percent of the average 1934 receipts, only slightly less than normal,
and the proportion of the receipts from the sale of livestock and livestock products was normal.
The relative severity of the drought in various sections of the Northern Great Plains is further indicated by the number of farmers on
relief rolls. In the spring of 1935, 89 percent of the farmers in Divide
County and more than 80 percent of those in Hyde County were
receiving emergency relief. The proportions were 30 percent in
Hettinger County and 26 percent in Sheridan County. In Moody
County, in the eastern part of the region, 22 percent of the farmers
received relief, and in Traill County there were no farmers on emergency relief rolls.
One farmer in five in Hyde County and one in six in Divide County
reported that they were insolvent in 1935. Elsewhere insolvency was
not so serious.
The much better position of the eastern counties, Traill and Moody,
as compared with the central and western counties of the Dakotas in
1935, however, was not entirely because of 1934 drought effects. In
the central and western counties 30 to 46 percent of the interviewed
farmers reported financial losses since beginning farming in the area.
On the other hand, farms in Traill and Moody Counties as small as
160 acres offered the operators something more than a bare living.
More favorable natural conditions had usually given the eastern
counties an advantage over those in the central and western sections.
They were able to grow a greater variety of crops, and they placed less
dependence on wheat.
In three of the four central and western counties most of the farmers
depended largely on wheat production. There was more livestock
production in Hyde County in central South Dakota. In eastern
North Dakota, represented by Traill County, farms with a variety of
crops predominated. In southeastern South Dakota, represented by
Moody County, livestock production predominated.
A more abundant and more stable rainfall toward the east makes
possible the range of crops in Traill County and the production of corn
for grain in Moody County. The central and western counties of the
Dakotas, on the other hand, have to contend with a shorter growing
season and less adequate but more variable moisture. Normal rainfall in these sections of the area is little more than enough for crop
production, and, since it is frequently less than normal, crop failures or
near failures have been frequent in the central and western portions of
North and South Dakota. Droughts have occurred less frequently
oiglli ro hy
Goog Ie
SUMMARY • XIX
and have been less severe in the eastern counties. A complete crop
failure caused by drought has practically never been experienced in
the eastern part of these States.
In the central and western parts of the N orthem Great Plains States
good crop yields were reported about 1 year in 5, poor yields 1 year in
4 or 5, and failures about 1 year in 7 to 1 year in 3. In the eastern
part, however, crop failures were rare and good or medium yields were
reported 3 out of 4 to 4 out of 5 years.
Throughout North and South Dakota drought had been the chief
cause of crop damage since the selected farmers had been operating in
the area. But while it had occurred from two-fifths to more than onehalf of the years in the central and western counties, it was reported in
only from one-fifth to one-fourth of the years in the eastern counties.
Serious or total damage was reported as frequently as 1 year in 4, or 2
years in 5, in the central and western counties, but only 1 year in 10
or 15 in the eastern counties. Other causes of crop damage, such as
hail, frost, soil blowing, and insects, were not particularly serious.
In view of the ~atural hazards and low productivity of the central
and western parts, many farms in those sections were too small for
profitable operation. Although 400 acres is apparently the minimum
size of farm on which farmers can operate successfully, many of the
farms were only 160 or 320 acres in size. Farms of 160 or 320 acres
were the most common size in the two eastern counties, but there such
·
farms were able to show a profit.
The dry weather and unfavorable seeding conditions in 1934 had
resulted in a high percentage of idle land, and there had been some
tendency to replace cash crops with feed crops during the drought
years. In Hyde and Divide Counties about 40 percent of the cropland
was idle or fallow in 1934. Idle and fallow cropland amounted to more
than 20 percent of the total in Sheridan and Hettinger Counties.
On the other hand, the relative importance of the various crops in the
central and western counties had not changed materially. Wheat was
still the most important crop in terms of acreage, followed by barley,
oats, and com.
In contrast to the situation in the western and central counties only
18 percent of the crop acreage in Traill County, and 4 percent in Moody
County, was idle or fallow in 1934. Wheat and barley occupied the
largest acreages in Traill County. In Moody County com for grain
was most important, followed by oats and barley.
To return to normal operations the farmers in the central and western counties needed considerable replacements of livestock. Feed
shortages had forced drastic reductions in livestock numbers in 1934
in the central and western counties. Cattle numbers were reduced to
approximately one-half of normal on farms in Hyde and Divide Counties and somewhat less sharply in Hettinger and Sheridan Counties.
o a,,,,pd by
Goog Ie
XX • FARMING HAZARDS IN THE DROUGHT AREA
Hogs were reduced even more drastically. In all counties except
Moody most of the farmers had no hogs. Hogs, however, had not
been an important enterprise in any of the counties except Moody and
Hyde, cattle usually being the most important livestock enterprise.
Work stock numbers generally were maintained at near normal levels.
In most sections buildings were adequate but in need of repairs.
The estimated cost of needed repairs was as high in the eastern as in
the western counties, but ea.stern farmers were in a better position
to finance their own repairs.
On many farms throughout the central and western counties minor
repairs would put machinery in working condition. Some replacement of old equipment was needed.
Farmers were burdened with heavy indebtedness. From onefourth to two-fifths of the land in the central and western counties of
the Dakotas was mortgaged in 1935. Thirty-eight percent of the
land in Traill County, and forty-eight percent in Moody County, was
mortgaged. Federal and State lending agencies held a large proportion of the first mortgages in all areas. Unpaid feed and seed loans
formed a considerable part of the farmers' obligations in the western
and central areas. Indebtedness from this source was relatively
slight in the eastern counties. During the years 1930-1935 tax
delinquencies had increased rapidly in all of the sample drought counties except Traill and Moody, with delinquencies on more than fourfifths of the land in some counties.
Corporation holdings were not important in any of the counties.
Private individuals held title to from 74 to 91 percent of the land
in the Northern Great Plains. There was, however, widespread absentee ownership of land, 27 percent of the acreage in Hettinger
County, 29 percent in Hyde County, 33 percent in Divide County,
and 51 percent in Sheridan County being owned by nonresidents.
Tenancy had been increasing in all counties studied since 1920, and
tenants were usually in a worse position financially than were owneroperators. In most areas the majority of the farmers who were insolvent were tenants, and the proportion of tenants was higher among
those who reported losses than among those who had accumulated
capital since beginning farming in the area. Also, a high proportion
of tenants was found among the farmers on relief.
THE CENTRAL GREAT PLAINS
Farm incomes in the central part of the Great Plains were low in
1934, and from two-fifths to three-fourths of the cash receipts came
directly or indirectly from Government sources. Except in the irrigated section of Goshen County, crop sales were a minor source of
receipts although normally they were the source of about three-fourths
of the cash receipts on farms in Perkins and Goshen Counties, onehalf in Cheyenne County, and about one-third in Sherman County.
Digitized by
Goog Ie
lVorl.s Prog r ess Aclin i11i., tra tio11.
A Droughl-A/flicled Cornfield.
Digitized by
Goog [e
Digitized by
Google
SUMMARY • XXI
The proportions of farmers on emergency relief or rehabilitation
rolls in the spring of 1935 were 32 percent in Cheyenne County and
about 20 percent in both Goshen and Sherman Counties. In Perkins
County, however, only 7 percent of the farmers were on emergency
relief rolls. Many of the farmers on relief had begun farming in the
area within the preceding 5 years and, because of unfavorable conditions, had been unable to establish themselves and accumulate reserves
for adverse years.
Although the Nebraska counties (Sherman and Perkins) were better
situated with respect to natural factors than were the western counties
(Cheyenne and Goshen), the irrigated section of Goshen County was
by several indices in a much more favorable situation than most of
the other sections studied in the spring of 1935. Irrigation and suitable
soils make it possible for farmers to specialize in sugar-beet production
with alfalfa second in importance. Although the Central Great Plains
make up the major portion of the hard winter wheat area of the
United States, livestock production is important in those sections of
Kansas and Nebraska where corn is an important crop, and grazing
predominates in sandy or rough areas not suited to cultivation.
These farming types are conditioned by natural factors except where
natural limitations have been met through irrigation. As in the
Northern Great Plains precipitation is more abundant and more stable
in the eastern than in the western sections of the area, with the result
that arid years occur less frequently in the eastern section, typified by
Sherman County, than in the western section, where Perkins, Goshen,
and Cheyenne Counties are located.
As a result of these factors, in the western section, typified by
Goshen County, the production of small grains and early-maturing
feed crops is possible, but the short growing season restricts the production of corn for grain. In Perkins and Cheyenne Counties a longer
growing season gives corn and other feed crops a better chance to
mature. In Sherman County, still farther east, natural conditions
favor the production of grain and hay and the raising of livestock.
The period 1931-1934 was one of subnormal rainfall throughout
the central part of the Great Plains, but it was by no means the first
such period experienced. Precipitation records from the western portion indicate that in the 75-year period preceding 1934 there were
seven drought periods of 3 or more years' duration.
In all sections drought had been the most frequent cause of crop
damage. Even in the irrigated section of Goshen County scarcity of
water had limited crop production. Selected farmers reported some
damage from drought approximately half the years in Sherman,
Perkins, and Cheyenne Counties, and from 1 year in 7 to 1 year in 3
in Goshen County. On the whole, however, the western counties experienced more years of deficient moisture with resultant low crop
yields than the eastern counties.
o g,tizPd tiy
Goog Ie
XXII • FARMING HAZARDS IN THE DROUGHT AREA
Although crop yields in 1934 were low, if not complete failures, in
all areas, yields in the immediately preceding years had been more
favorable in the eastern counties and had enabled farmers better to
withstand the 1934 drought. In Sherman County and the irrigated
section of Goshen County farmers reported fair or good crop yields
for the period 1930-1933. In Perkins County yields were low in
1931-1933 but were not complete failures, and some farmers produced
crops in 1934. In the nonirrigated section of Goshen County, however,
farmers reported low or scattered yields for 1931 and thereafter, and
in Cheyenne County yields had been low for a 5-year period.
The size of the original homestead units still predominates in parts
of the Central Great Plains. In Sherman County data secured from
the Agricultural Adjustment Administration com-hog contracts indicated that about one-half of the farms had less than 200 acres and
only one-fourth to one-third had 280 acres or more. Yet, on the
average, only farmers with 360 acres or more had been able to increase
their capital since beginning farming in the county.
In Perkins County 22 percent of the farms with com-hog contracts
were less than 281 acres in size and 46 percent had less than 440 acres.
Yet, according to farmers' estimates, a farm, to be profitable, should
be not less than 400 acres in size in southwestern Nebraska.
In Cheyenne County more than one-half of the farms were smaller
than 440 acres although at least 640 acres were considered necessary
for profitable operation. In the dry-land section of Goshen County
two-fifths of the farms had no more than 460 acres although 640 acres
were considered the minimum necessary. Less than 100 acres, however, were considered adequate to provide for a family living in the
irrigated section.
In general the operators of the larger farms reported greater increases
in net worth for the period they had farmed in the area and greater
increases per year of farming than did operators of smaller farms.
Farmers on relief tended to be concentrated in areas of small farms,
and as a rule relief clients reported farming units considerably smaller
than the county average.
In spite of the successive failures of the farmers' staple crops, there
had been little change from established to emergency crops during
the drought period, 1930-1934. Com acreage had been reduced, but
apparently most of this reduction was due to the crop adjustment
program.
In 1934 three-fifths of the farm land in Sherman County was used
for crops, according to census figures. In Perkins County nearly
three-fourths of the farm land was in crops. For Goshen County as
a whole only one-fourth of the farm land was cropland, but the proportion was much higher in the irrigated than in the dry-land farming
section. In Cheyenne County only one-third of the farm land was
used as cropland.
Digitized by
Goog Ie
SUMMARY • XXIII
Livestock numbers had been reduced in a.II areas by April 1, 1935,
the most drastic reductions having been made in hogs and poultry.
In nearly all areas feed loans had enabled most farmers to maintain
the major portions of their cattle herds. The greatest reduction in
cattle had been made in Sherman County where. the number of a.II
cattle had been reduced from an average of 22 to 15 per farm.
The farmers were heavily in debt. Real-estate indebtedness was
general in a.II areas and, with the decline of land values after 1930,
the ratio of debt to estimated value became high. In some counties
a number of farmers were estimated to be carrying an indebtedness
approximately equal to, or higher than, the estimated value of their
farms.
The feed and seed loans made in 1934-1935 were greater in total
and per farm in the livestock-producing section represented by Sherman County than in the other Central Great Plains counties studied.
The debt in Sherman County from this source averaged $206 per
farm, most of which represented feed loans incurred in an attempt to
maintain livestock herds.
Most of the land in the Central Great Plains was held by private
individuals. Corporations owned not more than 17 percent of the
farm land in any of the selected counties. Nonresident-owned land
as reported on production control contracts, however, amounted to
from one-fifth to three-fifths of the total land farmed. In Sherman,
Perkins, and Cheyenne Counties almost all of this absentee-owned
land was operated by tenants.
Tenants made up a disproportionately large part of the farmers on
relief rolls. On the average, however, a.II groups of both tenants and
owners interviewed, with the exception of the tenants operating in
the nonirrigated section of Goshen County, were solvent in the spring
of 1935.
THE SOUTHERN GREAT PLAINS
The Southern Great Plains presents problems of agricultural adjustment considerably different from those in the Central and Northern
Great Plains. Precipitation is heavier but there are higher temperatures and more rapid evaporation. A norma.Ily mild winter permits
winter wheat production, and a long growing season permits the production of grain sorghums.
With the exception of the area represented by Dallam County, the
situation in the counties surveyed in the spring of 1935 was less serious
in the Southern Great Plains than in the central and western portions
of the other areas. Cash receipts in 1934 had been one-third of normal in the row-crop section and one-fourth of normal in the grain
section of Da.Ilam County; but they were two-thirds of normal in
the row-crop section and about three-fifths of normal in the grain
section of Curry County and three-fourths of normal in Hale County.
D1g1tized by
Google
XXIV • FARMING HAZARDS IN THE DROUGHT AREA
In 1934 crops remained the most important source of cash receipts
in Hale County. In Curry and Dallam Counties, however, farmers
were largely dependent for cash receipts on crop production control
payments, livestock sales during the Emergency Cattle Purchase Program, and relief wgrk, although normally crop sales made up twothirds or more of the farmers' receipts in all sections.
In Dallam County 28 percent of the farmers were receiving relief in
the spring of 1935. The proportions were much less in the other
counties, 15 percent in Curry County and only 12 percent in Hale
County.
The farmers in the area represented by Dallam County had been in
more serious straits than those in the other areas even before the 1934
drought. In all sections some farmers had been operating at a loss,
but only in the wheat-producing sections of Dallam County was the
average net worth of all farmers less than when they began farming in
the area.
The light sandy soils in the Southern Great Plains, although capable
of producing good feed crops, are subject to wind erosion. The sandy
loam soils are used for cotton and feed crops in the south and for feed
crops in the north. The heavier soils are used for winter wheat production.
Although the growing season is almost always long enough to
mature crops, crop production is uncertain, particularly in the northern
and western portions of the area, because of high evaporation and the
uneven distribution and local character of the rainfall. The period
1931-1934 was one of subnormal rainfall, especially in Dallam County,
and it was most serious in 1934. In that year crops were complete
failures except in localities where rains occurred at critical times.
The farmers on the light soils in Dallam County reported poor yields
or failures of wheat for four-fifths of the years they had been operating.
Those on heavier soils reported poor yields or failures for three-fifths
of the years. Poor yields or failures were reported for about threefifths of the years the farmers had been operating in Curry County,
and even in Hale County they were reported for almost one-half of
the years.
In Dallam County farmers reported low yields or failures of all
crops after 1931 and almost complete failures in 1933 and 1934. In
Curry County formers reported short crops in 1933 and failures in
1934. Hale County farmers, however, reported fairly good crops
except in 1934 and even in that year wheat yields were good.
Dry weather was the most important cause of crop damage in the
Southern Great Plains. Farmers in Dallam County, Tex., reported
a high percentage of their cropland seriously damaged and most of
their land affected to some extent by wind erosion. Damage by
drought had occurred from one-fifth to one-third of the years the
Digitized by
Goog Ie
SUMMARY • XXV
farmers had been operating in Dallam County, about two-fifths of
the years in Curry County, and about one-half of the years in Hale
County.
As in the other areas studied size of farm was associated with the
farmers' distress. Farms in Dallam County in both the row-crop and
grain sections were usually 320 or 640 acres in size, although farms of
about 880 acres in the grain section and 440 acres in the row-crop
section were considered necessary for profitable operation.
In Hale County farms of 160 and 320 acres predominated in the
groups with cotton and corn-hog contracts. These were considered
adequate under normal conditions.
In Curry County the 160-, 320-, and 480-acre farms were most
common. The average farm in the wheat section was considered
large enough to maintain a family, but an extra 80 acres of pasture
was believed necessary for the average farm in the row-crop section.
Although an abnormally large acreage of cropland was idle in 1934,
the proportions of crops planted, except for a substitution of sorghums
for corn, were much the same as in earlier, more humid years. In
Dallam County unfavorable planting and soil conditions had resulted
in a high proportion of idle land; nearly two-fifths of the cropland in
the row-crop section and one-fourth of that on heavier soil were idle.
In the wheat-producing sections of both Dallam and Curry Counties
wheat was planted on most farms and occupied on the average onehalf or more of the cropland. Other crops were primarily sorghums
for feed. In Hale County cotton and sorghums were planted on
practically all of the farms.
Livestock numbers were reduced drastically in all sections following
the drought. Cattle numbers were little :more than one-half of normal
on the farms for which records were taken in Dallam County in 1935.
The reduction was somewhat less in the other portions of the area,
but even there livestock numbers were considerably below normal.
Many farmers were left without hogs and a few had no cattle in the
spring of 1935. Although livestock numbers in the distressed areas
were depleted, most of the farmers had kept as many head as their
feed supplies and pastures would carry. Except in Hale County, there
had been no opportunity since 1931 in any of the selected counties to
create or maintain the feed reserves necessary to carry livestock
through a period of drought.
The need for repairs on buildings was reported in all areas. Machinery was generally in poor condition. The estimated cost of necessary machinery repairs on these farms averaged from $41 in the rowcrop section of Curry County to $131 in the grain-producing section
of Dallam County.
Heavy indebtedness was reported here as in the other areas studied.
Thirty-six to forty-four percent of the land was mortgaged in the
D !)illZPd bv
Goog Ie
XXVI • FARMING HAZARDS IN THE DROUGHT AREA
different counties. The amount of the mortgage per acre varied with
land values, but in some sections the land was mortgaged for more than
its current value. A large proportion of the first mortgages was held
by the Federal Land Bank.
The indebtedness incurred in 1934 and 1935 through emergency
crop and feed loans was closely associated with the severity of the
drought. It varied from an average of $57 per farm in Hale County
to about $400 per farm in Dallam County. The charges for interest
on average indebtedness and for taxes on an owner-operated farm of
320 acres in the grain section of Dallam County amounted to more
than one-fourth of the average wheat crop of 9 bushels per acre at 75
cents per bushel.
Taxes on some land, especially in the wind-eroded areas, had been
unpaid for 4 years or more. Most delinquent taxes, however, had
been delinquent for only 1 year.
Nonresident ownership offers further problems in connection with
a program of rehabilitation. Title to nearly all land was held by
private individuals, but in Dallam County nearly half of this privately
owned land was held by nonresidents. Tenancy, associated with
nonresident ownership, had been increasing in this area in recent years
as in other sections of the Great Plains.
PROSPECTS FOR REHABILITATION OF FARMERS
In almost all of the areas studied permanent rehabilitation of farmers
would involve an increase in the size of some of the farms, retirement
of some land from crops, an increase in pasture acreage, immediate or
eventual replacement of depleted livestock herds, repairs to buildings, and repairs or replacement of machinery. Adjustment of the
farmers' debts and loans or advances would often be necessary to effect
these changes.
Rehabilitation problems were particularly acute in northwestern
North Dakota and northeastern Montana, southwestern North
Dakota, central South Dakota, the dry-land farming sections of
southeastern Wyoming, the High Plains of eastern Colorado, and the
North Plains of Texas. Unless emigration since 1935 has altered the
situation, a more equitable distribution of farm land, so as to provide
each of the farmers enumerated in the 1935 Census with an acreage
recommended as the minimum for providing a farmer and his family
a living, would involve the displacement of some farmers in most of
the counties surveyed as representative of these areas. In Goshen
County, however, the irrigated section could probably absorb the excess farmers from the dry-land section, but new buildings would have
to be constructed.
The Red River Valley of North Dakota, typified by Traill County,
had no relief problem in the spring of 1935. It is recommended as a
Digitized by
Goog Ie
Works
ProO/'CB8
Administration.
As the Dust Sturm Gathers.
0 g1t1zed by
Goog lC
Digitized by
Google
SUMMARY • XXVII
section to which farmers could move from the drought area. A resettlement program of establishing farmers on 160-acre farms could be
accomplished by acquiring portions of farms larger than 480 acres.
A probable obstacle to such a program, however, is the high value of
farm land in this county which might make the cost of resettlement
prohibitive.
Changes in land-use policies are advocated for many sections of the
Great Plains with a view to withdrawing some of the arable land from
cultivation in the interest of soil conservation. In many cases farmers
might be encouraged to make this shift by being provided with grass
seed, by soil conservation payments, and by tax exemptions during the
period of establishing a permanent sod. Where wind erosion has
been severe, as in Cheyenne County and parts of the Southern Great
Plains, reversion of large acreages to grass is a major need. Grass is
also needed on hillsides in Sherman County where water erosion has
resulted from tillage on slopes and lack of cover.
In sections in which livestock reductions were drastic, and particularly where insufficient breeding stock was retained, farmers need
help in rebuilding their herds. More emphasis on livestock is desirable in some sections in order to make incomes more stable in future
years, but this change involves increased pasturage and consequently
larger farms in order to prevent overgrazing.
Some farmers need assistance in reconditioning farm buildings to
prevent rapid depreciation while others will require additional buildings if they expand livestock production. Repairs or replacements
of farm machinery are needed in many sections.
While farms are being reestablished on a productive basis, a supply
of working capital for living and operating expenses is needed in some
sections. In still others some means of caring for or deferring payments on mortgages, interest, and taxes is necessary if the farm operator is to retain ownership of his land. Adjustment of land values is
needed in such an area as that represented by Hyde County.
From this statement of the causes of distress and needed adjustments to alleviate the situation in the Great Plains States, there emerge
a number of serious problems which can hardly be met without extensive modifications in the institutional factors influencing long-time
adjustments. The problem of enlarging operating units to a size
which will permit the operator to survive and to follow an adapted
production system, the problem of settling families dislocated in the
process of enlargement and of caring for those forced out by failure,
and the problem of preventing subdivision of existing economic units
or resubdivision of those to be developed are important. Their
solution calls for adjustments throughout the region in land tenure,
in credit extension, and in tax-assessment and tax-reversion procedures. In extreme situations public land purchase and improvement
o 11i1i2Pd hy
Goog [e
XXVIII • FARMING HAZARDS IN THE DROUGHT AREA
may be the only feasible way of directing and controlling land use.
All of these factors are of vital concern to the Great Plains farmer
who undertakes to rehabilitate himself in the region. Yet without
reorganization of their operating units many farmers will be unable to
build up adequate reserves against future unfavorable years. The
agricultural experience of the selected farmers surveyed in the Great
Plains indicates that such reorganization will be a long-time process.
To be successful it will require governmental assistance on a large scale.
D gillzed by
Google
Chapter I
THE NORTHERN GREAT PLAINS
FoLLOWING THE drought of 1934 many farmers in the Northern
Great Plains States-the Dakotas and eastern Montana and Wyoming-became dependent on Government assistance. Their crops
had been destroyed, depriving them of a source of cash income and of
feed for their livestock. Unable to buy feed they had sold much of
their livestock to the Government, had added new Government crop
and feed loans to their already heavy indebtedness, and had registered
for emergency relief grants.
Distress was far more acute in some sections than in others. The
six Dakota counties included in this survey of the Northern Great
Plains States were selected to represent areas with serious rehabilitation problems and areas where conditions were relatively favorable
even in 1934 1 (fig. I, p. xv). Divide County in northwestern North
1 The problems in the six counties surveyed may be considered typical of those
of other counties in their areas as follows:
County surveyed
Area
represented
Divide, N. Dak ••••••.•••... Northwestern North Dakota and northeastern Montana.
Hettinger, N. Dak .••..••... Southwestern North Dakota •.•.•••.....
Sheridan, N. Dak ........... Central North Dakota ....•..••.........
Hyde, S. Dak .•...•.••...... Central South Dakota ..•...•.......•...
Traill, N. Dak ......••••.•.. Red River Valley ol eastern North Dakota.
Moody, S. Dak .•.•....••••. Southeastern South Dakota .........••..
Other counties In area
North Dakota:
Bottineau
Burke
McLean
Mountrail
Montana:
Daniels
Roosevelt
Sheridan
North Dakota:
Adams
Bowman
North Dakota:
Benson
Burleigh
Kidder
South Dakota:
Butfalo
Faulk
Hand
North Dakota:
Cass
Ornnrl Forks
South Dakota:
Bon Homme
Clay
Lake
Lincoln
Renville
Ward
Williams
Slope
Stark
Pierce
Wells
Hughes
Potter
Sully
Pembina
Walsh
Minnehaha
Turner
Union
Yankton
1
D1g11tzed hy
Goog IC
2 • FARMING HAZARDS IN THE DROUGHT AREA
Dakota was selected as typical of an area which had suffered a succession of unfavorable crop years since 1929 and where an especially large
proportion of farmers was receiving public assistance in 1934. Sheridan County in central North Dakota, Hettinger County in southwestern North Dakota, and Hyde County in central South Dakota
were selected for study as representative either of areas marked for
permanent retirement of a considerable portion of the land from cultivation or of areas in which the prevailing size of farm has been considered too small for profitable operation. 2 The other two counties,
Traill in the Red River Valley of eastern North Dakota and Moody
in southeastern South Dakota, were chosen because the sections they
represent had been designated as areas which might support a larger
farm population and to which farmers might move from such regions
as those represented by Divide, Sheridan, Hettinger, and Hyde
Counties. 3
SITUATION OF FARMERS AFTER THE 193-4 DROUGHT
Reduction In Incomes
Farmers in all of these sections of the Northern Great Plains were
able in the past to average gross cash receipts ranging from nearly
$1,400 to more than $2,000 a year. These were the approximate
figures reported by selected farmers interviewed in this study based on
records covering periods averaging from 13 to 20 years. Farmers in
what is known as the Scobey-Plentywood Section of Divide County,
N. Dak., reported the lowest average normal gross cash receipts,
$1,352 a year, whereas farmers in the North Dakota Black Prairies
Section of the same county and in Traill County of eastern North
Dakota reported the highest average gross cash receipts, $1,934 and
$2,010, respectively. Fanners in Moody County, representing the
relatively prosperous southeastern part of the area, reported annual
normal gross cash receipts averaging $1,729. In Hyde County the
amount reported was $1,686; in Hettinger County, $1,583; and in
Sheridan County, $1,489 (appendix table I).
In 1934 the same fanners in the four central and western countiesDivide, Sheridan, Hettinger, and Hyde--reported gross cash receipts
which were far below normal, and most of the income received was
from the Federal Government in the form of Agricultural Adjustment
Administration benefit payments, payments for livestock purchases,
and emergency relief grants (table 1 ). Including Government payments, average gross cash receipts of these farmers in 1934 were 60
percent of normal in Hyde County, 54 percent of normal in Hettinger
2 Maladjustments in Land Use in the United States, Part VI of the Supplementary
Report of the Land Planning Committee to the National Resources Board,
Washington, D. C., 1935.
a Preliminary classification of land-use consultants, National Resources Board.
Digitized by
Goog Ie
THE NORTHERN GREAT PLAINS • 3
County, and 51 percent of normal in Sheridan County. In the ScobeyPlentywood Section of Divide County they were 4 7 percent of normal
but in the Black Prairies Section they were only 32 percent of normal
(table 1 and appendix table 1). Average gross cash receipts for 1934
were estimated at $623 in Divide County, $762 in Sheridan County,
$855 in Hettinger County, and $1,020 in Hyde County.
Tcr&le f.-Average Gross Receipts per Farm on Selected Farms in Representative Counties
in the Northern Great Plains, by Source of Receipts, 1934
Average nicelpts per farm
Divide
s - or receipts
Het•
North
Dakota. Scobey- tlnger
(63
Plent,r
Bia.ck
woo
re.nns)
Prairies Section
Section
(Hrarms) (22 ranns)
Sheri•
de.n
Hyde
Traill
rarms)
ranns)
farms)
(57
(48
Moody
(52
(86
rarms)
----- -- -- -- -$927 SI, 163 $2, 169
$792 fl.OM
$1,356
---- - - - =
-- -- - -1,0:al
617
Tote.I cash recel pts ••• ••... . ..•...••
636
762
1,915
1,159
855
- -- -- -13
Crop sales ....• .••••••••••• . ............•.
7
5~
46
8
1,327
Tote.I rarm nicelpts•. •......•..•....
$786
Llvest-OCk sales_. .. .•••• . .•.. . ....... . ·-·Livestock products .. .•.. _... .. _._ - - . . - ...
Agricultural Adjustment Admlnistrn·
tion contract J)ft yment~ . __ . . ___ . . _••• __ .
Emergency Relier Admioistratloo . .. •. ___
Other ............. . •. . ........... .. ..... .
237
76
287
56
276
125
26D
218
600
80
262
163
563
183
195
110
137
46
317
12
7D
:J:)g
121
117
163
242
S3
34
169
156
Total products used In home .. . ... .
Dairy products .... . . •.... •... ... _... ...•.
Poultry products._ . •••. ••.... . ... ........
Mest ____ · · ---·· ·· ·· · ····· ····· -·- · · ······
Crops aod e;arden .• •... ••••. •• ...•...... .
68
---=
-
=
199
--- ---83
24
60
2
81
34
37
4
=
II
42
165
D4
-=
- 143
- - 2M
92
66
71
34
34
57
8
32
4
65
8
-JO
36
113
35
89
17
63
197
82
26
75
14
Augmented by the value of farm products used in the home, the
farmers' gross receipts in 1934 ranged from less than $800 in Divide
County to less than $1,200 in Hyde County (table 1), and these estimates take no account of the losses suffered through decreased feed,
livestock, and equipment inventories.
Because of chattel mortgages and liens on cattle many farmers were
able to retain little more than one-third of the purchase price of livestock sold to the Government. If creditors received as large a proportion of the purchase price of all livestock sales as they did of the
cattle sold to the Government, farmers' actual cash receipts fell far
below the figures stated above. Based on this assumption the estimated average cash receipts in Divide County, for example, were
only $460.
Crop sales provided little or no income in the sample counties in
central and western North and South Dakota in 1934, although,
except in Hyde County, crops were usually the most important source
of income {appendix table 1). In Hyde County where 29 percent of
the livestock sales were to the Government, two-fifths of the average
cash receipts originated in Government expenditures, In Divide,
Digitized by
Goog Ie
4 • FARMING HAZARDS IN THE DROUGHT AREA
Sheridan, and Hettinger Counties in the central and western Dakotas,
the Govemm nt purchased the bulk of the livestock sold. As a
result, from two-thirds to three-fourths of the cash received by representative farmers was from Government expenditures.
Incomes were much nearer normal in the two eastern counties outside the severe drought area-Traill and Moody-as to both amounts
and sources. The average cash receipts in Traill County in 1934 were
$1,915, only slightly below normal. In Moody County the 1934
average cash receipts of $1,159 were two-thirds of normal. The sale
of crops provided 69 percent of the average 1934 cash receipts in Traill
County, which was little below the normal proportion (77 percent),
and the sale of livestock and livestock products furnished 22 percent
of the 1934 cash receipts, which was the normal proportion. In
Moody County the sale of livestock and livestock products provided
64 percent of the average 1934 receipts, which was only slightly less
than normal. Crop sales, however, provided an average of only 5
percent of the 1934 cash receipts, whereas they accounted for almost
one-third of the average estimated normal cash receipts.
Agricultural Adjustment Administration payments under crop production control contracts made up most of the balance of the 1934 cash
receipts in all counties. They provided 37 percent of the 1934 average
cash receipts in Hettinger County, about 27 percent in both Sheridan
and Divide Counties, and approximately 12 percent in Hyde County.
In Moody County corn-hog contracts furnished 21 percent of the
receipts, but in Traill County production control contracts accounted
for only 8 percent of the total.
Relief grants were relatively most important in Divide County, providing about 15 percent of the 1934 average cash receipts, and in
Hyde County where they accounted for 11 percent of the receipts of
selected farmers. In the other counties relief grants were relatively
unimportant as a part of the total 1934 cash receipts. In Traill
County none of the selected farmers received emergency relief grants
(table 1).
Insolvency
Relatively more farmers reported themselves insolvent in the four
central and western counties of the Northern Great Plains than in the
two eastern counties. Large numbers of farmers had failed and left
the area, but of those who remained in the central and western coun- ·
ties and were interviewed in this survey, from 11 percent in Sheridan
County to 19 percent in Hyde County reported themselves insolvent
in the summer of 1935. The proportions were 14 percent in Hettinger
County and 16 percent in Divide County.
In Traill County in the Red River Valley, on the other hand, only 1
out of 52 fanners reported himself insolvent in the spring of 1935. In
Moody County in southeastern South Dakota, only 10 percent of the
selected fanners considered themselves insolvent.
Digitized by
Goog Ie
THE NORTHERN GREAT PLAINS • 5
Fara• on Relief Rolh
Reports of the South Dakota Emergency Relief Administration
show that over one-half of all farmers in South Dakota were receiving
emergency relief on December 31, 1934. The farm. relief load was
probably equally heavy in North Dakota, judging from reports of the
county relief administrations in the selected counties.
In Hyde County representing the Missouri Plateau Area of central
South Dakota, a livestock and cash-grain farming area, more than 80
percent of all farmers were on emergency relief rolls in April 1935.
In Moody County, however, representing the intensive livestock production area of the southeastern part of the State, and scarcely affected
by drought, only 22 percent of the farmers were receiving relief in May
1935, and the proportion declined rapidly throughout the following
month. The highest relief intensity rate of any of the six Northern
Great Plains counties surveyed was found in Divide County of northwestern North Dakota where 89 percent of all farmers received relief
in April 1935. In sharp contrast was Traill County in eastern North
Dakota, where it was not considered necessary to set up a county
relief administration. The proportions of farmers on relief in Hettinger and Sheridan Counties, 30 a'nd 26 percent, respectively, while
much lower than in Divide and Hyde Counties were still higher than
the proportions of farmers on relief in the eastern counties.
Tal,le !.-Date of fint Relief to Farm Operaton on Relief in April-May 1935 in
Repraentative Counties in the Northem Great Plains
Number or rarm operators
Date or first relier
Dl,·lde Hettinger Sheridan
Hyde
Moody
-- - - - - - - - - - - 157
--- -1ro- -245- - -gg
187
Total• .•••••.•. •.• •• ••. •... .. •... . . . . . . ..... ...
'---1---1----
March 1, 1113.5, or later . ...... . .. ..... . . ... .......... .
November l, 1934-Fehruary 211, 1113.5 .... ... . . ... . ... .
Prior to November 1, 1934 •.•.. •• • .•• •. ............. .
1
l
7
26
4
7
21
28
go
14V
16V
1111
161
g
go
Number In S8IDPle reporting date relier was betrun-
In all of the selected counties the relief status of most of the farmers
directly attributable to the 1934 drought, as indicated by the
fact that most of those receiving relief had gone on the rolls after it
was apparent that their crops were a failure. As a result of near
crop failures in 1933, however, many of the relief clients in the central
and western counties had received relief as early as the spring of
1934. On the other hand, over one-third of the farmers on relief in
Sheridan and Hyde Counties remained off relief rolls until the winter
of 1934-35 or later (table 2).
There was no indication that the handicaps of old age, disabilities,
or a large number of dependents were responsible for the plight of
any appreciable number of the farmers on relief. From 85 to 95
percent of these farmers were not over 60 years of age and from 62
was
Digitized by
se~~· as--a
Goog Ie
6 • FARMING HAZARDS IN
THE DROUGHT AREA
to 86 percent were not over 50 years of age (appendix table 2). Four
percent was the maximum proportion in any county reporting disabilities that would prevent them from working. Less than one-tenth
of the relief clients in Divide, Hyde, and Moody Counties reported
more than four children under 16 years of age (appendix table 3), and
only between one-fifth and one-fourth of the clients in Hettinger and
Sheridan Counties reported more than four children under 16 years
of age.
A possible disadvantage in the composition of many of the relief
families, however, was the lack of a family labor supply. The majority of the relief clients had no boys 16 years of age or older who
were available for farm work.
TYPES OF FARMING
In the two eastern counties, where relief and insolvency rates were
lowest and where incomes were nearest to normal in 1934, farming is
more nearly suited to climatic conditions than in the four central and
western counties. In the region which includes the eastern pa.rt of
Traill County general, crop-specialty, and dairy farms predominate,
according to a classification based on gross income from the 1929
crop, with cash-grain farms of minor importance; in the region which
includes the western part of the county most of the farms are
cash-grain, but other types of farms are well represented. Likewise
the type-of-farming area which includes Moody County, although an
intensive livestock production area, has numerous general as well as
cash-grain farms.•
In contrast are the areas in which Divide, Hettinger, and Sheridan
Counties are located, where from 76 to 90 percent of all farms have
been classified as cash-grain farms. There is more general farming in the Missouri Plateau Area of central South Dakota, represented
by Hyde County, but animal-specialty and cash-grain farms account
for 67 percent of the farms in this area.
In general a combination of cash-grain and range livestock production predominates throughout the central and western parts of the
Dakotas. Usually where soils are suitable and where the topography
permits the use of large-scale equipment, primary emphasis is placed
on the production of cash grains; whereas in the rougher sections the
emphasis is placed on range livestock production. On the other hand,
in eastern North Dakota, represented here by Traill County, and in
northeastern South Dakota cash-grain farming is supplemented by
other enterprises-potato, dairy, and livestock production. In
southeastern South Dakota cash-grain production has been overshadowed by intensive production of beef cattle and hogs.
• Elliott, F. F., Types of Farming in the United States, U. S. Department of
Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Washington, D. C., 1933, table 5.
Digitized by
Goog Ie
THE NORTHERN GREAT PLAINS • 7
The differences in farming types between the eastern and the other
parts of the area are largely because of differences in topography and
climate. A longer growing season and more adequate rainfall enable
farmers in the eastern counties to grow a greater variety of crops,
produce higher yields, and be successful on smaller acreages than is
possible in the regions to the west.
NATURAL FAOORS AFFECTING AGRICULTURE
ToPography
Much of the western part of the Dakotas as well as northeastern
Wyoming and central and eastern Montana is not suited to crop production because of the rolling to hilly topography. The rougher sections known as the "Bad Lands" border the Little Missouri River in
the extreme western part of the Dakotas and the Black Hills in
southwestern South Dakota. From this hilly area the land becomes
rolling to undulating in the broad area lying between the Missouri
River and the Red River Valley and reaches a level plane in the Red
River Valley.
Soll,
Fertile soils throughout the Northern Great Plains have encouraged
a system of cash-grain production, as all major soil types in the area.
are suited to the production of grains.
The predominant soils belong to two general groups, those east of
the Missouri River coming within the classification of Northern
Chemozems and most of those west of the river being known as
Northern Dark-Browns (fig. 2). Thus, in all of the counties included
in this study, except Hettinger, the predominant soils belong to the
Northern Chemozem group. The various types of this group appear
in widely separated parts of the area, but the nature of the terrain
and the effect of the climate naturally affect their productivity in
different regions. The lighter types are subject to wind erosion, but
in general wind erosion has been a less serious problem in the N orthem
than in the Southern Great Plains (fig. 3).
In Moody County, in the southeastern part of South Dakota, the
predominant soils are the relatively heavy Moody silt loams, occupying a rolling terrain, and the fertile, well-drained Barnes loams and
fine sandy loams, occupying an undulating to rolling terrain.6 Com,
oats, sweet clover, and alfalfa are the principal crops grown on both
types of soils in Moody County. The Moody soils are also found in
parts of eastern Nebraska and South Dakota.8
• Bureau of Chemistry and Soils, Atlas of American Agriculture, part III, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Washington, D. C., 1935, p. 72.
e Watkins, W. I. and Larson, G. A., Soil Survey of Moody County, Sou.th Dakota,
Bulletin 2, Series 1926, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Chemistry
and SoiJe, Washington, D. C., 1929, pp. 10-16.
D !)illZPd bv
Goog Ie
8 • FARMING HAZARDS IN THE DROUGHT AREA
FIG. 2-MAJOR SOIL GROUPS IN THE GREAT PLAINS
rm Podzol soils
~ Grey - Br own Podz ot, c so il s
EZJ Red and
Yello w so il s
~ Soils of Northern Pro,ries
~ Soils of Southern Prairies
~ Northern Chernozem soils
EEEII Southern Chernozem soils
@1
[:;:-! Sondhills of Nebraska
~ Northern Gray Desert soils
fi[l]1]
~ Southern Gray Desert soils
Northern Dork-Brown soils
~ Southern Dork-Brown soils
Brown soils
~ Mountainous areas
Note: Irregular line bounds the
Great Plains Re1,1ion as delimited
by the Great Plains Committee.
Source: Atlas of American Agriculture, Part
m, Plate 2,
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Chemistry
and Soils, 1935.
D1 111zedbyGoogle
THE NORTHERN GREAT PLAINS • 9
F1G. 3 • EXTENT OF WIND EROSION IN THE GREAT PLAINS
1934
§
Erosion unimporto_nt except locally
11111
Severe sheet and gully erosion
IIIIllill
Moderate sheet and gully erosion
serious locally
Ill
Slight wind erosion
moderate sheet ond gully erosion
~
Moderate to severe erosion; includes
mesas, mountains, canyons, and badlands
Note : Irregular line bounds the
Great Plains Region as delimited
by the Great Plains Committee.
Source: Adopted from "General Distribution
of Erosion," U.S. Deportment of Agriculture,
Soil Conservation Service, August 1936.
•
Moderate to severe wind erosion
AF•26114,WPA
o q111zP.d by
Google
10 • FARMING HAZARDS IN THE DROUGHT AREA
In the other eastern county, Traill County, N. Dak., the highly
fertile, generally heavy, but sometimes poorly drained Fargo soils and
the lighter textured Bearden soils predominate. The Fargo soils
lend themselves to the production of small grains, especially wheat.
Bearden soils are adapted to the production of general farm crops, including com and potatoes.
Sheridan County in central North Dakota is occupied largely by
the same type of fertile soil, the Barnes series, which appears in parts
of Moody County, S. Dak. The more rolling terrain of the county,
however, results in a greater part of the soil being used only for
pasture. The Williams soils in the extreme southwestern corner of
the county are likewise often used for pasture because of the rolling
terrain which they occupy.
Nearly all of Divide County in northwestern North Dakota and
Hyde County in the central part of South Dakota are occupied by
the Williams soils. The loams and silt loams of this series are adapted
to all of the crops grown in the region, but the silty clay loams are
used primarily for pasture.7
In Hettinger County in southwestern North Dakota, west of the
Missouri River, the predominant soils belong to the Rosebud series
of the Northern Dark-Brown group. They are lighter in color and
texture and generally contain less organic matter than the soils to
the east. Sandy loams predominate, occupying a rolling terrain.
These soils are capable of producing small grains but, because of
their general sandy characteristics, are also adapted to the production
of feed crops for livestock.
Climate
Long and severe winters, short but relatively warm summers, and
limited and variable rainfall characterize the climate of the entire
Northern Great Plains, but the length of the growing season and the
annual precipitation are much more favorable in the eastern section
than in the other parts of the area. The growing season in the southeastern part of the area averages as much as 150 days in length as
compared with less than 100 days in the northwestern part (fig. 4). 8
Average annual rainfall ranges from less than 12 inches in central
Montana to more than 25 inches in southeastern South Dakota. It
is less than 20 inches in all but the eastern portions of the area and in the
Black Hills section of southwestern South Dakota. A favorable factor is that from one-half to three-fourths of the annual rainfall normally occurs during the growing season.
7 Machlis, J. A. and Williams, B. H., Soil Survey of Hyde County, South Dakota,
Bulletin 18, Series 1925, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Chemistry
and Soils, Washington, D. C., 1930, pp. 11-14.
8 Bureau of Chemistry and Soils, Atlas of American Agriculture, "Climate,"
Frost and the Growing Season, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Washington,
D. C., 1918, pp. 38---39.
o ri,1,zP.d by
Goog Ie
THE NORTHERN GREAT PLAINS • 11
FIG. 4 ·AVERAGE NUMBER OF DAYS WITHOUT KILLING
FROST IN THE GREAT PLAINS
1895 - 19 14
D
Under 90 days
~ 90
Note: lrreoulor line bounds the
Greot Plains Reoion as delimited
by the Great Plains Committee.
Source: Adopted from "Averooe Number of
Ooys Without Killino Frost: U.S. Deportment
of Aoricullure, Weather Bureau, 1916.
[Ilil)
to 120 days
120 to 150 days
~ 150 to 180 days
B
180 to 210 days
Ill
210 to 240 days
-
240 days and over
AF-2670, WPA
D1g1tized by
Google
12 • FARMING HAZARDS IN THE DROUGHT AREA
As a result of these climatic conditions, the southeastern portion of
the Northern Great Plains States is the only pa.rt of the area which
normally bas adequate rainfall and a sufficiently long growing season
to make production of corn for grain reliable. The climate is also
well suited to the production of spring grains and legumes for hay.
In the Red River Valley section, represented in this study by Traill
County, the climate is favorable for the production of potatoes as
well as spring grains.
With favorable weather conditions the central and western parts of
the area are adapted to the production of spring grains, feed crops,
and native hay and to the raising of livestock. Drought conditions,
resulting from generally deficient and variable rainfall, occur so often,
however, that crop production is hazardous (fig. 5).
The 5-year period from 1930 to 1934 was one of drought throughout
the area, and in three of the four central and western counties surveyed, Hettinger, Sheridan, and Hyde, the rainfall deficiency was
even greater in 1936 than during the excessive drought of 1934 (fig. 6).
During the IO-year period from 1927 through 1936 precipitation in
Divide County was generally deficient during the critical spring and
early summer months in 1930, 1931, 1934, and 1936. It was deficient
in Hettinger County in 1931, 1933, 1934, and 1936;in Sheridan County
in 1928, 1929, 1931, 1934, and 1936; and in Hyde County in 1928,
1931, 1934, and 1936.
In Sheridan County, for the 17-year period 1918-1934, both annual
and growing season precipitation were below average in 1919, 1920,
1923, 1926, 1930, 1933, and 1934. In Hyde County records for the
35-year period 1900-1934 show that both annual and growing season
precipitation were below average in 1903, 1904, 1907, 1910, 1911,
1912, 1913, 1917, 1922, 1925, 1926, 1928, 1929, 1931, 1933, and 1934.
For the period 1907-1934 both annual and growing season precipitation in Divide County fell below the 28-year average in 1907,
1909, 1913, 1917, 1920, 1929, 1930, 1931, and 1934. During the 5year drought period from 1930 to 1934 annual precipitation exceeded
the 28-year average only in 1932. In Hettinger County both annual
and growing sea.son precipitation was below the 28-year average in
1907, 1911, 1913, 1917, 1918, 1921, 1924, 1925, 1926, 1931, 1933, and
1934.
.
In the ea.stem counties, on the other hand, droughts have occurred
less frequently and have been less severe than in the central and
western counties. Precipitation is variable, but the margin between
normal precipitation and the minimum required for crop production
is much wider than in the central and western counties.
The average annual precipitation recorded in Traill County,
N. Dak., during the 24-year period from 1911 through 1934 was
19.88 inches while that during the 5-year period from 1930 through
Diq111zed bv
Goos IC
THE NORTHERN GREAT PLAINS • 13
~ AMuol
r-1 GrowinQ season precipitailon
l3 April-September
precipitation
30
30
BISMARCK, BURLEIGH COUNTY
NORTH DAKOTA
25
25
20
5
0
30
30
MILES CITY, CUSTER COUNTY
25
MONTANA
20
20
~
5
,
,
0
25
. ,
~
.
15
[;
.
..
. : : : ;~
,
,,
:
,
,
.
~o
35
35
HURON , BEADLE COUNTY
SOUTH DAKOTA
30
30
25
25
20
20
15
15
10
10
5
5
0
o&
~
F1G. 5-ANNUAL AND GROWING SEASON PRECIPITATION, SELECTED
STATIONS IN THE NORTHERN GREAT PLAINS
1900-1936
Source: U.S. Department of Aoricullure, Weather Bureau.
AF• 2713, WPA
o 1,1, f'd by
Goog Ie
14 • FARMING HAZARDS IN THE DROUGHT AREA
30
30
CROSBY, DIVIDE COUNTY
NORTH DAKOTA
20
20
10
10
0
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
1936
0
Normal
30
30
MOTT, HETTINGER COUNTY
NORTH DAKOTA
:I
~
u
.!: 20
.!:
20
.5
,0
-N
~
~
~
:::~
·a
i
I
A
10
J
10
2
"ii
I
Q.
J
M
;;
,~
~j
0
1927
1928
1929
1930
19 31
19 32
1933
1934
1935
1936
Normal
30
0
30
McCLUSKY, SHER IDAN COUNTY
NORTH DAKOTA
20
F1G.
20
6-NORMAL MONTHLY PRECIPITATION AND PRECIPITATION
BY MONTHS, SELECTED STATIONS IN THE
NORTHERN GREAT PLAINS
1927-1936
Source U S. Deportment of
Agriculture, Weother Bureau
AF-2775,WM
THE NORTHERN GREAT PLAINS • 15
30
30
HIGHMORE, HYDE COUNTY
SOUTH DAKOTA
20
20
10
10
0
1932
1933
1934
1935
1936.
0
Ncrmal
30
30
HILLSBORO, TRAILL COUNTY
NORTH DAKOTA
.!
-~
I
.s
.s
u
20 -'=
20
.5
§
C
.2
2
:e-.,
l
J:!
10
10
0
1932
1933
1934
1935
1936
I
I.
0
Norma l
30
30
FLANDREAU, MOODY COUNTY
SOUTH DAKOTA
20
20
Fte. 6-NORMAL MONTHLY PRECIPITATION AND PRECIPITATION
BY MONTHS, SELECTED STATIONS IN THE
.- NORTHERN GREAT PLAINS
1927-1936-Continued
Source: U.S. Deparlment of
Agriculture, Weather Bureau.
Af•t777, WP&
D glitzed by
Google
16 • FARMING HAZARDS IN THE DROUGHT AREA
1934 was 17.58 inches. Annual precipitation in 1936 was only 7.19
inches, but such a deficiency in Traill County was without precedent,
the lowest precipitation previously recorded in this county being
14.14 in 1929.
The average annual precipitation recorded in Moody County, S.
Dak., during the 35-year period from 1900 through 1934 was 23.13
inches and that during the 5-year period from 1930 through 1934
was 20.24 inches. It fell below 17 inches only four times during the
35-year period.
ea.,... ol C.Op Damage
Drought had damaged crops from two-fifths to more than one-half
of the years that selected farmers had been operating in the four
sample counties in central and western North and South Dakota
(table 3 and appendix table 4). In Hyde County, S. Dak., the farmers
reported that some damage was caused by drought 55 percent of the
years in which they had operated, and complete damage to crops
as a result of drought had occurred more than 1 year out of 6. In
Hettinger, Sheridan, and Divide Counties, N. Dak., serious or total
loss resulting from drought occurred 1 year in 4.
Ta&le 3.-Percent of Years 1 Different Causes of Crop Damage Were Reported on Selected
Farms in Representative Counties in the Northern Great Plains
Percent of years damR!<e was reported
County
Drought
Insects
Hall
Soll
blowing
Frost
Rust
----------- --- --- ------ --- --Divide._ ................................. .
Hettinger_ ..•.............................
Sheridan.•....•............••..•..........
Hyde ...... ·-·····························
Traill ...•......•... _........•.•.•.•...•.• _
Moody ..•..........................•.....
40
43
41
M
26
19
10
14
13
15
12
3
17
15
12
13
10
10
2
3
3
3
3
1
9
4
5
5
11
1
•Lesa than 0.5 percent.
1
For length of record see appendix table 4.
Complete failure of all crops as a result of drought had practically
never been experienced in either Moody or Traill County in the
eastern part of the Dakotas. Even in 1934 crop yields in Traill County
approximated the long-time average. Drought was reported by
selected farmers as a cause of crop damage in only about one-fifth to
one-fourth of the years in which they had been operating in these
areas. Total or serious loss resulting from drought had occurred
only 1 year in 10 or 15.
The actual amount of crop damage resulting from hail, frost,
insects, rust, and soil blowing was difficult to determine since damage
because of these cau,ses was associated with other causes which occurred during the same years. In Divide County damage from hail
occurred 1 year in 6, and in Sheridan, Hyde, and Hettinger Counties
oiglli ro hy
Goog Ie
THE NORTHERN GREAT PLAINS • 17
crop damage from this source occurred 1 year in 7 or 8. Damage from
insects occurred in Divide County 1 year in 10, but in the other central
and western counties and in Traill County it occurred 1 year in 7 or 8.
In Moody County it occurred only 1 year in 33 (table 3).
In recent yea.rs some damage to the lighter soils throughout the
area from soil blowing had been experienced by the farmers interviewed. In 1933 and 1934 wind erosion was common in the central
and western counties as a. result of insufficient moisture to establish
cover crops, but serious damage was generally confined to small
areas. Farmers in the Scobey-Plentywood Section of Divide County
and those in Hettinger, Sheridan, and Hyde Counties reported an
area. equivalent to 7 or 8 percent of their cropland as being severely
damaged and an area equivalent to 10 to 13 percent of their cropland
as being slightly damaged by wind erosion. Farmers in the eastern
counties reported that less than 1 percent of their cropland was
damaged severely and that about the same proportion was damaged
slightly (fig. 3, p. 9).
CROP YIELDS
The natural hazards of the area have made crop yields variable
from year to year in all parts of the Northern Great Plains (appendix
table 5). Good yields, however, have been reported more frequently
in the eastern part of the area. and crop failures or near failures more
frequently in the central and western parts (appendix tables 6 and 7).
Crop yields of small grains per harvested acre, reported by State
agricultural statisticians over a 21-yea.r period ending in 1931, were
higher in the ea.stem than in the western and central counties and were
also more reliable from year to year (table 4 and appendix table 5).
Likewise, farmers interviewed in the ea.stem counties reported less
frequent poor yields and crop failures since they had begun farming
in the area than those in the western and central counties, although
the yields which the farmers of the ea.stem counties classed as poor or
failure were considerably higher than those so classified by farmers in
the central and western counties (appendix table 7). 9
Com for grain was usually a failure or a poor crop in all counties
except Moody in southeastern South Dakota., the only section with
sufficient rainfall and a long enough growing season to make its production reliable. The average yields reported by the State agricultural statisticians (table 4) do not reflect this tendency since they
• The considerable differences between average crop yields reported by the
selected farmers (appendix table 7) and by the State statisticians (appendix
table 5) are Jargely explained by the difference in method of calculation, the
farmers reporting on a seeded-acre basis and the statisticians on a harvested-acre
basis. Thus, the average crop yields of small grains, calculated by the farmers in
the central and western counties from their estimates of good and poor yields and
their frequency of occurrence, were somewhat lower than those of the State
statisticians, owing to the fact that the farmers' estimates included crop failures.
D1g1tized by
Google
18 • FARMING HAZARDS IN THE DROUGHT AREA
were calculated on a harvested acre basis, and, except in Moody
County, most of the corn acreage was cut for fodder and only the
best acreage was harvested for grain. Consequently, the harvested
yields appeared reasonably good in all <'.ounties.
TolJle .f.-Average Yield per Harvested Acre of Important Crops in Representative
Counties in the Northern Great Plains, 1911-1931
1
Average yield per harvested acre (bushels)
County
Wheat
Barley
Oats
Com
Flax
------------- --- --- --------Divide _____________________________________________ _
Hett.Inger __ . ____________ ---------------------------.
Sheridan ___ .. _... _____________ . ____________________ _
Hyde ______________________________________________ _
Traill ______________________________________________ _
Moody _____________________________________________ _
II. 7
8. 8
Q.6
g_ 3
12. 5
12. 1
18. 2
16. 8
17. 2
20. 2
20.6
25.8
24. 1
19.4
20. 2
20.6
25.1
26.0
31.8
19.8
22. 5
e_ 7
5.8
8.8
2.~. 5
7.V
19. 2
29. 7
7.0
v. 2
For years data were not available see appendix table 6.
Sources: Willard, Rex E. and Fuller, 0. M., Tr,pt-()f-Farmlng Artaa In North Dakota, Bulletin 212, North
Dakota Agricultural Experiment Station, Fargo, N. Dak., luly 1927, pp. 254-259; reports of the North Dakota agricultural statistician, Fargo, N. Dak., 19UH931; and reports of the South Dakota agricultural
statistician, Brookings, 8. Dak., 1922-1931.
1
Farmers in the North Dakota Black Prairies Section of Divide
County reported good or medium yields of wheat, oats, and barley
3 out of 5 yea.rs that they had operated in the area. Yields of wheat
and oats were failures about 1 year in 6 or 7, but yields of barley were
failures 1 year in 5. Farmers in the Scobey-Plentywood Section of
this county reported good yields of wheat and barley only 1 year in 5
and good yields of oats 1 year in 4. Failures of wheat occurred 1 year
in 4 or 5 and failures of oats and barley about 1 year in 3. Failures
of corn for grain were reported 7 out of every 8 years (appendix
table 7).
Farmers in Sheridan County in central North Dakota reported
good or medium yields of wheat, oats, and barley 3 years in 5. Failures
or near failures of small grains occurred about 1 year in 7 and short
crops 1 year in 4. Failures of com occurred one-third of the time,
with good yields reported in about the same proportion. This relatively high frequency of good yields reflects the fact that in the
Sheridan County area extensive droughts are not common although
yea.rs with deficient precipitation occur frequently.
Farmers in Hettinger County in southwestern North Dakota
reported good or medium yields of wheat, oats, and barley more than
one-half of the time. On the other hand, there were complete failures
or poor yields of wheat 2 years in 5 and of oats and barley almost 1
year in 2. Poor yields or failures of corn occurred over one-half of
the time.
Farmers in Hyde County in central South Dakota reported good
or medium yields of wheat, barley, and oats only one-half of the time.
Wheat yields were failures 1 year in 4, and barley and oats failed 1
year in 4 or 5. Com was a complete failure one-third of the time.
Digitized by
Goog Ie
No Use for This Harvester.
Digitized by
Google
. ..'.
.......
· ---~~ : --"•
Digitized by
Google
THE NORTHERN GREAT PLAINS • 19
In contrast to these central and western counties were Moody and
Traill Counties in the eastern pa.rt of the Dakotas, where failures in
any crop were relatively rare. Farmers in Traill County reported
good or medium yields of all crops 3 years out of 4, and in Moody
County yields were good or medium 4 years out of 5. Complete
failures of wheat occurred only 1 year in 20 in both counties (appendix table 7).
The disastrous crop failures of 1934 in the four central and western
counties were preceded by a series of years in which crops were below
average (appendix tables 7 and 8). Crop yields throughout the
Northern Great Plains were reasonably good in 1930. In 1931 they
were low in Hettinger and Sheridan Counties and almost failures in
Divide and Hyde Counties. In 1932 they were fair in all of the
counties. In 1933 crop yields were low in all of the central and
western counties, and in 1934 they were almost complete failures.
Crop yields in Traill and Moody Counties, on the other hand, were
not complete failures at any time during the period. In Traill County
they were nearly normal in 1933 and 1934.
ORGANIZATION OF FARMS
In view of the frequent years of crop failures or short crops many
of the farms in the central and western sections of the Northern
Great Plains have been found too small to provide a sufficient surplus
in good years to carry them over the inevitable bad years. Small
acreages have also contributed to erosion problems since on the small
farms there is a tendency to place too large a proportion of the land
in crops, leaving the soil unprotected against wind erosion.
Land-use policies, with the view to increasing the size of many
farm operating units and to withdrawing some of the arable land from
cultivation in the interest of soil conservation, are advocated for many
parts of the central and western Dakotas. Of the counties included
in this study, Divide and Hettinger Counties are in areas where an
increase in the size of farming units has been recommended. Sheridan
County in central North Dakota and Hyde County in central South
Dakota are in areas in which permanent withdrawal from cultivation of
part of the land now in crops has been advised. 10
Traill and Moody Counties, on the other hand, are in areas in which
it is believed that settlement can be encouraged since the same
natural hazards do not exist. Hence, higher crop yields and systems
of diversified farming make operations on smaller acreages profitable
in these counties.
Data on the financial status of selected farmers in 1935, on their
financial progress since beginning operations in the area, and on the
farmers receiving relief in 1935 give weight to these recommendations
for the counties included in this study (appendix table 9). Small
1°Preliminary claBBification of land-use consultants, National Resources Board.
D !)illZPd bv
Goog Ie
20 • FARMING HAZARDS IN THE DROUGHT AREA
operating units and too much reliance on cash crops appear to be
directly related to the rural distress of the central and western counties.
Operators of large farms in the counties surveyed were finaneially
stronger than operators of small farms and were less likely to be on
relief. In general, farmers primarily dependent on livestock as a source
of income had made more financial progress than had those who
relied for the most part upon crops.
Size of C)paatin9 Unit
The most common size of farm in the central and western counties
was 160 to 320 acres. In Hyde County all farms in the county
averaged 617 acres in size in 1935,11 but com-hog contracts, representing 65 percent of the farms in the county, listed almost 50 percent
of the farms as having less than 440 acres with the majority of these
having either 160 or 320 acres.
In Divide County in 1935 the average size of all 1,576 farms was 447
acres. Wheat contracts, however, which represented 98 percent of the
total farms in the county, showed that 34 percent of the farm holdings
were 280 acres or less in size and 29 percent were between 281 and
400 acres in size, with farms of 160 and 320 acres the most common.
In Hettinger County, where there were 1,235 farms in 1935, the
average size of all farms was 555 acres. Wheat contracts, representing 99 percent of the farms in the county, indicated that more than
50 percent of the farms were less than 440 acres in size with farms of
160 and 320 acres very common.
Farms in Sheridan County averaged 501 acres in size in 1935.
Wheat contracts again showed that farms of 160 and 320 acres were
the most common.
Operators of farms under 400 acres had been able as a rule to
produce little more than a living. This is shown by estimates made
by selected farmers in Divide, Sheridan, Hettinger, and Hyde Counties of their financial progress, as calculated from statements of their
assets and liabilities when they began farming in the area, their
capital additions to or deductions from the farm business, and their
assets and liabilities in 1935 {appendix table 9). In Divide and
Sheridan Counties two-fifths of all the selected farmers and one-half
of the fa.rmers opera.ting farms of less than 400 acres had operated at
a loss since beginning farming in the area. In Hettinger County 30
percent of all selected farmers and 44 percent of those operating farms
of 440 acres or less had operated at a loss. In Hyde County 46 percent of all selected farmers and 62 percent of those operating farms
of less than 440 acres had operated at a loss.
In all four counties incomes from the farms of less than 281 acres
were found to be generally too low to permit the accumulation of
11 Bureau of the Census, United States Census of Agriculture: 1935, U.S. Department of Commerce, \Vashington, D. C.
o ri,1,zP.d by
Goog Ie
THE NORTHERN GREAT PLAINS • 21
reserves. Farmers operating these small farms in the North Dakota
Black Prairies Section of Divide County estimated that their incomes
were sufficient to accumulate capital in only about 3 out of 10 years.
In the Scobey-Plentywood Section of Divide County incomes from
small farms of similar size were sufficient to increase capital in only
1 out of 7 or 8 years and in Sheridan County in 3 out of 5 years. In
Hyde County only two out of five farmers and in Hettinger County
only one out of nine farmers operating farms of less than 280 acres
reported that their normal incomes were sufficient to increase their
capital {appendix table 1).
In Traill and Moody Counties farms were much smaller on the
average than those in the other four sample counties, but even so the
farmers in this favorably situated eastern area were able to farm more
profitably. The average size of the 1,557 farms in Traill County in
1935 was 343 acres, and the most frequent size of farm had been 320
acres since 1920. Of the Traill County farms with wheat contracts
for 1934, 29 percent were less than 200 acres in size, 40 percent were
from 200 to 399 acres, and 31 percent were 400 acres or larger. The
average size of all 1,358 farms in Moody County in 1935 was 382
acres, and the averafie size of farms represented by com-hog contracts
was 228 acres. Forty-four percent of the contracting farms were in
the 121- to 200-acre group with most of the farms having 160 acres.
Twenty-five percent were in the 281- to 360-acre group with most of
the farms containing 320 acres.
In Traill County farmers in all size groups had a high net worth in
1935, and it was evident that in this county operation of farms of 160,
240, and 320 acres offered farmers something more than a be.re living.
Selected farmers in this county reported an average capital gain of $260
per year of farming. Four-fif tbs of the farmers reported that they had
been able to accumulate capital since beginning farming in the area.
In Moody County it appeared that, in most instances, a 160-acre
unit was adequate for a farmer to make a living for himself and his
family. Farms in the group of less than 121 acres suffered an average
yearly loss of $67. Capital accumulated on selected farms of from
121 to 200 acres averaged only $12 a year, but 28 farmers in that
group who were operating 160-acre farms accumulated an average
of $78 per year. If the record of 1 farmer who suffered abnormally
large financial losses were omitted from the group, the remaining
27 operators would show an average accumulation of $184 per year.
Size of Relief Clients' Farms
Inadequacy in size of opernting unit wns apparently one of the
major factors contributing to the inability of farmers on relief rolls to
carry themselves th.rough the adverse years of 1933 and 1934. Samples of the farmers' applications for relief indicate that the average
881100•-'
22 • FARMING HAZARDS IN THE DROUGHT AREA
~
Ill All formers *
Relief clients
COUNTY
300
Acres
400
500
700
Divide
Hellinger
Sheridon
Hyde
Moody
FIG. 7-AVERAGE SIZE OF FARM OPERATED BY RELIEF CLIENTS
AND BY ALL FARMERS IN REPRESENTATIVE COUNTIES
IN THE NORTHERN GREAT PLAIN?
1935
._United States Census of Agriculture: 1935.
~F•2686, WPA
size of farm operated by relief clients was considerably smaller than
the county average.
The average size of farm operated by relief clients in Divide County
was 373 acres (fig. 7 and appendix table IO), whereas the county average was 447 acres. About three-tenths of the relief clients were operating farms of 280 acres or less and three-fifths were operating farms
of 400 acres or less. The average size of farm operated by relief clients
in Hyde County was 464 acres as compared with a county average of
617 acres. One-fourth of the relief clients were operating farms of
less than 280 acres and almost three-fifths operated farms of less
than 440 acres.
In Hettinger County the average size of relief clients' farms was 413
acres as compared with 555 acres, the average size of all farms.
About one-fourth of the clients were operating farms of less than 280
acres and almost one-half were operating farms of less than 440 acres.
In Sheridan County the average size of relief clients' farms was
289 acres as compared with a county average of 501 acres. More
than one-third of the Sheridan County relief clients were operating
farms of less than 240 acres and two-thirds were operating farms of
less than 400 acres.
Small farms were also somewhat of a disadvantage in the southeastern part of the area, as indicated by the fact that relief clients in
Dig111zed bv
Goog Ie
23
THE NORTHERN GREAT PLAINS •
Moody County were operating smaller farms than the average. The
average size of farm reported by relief clients in Moody County was
199 acres, whereas the county average was 238 acres. One-he.If of the
relief clients were operating farms of less than 200 acres.
Use of Land
Cropland use in 1934 was not exactly typical of normal years in the
central and western counties. Slightly more acreage had been planted
to feed crops or had been left idle than was usually the case. This
did not represent a permanent change in the agriculture of the area
but was largely the result of drought conditions. Following low
yields in 1933, many farmers in the central and western counties were
not financially able to seed their usual acreage in 1934 or were unwilling to gamble on a cash crop since experience in the area had taught
them that their chances were exceedingly poor when the seedbed was
devoid of moisture. The seeding of crops was delayed, and, when it
became apparent that cash crops could not be produced, many farmers
planted an unusually large proportion of their crop acreage to feed
crops in an attempt to produce livestock feed. Most of them left
at least part of their cropland idle rather than risk the capital required
for seeding.
Tobie 5.-Utilization of Land on Selected Farms in Representative Counties in the
Northern Great Plains, 1934
County
Average number of acres per farm
Nu::lber l - - - - - - ; - - - - , - - - - - - , - - - - , - - - farms
N atlve grass Former Farm•
8
report• Total
1 - - . - - 1 crop•
Ing
Hay Pasture laa d
waste
~i
l!~~·
-------------1--- - - - - -- --- --- ---
Divide:
North Dnkota Black Prairies Section .....
Scobey•Plentywood Section .•.•..........
Hettinger ....................•.•..•.. -······Sheridan ...................................•.
Hyde ....•.........................••••.••...
Traill .................................•......
Moody ..................................... .
44
22
63
57
48
52
Si
499
549
606
547
623
433
260
368
287
371
324
21;
393
211
23
7
7
21
82
208
4
22
4
43
213
2
1
17
48
184
224
22
7
9
19
31
12
13
1
13
9
A normal condition, however, is the tendency for operators of
small farms to place much higher proportions of their farm land in
crops than do operators of larger farms and to practice fallow cultivation to a lesser extent. In the Scobey-Plentywood Section of Divide
County selected farmers had an average of only 52 percent of their
land in crops in 1934, but on small farms the amount in crops was as
high as 73 percent, whereas on farms of more than 800 acres crops
occupied only 38 percent of the farm land. In the North Dakota
Black Prairies Section of this county, on the other hand, selected
farmers on farms of all sizes had 74 percent of the farm land in crops
with only a slight proportionate difference between the large and smal1
farms (table 5, fig. 8, and appendi.x table 11 ). Spring wheat was the
o 0111,Pd by
Goog Ie
24 • FARMING HAZARDS IN THE DROUGHT
Ill
Cropland
~
AREA
Hoy and pasture
~ Other
Percent
O
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
COUNTY
Divide
Hettinger
Sheridan
Hyde
Traill
Moody
FIG. S·UTILIZATION OF LAND ON SELECTED FARMS IN.
REPRESENTATIVE COUNTIES IN THE
NORTHERN GREAT PLAINS
1934
* North
Dakota Block Prairies Section.
Section.
* * Scobey- Plentywood
AF•H87, WPA
major crop in both sections, occupying 36 percent of the cropland on
selected farms in the Black Prairies Section and 38 percent in the
Scobey-Plentywood Section (appendix table 12). Oats were second
in importance in both sections with corn and barley next in importance
in the Black Prairies Section and barley and flax next in importance
in the Scobey-Plentywood Section.
In the North Dakota Black Prairies Section 35 percent of the cropland of selected farmers was idle in 1934 and 7 percent was fallow.
In the Scobey-Plentywood Section 29 percent was idle and 9 percent
was fallow. The follow land in both sections was limited primarily
to the larger forms, the crop acreage on the smaller units being insufficient to justify summer fallow farming.
In Sheridan County 59 percent of the farm land of selected farmers
was in crops tmd 34 percent was in pasture. This proportion was
approximately the same on all farms up to 880 acres where the proportion of cropland was smaller and that of pasture land larger than on
smaller farms. In 1934 selected farmers reported that 21 percent of
the cropland was idle or summer followed. W1rnat, the major crop,
was seeded on 44 percent of the total cropland, com on 9 percent,
oats and barley on 7 percent each, and rye on 5 percent.
Selected formers in Hettinger County reported 61 percent of the
land in crops in 1934, 5 percent of their cropland fallow, and 18 percent idle (appendix table 12). As in Divide County fnllow land and
Digitized by
Goog Ie
THE NORTHERN GREAT PLAINS • 25
wheat planted on fellow land were reported on only the larger farms.
The farmers r~ported that 46 percent of their cropland in 1934 was
in wheat, 9 percent in barley, 5 percent in rye, 4 percent in oats, and
8 percent in corn.
In Hyde County the selected farmers had 42 percent of their farm
land in crops and 46 percent in pasture. The larger the farm the
larger the proportion in pasture and the smaller the proportion in
crops. Fallow land was reported by only one farmer, but nearly 38
percent of the cropland of all selected farmers was idle in 1934 because
of drought conditions. Wheat and barley were the two major crops
seeded in 1934, followed in order of their importance by corn, feed
crops, and oats. The acreage of various crops seeded in 1932 and
1933 would indicate that in normal periods the crops in Hyde County
in order of their importance are wheat, barley, corn, oats, and rye.
In Traill and Moody Counties much higher proportions of the farm
land were in crops than in the central and western counties. The
crop acreage in 1934 was about normal, since neither county had suffered much in 1933 and the farmers had had little incentive to vary
their crop acreage.
Selected farmers of Traill County reported 91 percent of the farm
land in crops and less than 5 percent in native pasture in 1934. In
that year 31 percent of the cropland was in wheat, 17 percent in barley,
and 10 percent in oats. In 1934 all of the farmers planted wheat
and nearly all planted barley, oats, and corn. About one-half planted
potatoes. Twelve percent of the cropland of the selected formers
was reported as follow, and less than 6 percent was idle. The relative
importance of the various crops had changed little since 1932 (appendix table 13).
In Moody County the selected farmers reported that in 1934, 81
percent of their farm land was in crops and 12 percent in native pasture
(appendix table 12). None of the cropland was summer fallowed
and only 4 percent was idle. Of the cropland 36 percent was in corn,
24 percent in oats, and 17 percent in barley. From 1932 to 1934 the
importance of major crops, as measured by seeded acres, remained
approximately the same, but an unusually large proportion of the
corn acreage was cut for fodder in 1934.
In all of the selected counties land that was share-rented was used
for the most part as cropland, whereas land rented for cash was usue.lly native pasture (appendix table 14). Counties specializing in
cash-grain production had a relatively high percentage of sharerented land and comparatively little cash-rented land. Hyde
County, which combined livestock with cash-grain production, had
a relatively high percentage of cash-rented land. Moody and Traill
Counties, with a very small proportion of the farms used for native
pasture, had little or no cash-rented land.
Digitized by
Goog Ie
26 • FARMING HAZARDS IN THE DROUGHT AREA
Llvatoclc
Cattle production was the most important livestock enterprise in
the selected counties of the Northern Great Plains States. Mille
cows were important in all but the rougher areas, such as the ScobeyPlentywood Section of Divide County and part.a of Hyde County
(appendix table 15). Hogs were an important enterprise only in
Moody and Hyde Counties. Poultry was produced in small farm
flocks in all of the counties.
The acreage of feed crops planted in 1934, the best of which produced very low yields, was insufficient to carry the farmers' livestock.
Low cash incomes, depleted cash reserves, and high feed prices limited
the importation of livestock feed. This feed shortage, coupled with
an urgent need for a supplementary cash income, forced farmers
throughout the drought area of the Northern Great Plains to reduce
livestock numbers in 1934. Reductions by April 1, 1935, had been
most drastic in the central and western counties where the feed shortage was most acute (fig. 9 and appendix table 15).
Hogs were reduced more drastically than any other class of livestock. Numbers of poultry were reduced about one-fourth to twothirds in the central and western counties and about one-third in
Moody County, but they were maintained at near normal levels in
Traill County. Work stock numbers were generally maintained at
near normal in all of the selected counties.
Cattle numbers were maintained at normal or near normal in the
eastern counties, but in the other counties the reduction was severe.
Reduction in cattle numbers represent.a a larger sacrifice than do reductions in other classes of livestock and a larger problem in the
rehabilitation of farmers, owing to the greater importance of cattle
as a farm enterprise. They were reduced by approximately one-fifth
in Hettinger County, one-fourth in Sheridan County, nearly one-half
in Hyde County, and two-fifths in the Scobey-Plentywood Section
and over one-half in the North Dakota Black Prairies Section of
Divide County.
As a general rule, reductions in livestock numbers were more
severe proportionately on small than on large farms (appendix table
15). The operators of small farms in the central and western counties
of the Northern Great Plains, with limited reserves and limited pasture acreage, were unable to carry their livestock without assistance.
Feed loans enabled some to retain a breeding herd as large as their
depleted pastures would carry, but many were left with little or no
livestock.
In the North Dakota Black Prairies Section of Divide County
almost 5 percent of the selected farmers had no milk cows and 95
percent had no beef cows in the spring of 1935 (appendix table 16).
0 g11iwd by
Goog Ie
THE NORTHERN GREAT PLAINS • 27
FIG. 9 - PERCENT OF CATTLE PURCHASED UNDER
THE EMERGENCY LIVESTOCK PURCHASE
PROGRAM OF THE AGRICULTURAL
ADJUSTMENT ADMINISTRATION*
Note: lrregulor line bounds the
Great Plains Region oa delimited
by the Great Plains Committee.
Percent
* Bosed on number
purchosed plus the number
reported on forms on Jonuory I, 1935.
UillD
mil
IIBI
40-59
-
60-79
0-19
20-39
Sources: Doto from the Agriculturol Adjustment
Administration and United States Census
of Al}riculture : l93S.
D Iii
edhyGoogle
28 • FARMING HAZARDS IN THE DROUGHT AREA
Five percent had no other eattle. No farmers reported more than
three brood sows, and one-half had none. Two-thirds had no other
hogs, and three-fourths had no more than 50 chickens. In the ScobeyPlentywood Section of Divide County approximately three-fifths of
the farmers had no milk cows and two-fifths had no beef cows.
In Hettinger, Sheridan, and Hyde Counties about one-fourth of the
farmers had no milk cows and from three-fif tbs to four-fifths had no
beef cows. About one-third of the farmers in Hettinger and Sheridan
Counties and two-fifths of those in Hyde County had no brood sows;
from two-thirds to seven-tenths had no other hogs; and from threefifths to four-fifths had no more than 50 chickens.
In most instances the proportions of the farmers in the eastern
oounties without any of the specified classes of livestock were considerably smaller than those in the western counties. All of the farmers in
Traill County had cattle and poultry as did most of those in Moody
County. Many of the Traill County farmers had no hogs; but in
Moody County, where com for grain is produced, over three-fourths
of the farmers had brood sows and four-fifths had other hogs.
Inadequate livestock enterprises were associated with the need for
emergency relief in almost all areas. Numbers of livestock reported
by farmers when they went on relief were generally much smaller than
those reported by the selected operators in the spring of 1935. In
Divide County, where 89 percent of the farmers were on relief, the
relief clients reported an average of 6 head of cattle, 2 hogs, 42 chickens, and 3 horses (appendix table IO), whereas the selected farmers
had an average of 10 head of cattle, 3 hogs, 48 chickens, and 6 horses
(appendix table 15). In Hettinger County the relief clients reported
only half as many cattle and chickens as the selected farmers, while
in Sheridan County the relief clients reported half as many cattle and
three-fourths as many chickens as the selected farmers. Relief
clients in Moody County reported approximately three-fifths as many
cattle as did the selected farmers. Hyde County was an exception
in that relief clients reported about the same number of cattle, more
hogs and poultry, and nearly as many horses as did the selected
farmers. This situation is probably due to the fact that animalspecialty farms are dominant in this county, and more than 80 percent of the farmers were on relief .
.Actually the relief clients' livestock enterprises, as compared with
those of the selected farmers, were even smaller than these reports
indicate. Since the relief clients' reports were made when they
applied for relief, they represented a period which, in the majority of
cases, was several months before the selected farmers were interviewed for this study. It was during these intervening months that
the drastic reduction of livestock in the area occurred.
Digitized by
Goog Ie
THE NORTHERN GREAT PLAINS• 29
U,e of Machinery and Labor
On many of the farms throughout the central and western counties
surveyed at least a portion of the machinery was old and in need of
replacement, but on other farms minor repairs would put it in workable condition. In most instances such replacements were needed
on the small tenant-operated farms.
The average estimated value of machinery per farm was $800 or
$900 in Divide, Hettinger, and Sheridan Counties, but it was little
more than $600 in Hyde County (appendix table 23). The average
estimated cost of machinery repairs needed was around $100 per farm
in all four counties. The value of machinery per farm was less on
tenant-operated farms than on owner-operated farms, and the estimated cost of machinery repairs needed, in proportion to the estimated value of the machinery, was generally somewhat higher on
tenant-operated farms.
The usual machinery reported on 320-acre fanns in the central and
western counties consisted of one 2-bottom gang plow, one 5-section
spike-tooth harrow, one IO-foot grain drill, one 1-row cultivator, one
grain binder, one mower, one hay rake, and two or three wagons.
Additional machinery on 640-acre farms usually consisted of one
tractor, one tractor plow, one 8-foot disk harrow, and one grain header.
Farm machinery in the eastern counties was in better condition
than that in the central and western counties. Farmers in Traill
County were generally able to maintain their own machinery, but
some farmers in Moody County needed financial assistance in making
machinery repairs. The average estimated cost of machinery repairs
needed in Moody County was $84 per farm.
Farms of 160 acres in size in Traill and Moody Counties reported
about as much farm machinery as those of 320 acres in the counties
in the central and western parts of the Dakotas. The usual machinery reported on 160-acre farms in Traill and Moody Counties consisted of one 2-bottom gang plow, one single disk harrow, one 24-foot
spike-tooth harrow, one grain drill, one grain binder, one mowing machine, one hay rake, and two or three wagons. Farmers with 320acre farms reported, in addition to the above items, one tractor, one
tractor plow, <>ne grain drill, two 1-row cultivators or one 2-row cultivator, one 2-row planter, one row binder, and one 1-row corn picker.
Each farmer had an automobile and a cream separator.
Combines were not common equipment in the areas surveyed in
the Northern Great Plains. In Hettinger County, where they were
used more extensively than in any of the other selected counties, they
were reported by only 7 of the 63 farmers interviewed.
The value of machinery mounted as the size of farm increased.
In the Scobey-Plentywood Section of Divide County machinery on
30 • FARMING HAZARDS IN THE DROUGHT AREA
farms of 601-800 acres had an estimated average value 40 percent
higher than machinery on farms of 281--400 acres, while in the North
Dakota Black Prairies Section machinery on the larger farms was
almost twice as valuable as that on the smaller farms. Needed repairs on machinery amounted to 14 percent of the average estimated
value of the machinery in the North Dakota Black Prairies Section
and to only 7 percent of the value in the Scobey-Plentywood Section.
Likewise in Sheridan County equipment on 320-acre farms bad an
average estimated value of $569 while that on 640-acre farms was
valued at $1,323. In Hettinger County machinery on farms of
280--439 acres was valued at $649 while on farms of 560 acres or more
machinery was valued at $1,287. Needed repairs amounted to from
12 to 19 percent of the value of machinery.
In Traill and Moody Counties the average value of machinery per
farm was much higher than in the central and western counties.
Machinery on farms of 160 acres had an estimated average value of
$563 in Traill County and $587 in Moody County. Machinery on
farms of 320 acres was valued in Traill County at $1,116 and in
Moody County at $1,145.
There was some relationship between the size of farms and the
amount of labor used. Under the system of agriculture one man
without a tractor and without additional help could operate a 400acre farm including 160 acres of cropland. To operate much more
than that, either additional help or power equipment was needed.
In the central and western counties where only one-third to about
two-fifths of the smaller farms were operated with tractors, one-half
or more of these small farms were operated by only one man. The
majority of the larger farms were operated with tractors (appendix
table 17), but at the same time from one-half to two-thirds of these
larger farms required the labor of more than one man.
A similar situation existed in the eastern counties where the majority of the small farms were operated by only one man without the use
of a tractor, while the majority of the large farms were operated with
tractors and by more than one man. In many instances, however,
the use of large tractors and extensive equipment enabled operators of
large farms to work with a labor force that was very little larger than
that required on the smaller farms.
The acreage operated in Sheridan County by labor forces of various
sizes, with or without tractors (appendix table 18), might be used as
an index of labor requirements in the central and western counties,
while that operated in Traill County might serve a similar purpose
for the eastern counties.
The average size of farm operated with tractors in Sheridan County
was 611 acres, including 431 acres of cropland. The average size of
farm operated without tractors was 484 acres, including 221 acres of
Digitized by
Goog Ie
THE NORTHERN GREAT PLAINS • 31
cropland. Farms operated by one man with a tractor averaged 483
acres, which included 312 crop acres, while those operated by one man
without a tractor averaged 401 acres, which included 164 crop acres.
Crop acreage operated by two men without tractors was approximately the same as that operated by one man with a tractor and nearly
twice that operated by one man without a tractor. However, cropland operated per man was less on some of the large farms than it was
on some of the small farms, since total acreage as well as crop acreage
is a factor determining the size of the labor force and since large farms
frequently have a smaller amount of cropland proportionately than
do small farms.
The average size of farm operated with tractors in Traill County
was 497 acres, with 455 crop acres, and that of farms operated without
tractors was 259 acres, with 227 crop acres. The average size of farm
operated by one man with a tractor was 455 acres, including 425 acres
of cropland, while that operated by one man without a tractor was
234 acres, including 201 crop acres. 12
Farm Bulldln91
With the exception of the Scobey-Plentywood Section of Divide
County and the smaller farms in Hettinger County, dwellings and
other farm buildings of selected farmers in the western and central
counties of the Dakotas were adequate although many of them needed
paint and repairs. Because livestock need protection in the severe
winters common to the area, a material increase in the size of the livestock enterprises would require the construction of new buildings on
some farms.
The average cost of needed repairs to farm buildings ranged from
$232 to $380 per farm (table 6 and appendix table 19). It was highest
on the small farms in Hettinger County, where it amounted to 27 percent of the estimated value of farm buildings, and in the ScobeyPlentywood Section of Divide County, where it amounted to 19 percent of the estimated value of farm buildings. The average estimated
value per farm of all farm buildings in the Scobey-Plentywood Section
was only $1,204, and on the smaller farms in Hettinger County it was
$1,022. In Hyde County needed repairs averaged 12 percent of the
value of buildings, and in Sheridan County they amounted to an average of 11 percent. Although under the usual rental agreement the
tenant is not responsible for the maintenance of farm buildings, there
was no apparent relationship betweenthe tenure of farmers and the
estimated cost of repairs needed on their farm buildings.
11 At least a portion of the additional cropland operated by one man in Traill
County, as compared with Sheridan County, is no doubt annual pasture which
makes up a considerable proportion of the pasture acreage in the former county.
It is counted as cropland because it is rotated with other crops, but annual pasture
usually does not require as much work as do other types of crops.
o a,,,,pd by
Goog Ie
32 • FARMING HAZARDS IN THE DROUGHT AREA
Table 6.-Average Value of Farm Buildings and Estimated Cost of Needed Repairs per
Farm on Selected Farms in Representative Counties in the Northem Great Plains, 1935
County
Number
of farms
rer,ortng
Cost of needed repairs
Value of buildings
Total
Dwelling
Other
Total
Dwelling Otber
--- --- ----------Di,•lde:
North
Dakota
Black Prairies
_______________
.. ____
Section
Scobey-Plentywood Section._
Hettin~er. ________________ . ____ ..
Sheridan. _____________________ ...
Hyde ____________________________
Traill ____________________________
Moody_--------------- -- _--- --- _
44
22
63
57
48
52
87
$3. 084
I, 2ot
2,321
2,299
2,699
3,977
3,880
$1,195
6a2
$1,889
$374
232
$143
$Zll
552
9\)()
I, 3.11
1,397
1,546
2,312
2,485
348
241
336
301
380
118
82
230
902
I, 153
1,660
1,395
HO
100
92
1511
236
04
2111
90
21111
Few farmers in the eastern counties needed assistance in the repair
or construction of buildings. The average estimated value per fa.rm
of all farm buildings was nearly $4,000 in both counties. Available
fa.rm buildings in Traill and Moody Counties were occupied, however,
and any extensive program tending toward closer settlement in these
areas would require the construction of new buildings.
INDEBTEDNESS
Many farmers in the Northern Great Plains were heavily in debt in
the spring of 1935. This indebtedness had been accumulating for
years in some parts of the area. There were indications that some
owner-operators who desired to maintain or increase the productivity
of their soils were being forced to mine their farms in order to meet
real-estate mortgage payments. Chattel mortgages on machinery
and equipment and unpaid feed and seed loans, sometimes dating
back several years, added to the farmers' heavy fixed costs in the central and western counties. Tax delinquency was also serious in these
sections of the area.
Indebtedness tended to increase with the size of farm (appendix
table 9), and owner-operators had a much larger indebtedness than
did tenant-operators.
Real-Estate Indebtedness
Real-estate mortgages were reported by 75 to 85 percent of the
owner-operators in all of the selected counties and, on the average,
represented from 37 to 50 percent of the estimated value of owneroperators' real estate. They represented from 65 to 85 percent of
owner-operators' total indebtedness (appendix table 23).
Chattel mortgages were second only to real-estate mortgages as an
item of the owners' indebtedness. In the central and western counties
they represented from 20 to 27 percent of all of the owners' indebtedness, being of greatest significance in those areas where feed and seed
loan indebtedness was heaviest. In the eastern counties, where realestate indebtedness was heavier than in the other counties, chattel
o ri,1,zP.d by
Goog Ie
A Typical Farm in the Drought Area.
!
l
'
;
...
-- : ···.... :--.- ..:- ... .
"'.
....
D1t11zed
bvGooglc
_
:
~
.
; .
•
t
Digitized by
Google
THE
NORTHERN GREAT PLAINS•
33
mortgages represented only 5 to 10 percent of the owners' indebtedness.
Chattel mortgages were the only major source of the tenants'
indebtedness. They were reported by nearly all tenant-operators
and represented from 76 to 92 percent of their indebtedness.
From one-fourth to two-fifths of all land in the selected central
and western counties was mortgaged in 1935, and from 1 to 16 percent of the land was carrying more than one mortgage (table 7).
The average amount of mortgage indebtedness in these central and
western counties ranged from about $10 to more than $12 per acre.
In Divide County the average indebtedness of all land per acre was
nearly as much as the census valuation of farm land and buildings, 13
and in Hyde County the indebtedness per acre exceeded the census
valuation. 1' This excessive indebtedness, as related to the current
valuation of farm real estate, was due in part to a decline in realestate values after many of the mortgages were incurred. But this
fact did not alleviate the farmers' need for either a downward adjustment of their indebtedness or assistance in paying carrying charges.
TafJ/e 7.-Acreage Mort9a9ed and Avera9e Indebtedness per Acre, Mortgages of
Record in Representative Counties in the Northern Great Plains, 1935
Number or acres
mortgaged
County
Divlde•-------·········-··-····-·--------HeLtinger '· ....•.•...........•... _.. _-····
Sheridan .•......••.................. _... -·
Ilyde .......•.•• •••··················---···
Trnill .••..•.•.••.....•.............. -..... .
Moody .. , ..................... ········-···
Percent or all land
mortgaged
1------,------l---~---I
First
mortgnge
Other
mortgage
First
mortgage
Other
mortgage
113,420
179, 4fA
253, 709
143, 2~2
208.:!47
l&I, 900
38, R20
75,136
86, 4,50
40
38
H
16
H
l
H
8, lflO
74,791
30,214
40
26
38
'8
g
A vernge
Indebted•
ne...~ per
acre
$12. 69
9.98
11.00
10.99
18. 50
37.00
1 Based
on sample or 13 townships representin~ 3.5 J)('rccnt or lnnr! nre~ or county.
• Based on sample or 21 townships representing 65 percent or land area of cowiLy.
Mortgage indebtedness appeared even heavier in the eastern counties, but farmers in those counties were better able to carry indebtedness. Thirty-eight percent of the land in Traill County and fortyeight percent of the land in Moody County was morgtaged in 1935.
The average indebtedness per encumbered acre in Traill County was
$18.50. In Moody County the average indebtedness was $37. In
the latter county the indebtedness of some formers was no doubt
exce~sive, but in Traill County the relatively high and stable earning
capacity of farms would enable most farmers to meet carrying charges
on all indebtedness when due.
Bureau of the Census, United States Census of Agriculture: 1935, op. cit.
A higher concentration of mortgages on cropland than on pasture land and
a higher acre value on cropland than on pasture land were responsible for some
cases where the average mortgage indebtedness exceeded the average land value
11
H
D gillzed by
Google
34 • FARMING HAZARDS IN THE DROUGHT AREA
Foreclosures had been serious in the Missouri Plateau Area of South
Dakota, represented by Hyde County. Data pertaining to farm
mortgage foreclosures in the region during the 12-year period from
1921 to 1932 indicate that farmers in that area were experiencing
financial distress during a period when crop yields were considered
satisfactory. From 1921 to 1925 the number of foreclosures in Hyde
County and 10 surrounding counties averaged 390 per year. 15 From
1926 to 1930 the average number dropped to 290 a year, but in 1931
and 1932 it'increased to 512 annually. During the entire 12-year
period 1921-1932, 4,421 farms, or 47 percent of all farms in the 11
counties, changed hands because of mortgage foreclosures. In Hyde
County alone 433 farms, or 68 percent of all farms in the county,
changed hands through mortgage foreclosures.
A more favorable situation is indicated by similar data pertaining
to mortgage foreclosures in southeastern South Dakota. From 1921
to 1925 the number of mortgage foreclosures in Moody and 7 surrounding counties averaged 121 annually and from 1926 to 1930 they
averaged 116 annually. In 1931 and 1932 they increased to an
average of 313 annually, but during the entire 12-year period only
1,814 farms, or 13 percent of all farms in the 8 counties, changed
hands because of mortgage foreclosures. u,
The Federal Land Bank and the Federal Land Bank Commissioner
together held first mortgages on 66 percent of the mortgaged acreage
in Divide County in 1935, on 50 percent in Sheridan County, on 66
percent in Hettinger County, and on 59 percent in Traill County
(appendix table 20). In Hyde County, where foreclosures had been
so high, private individuals held first mortgages on over one-third
of the mortgaged acreage, and the Federal Land Bank and Federal
Land Bank Commissioner held only 21 percent of the encumbered
farm acreage. In Moody County lending corporations were most
important, holding first mortgages on 31 percent of the mortgaged
acreage; the two Federal agencies held first mortgages on 28 percent;
and private individuals, on 27 percent. Lending corporations held
only from 2 to 8 percent of the mortgaged acreage in the other counties
surveyed.
Crop and Feed Loans
Unpaid feed and seed loans formed a considerable part of farmers'
indebtedness in central and western North and South Dakota. The
large number of loans made in the early thirties and still outstanding
at the end of 1934 were an indication that farmers in the central and
15 Steele, Harry A., Farm Mortgage Foreclosu.res in South Dakota, 1921-1932, Circular 17, South Dakota Agricultural Experiment Station, Brookings, S. Dak.,
May 1934.
15 lbid.
Digitized by
Goog Ie
THE NORTHERN GREAT PLAINS• 35
western portions of the Dakotas bad been in straightened circumstances even before the recent adverse years.
By December 31, 1934, a total of 544 loans had been made for every
100 farms in Divide County (appendix table 21). Of feed and seed
loans made in 1933 or earlier, 78 percent remained unpaid, with an
average indebtedness of $542 for every farmer in the county. A
further indebtedness of $265 per farm was incurred in 1934, all of
which remained outstanding, making a total outstanding debt of
$807 per farm in this county.
Three loans bad been made for every two farms in Sheridan County.
Of feed and seed loans made prior to 1933, 72 percent remained unpaid
in December 1934. Counting the 1934 loans, outstanding loans
averaged almost $130 per farm.
On December 31, 1934, outstanding indebtedness from feed and seed
loans in Hettinger County averaged $192 per farm. Eighty-five
percent of the loans contracted in 1932, a year of good crops but low
prices, remained unpaid, and practically all loans made after 1932
were still outstanding.
On January 15, 1935, 97 percent of all seed and feed loans contracted
in Hyde County in 1932 remained unpaid. Counting additional
debts contracted in 1934, indebtedness per farm averaged about $246.
In Traill County, on the other hand, only 908 emergency loans, or
an average of approximately 1 loan to every 2 farms, had been made
through 1934. Only 533 loans, or about 1 loan to every 3 farms,
remained unpaid, the outstanding indebtedness averaging less than
$40 per farm.
Federal loans in the other eastern county, Moody, were smaller
and were made to a smaller percent of farmers than in any other
county surveyed. The outstanding indebtedness per farm, based on
the number of loans made and the number outstanding, was about
the same as in Traill County, but the indebtedness per loan was somewhat lower.
Tax Delinquencies
During the years from 1930 to 1935 tax delinquencies had increased
rapidly in most of the central and western counties. In some of these
counties taxes on more than four-fifths of the land were delinquent.
Tax delinquency was much less severe in the two eastern counties,
Traill and Moody, than in the central and western counties.
Only 11 percent of the farm land in Sheridan County had no
delinquent taxes recorded against it during the 5-year period 19281932. By May 1935 some of the taxes imposed during those years
bad been redeemed on 79 percent of the farm land with delinquent
taxes for those years, but in most cases the delinquencies for only
1 or 2 years had been redeemed and the remainder was outstanding.
Digitized by
Goog Ie
36 • FARMING HAZARDS IN THE DROUGHT AREA
The situation in Divide County from 1928 to 1934 was as bad as
that in Sheridan County. In the North Dakota Black Prairies Section 88 percent of the land had been tax delinquent at some time
during the 7-year period, and in the Scobey-Plentywood Section 84
percent of the land had been tax delinquent. In May 1935 at lee.st
a part, and in some cases all, of the taxes that had become delinquent
during that period remained unpaid on 82 percent of the land in the
North Dakota Black Prairies Section and on 78 percent of the land
in the Scobey-Plentywood Section.
In Hettinger Qounty from 1921 to 1933, taxes on 65 percent of the
farm land had become delinquent at some time. Taxes for 1933
became delinquent on 41 percent of the farm land, and in May 1935
only 15 percent of the 1933 delinquencies had been redeemed.
Delinquencies in Hyde County were not a serious problem. Federal loans and crop production contracts had aided farmers materially
in making tax payments. Tax sales were held each year, but only
19 percent of all farm land was sold for delinquent 1933 taxes.
Tax delinquencies in Traill and Moody Counties for 1930-1934 were
not so extensive 88 in the central and western counties, and a larger proportion of delinquent taxes had been redeemed than in other areas.
Taxes for 1933 in Traill County became delinquent on only 14 percent
of the farm land, and by June 1, 1935, over one-third of these had been
redeemed. In Moody County taxes for 1933 became delinquent on
28 percent of the farm land, but by June 1935, 91 percent of these had
been redeemed.
Relief Clienh' lndebtedn-
Although the relief clients were operating smaller farms and had
fewer assets than the selected farmers, they generally reported almost
as much indebtedness. In Divide, Sheridan, and Hyde Counties the
relief clients, both owner-operators and tenant-operators, reported
only slightly less indebtedness than did the selected farmers of the
same tenure (appendix tables 22 and 23). In Hettinger County the
owner-operators' and tenant-operators' indebtedness was approximately the same among relief clients 88 among the selected farmers,
and in l\foody County it was considerably higher among the relief
clients, both owner-operators and tenant-operators.
Reul-estate mortgages generally comprised a higher proportion of the
indebtedness of owners on relief than they did of the indebtedness of
the selected owners. This fuct might indic!lte that the credit of clients
was more nearly exhausted when they went on relief than was that of
the selected owners when they were interviewed some months later.
For smull opemting units exhausted credit and excessive indebtedness
were the inevitable consequences of !ln adverse period, and they were
the final causative factors in the relief clients' need of assistance.
o gi112Pd tiy
Goog Ie
THE NORTHERN GREAT PLAINS • 3 7
TENURE OF OPERATORS AND OWNERSHIP OF LAND
Tenure of Fann ()pendon
From two-thirds to four-fifths of all farmers in the sample counties
were renting part or all of their operating units in 1935, 17 and from
one-fifth to three-fifths of all farm land was being operated under
lease. The high degree of farm tenancy is of significance when it is
considered in relation to its rate of increase since 1920. The increase
was particularly marked in Divide County where the proportion of all
farmers who were tenants increased from 14 to 33 percent, whereas
the proportion of all farm land operated by tenants increased from 13
to 26 percent (table 8).
Ta&le 8.-Farm Tenancy in Representc.tive Counties in the Northern Great Plains, 1920,
1930, and 1935
County
Percent of farm operaton
who were tenants
1920
1930
1935
Percent of !arm land operated
by tenants
1920
1930
11135
--- -----------Divide....•.. .. ...... . ... . .. ..............
Hettinger.••.•.....• . •.•..................
Sheridan •........... .... ...•.. .. . . ....... .
Hyde •••••••.....•••..•..•.••.......... .•.
Traill ••••• ... ........ ... ..... ......... ... .
Moody ... ... ... . .. .. ... ... . . ............ .
14
19
zt
23
28
Z1
38
38
M
43
42
66
33
30
38
62
4ll
68
13
UI
zt
zt
;15
M
22
18
28
34
33
45
45
67
34
44
57
Sources: Bureau of the Census, FmutllfllA Cemru of the Unlltd Stale,: !BIO and Unil,d Slatu
s. Department or Commerce, Washington, D . C.
A,mwtwe: 1936, U.
21
c....,,, of
A high degree of tenancy may lead to soil exhausting practices.
This is because under the usual rental agreement the tenant is offered
little incentive to maintain or increase the productivity of his operating unit. Secure on his unit usually only for the duration of a yearly
lease, the inclination of the tenant is to get all he can from the land
during that time. Even with an incentive, he probably could not
afford to establish permanent pasture or to plant cover crops on land
subject to erosion. In some instances the tenant cannot increase to
desirable proportions the size of his livestock enterprise, either because his operating unit does not have land for feed crops or adequate
pasturage or because his tenure is insecure.
Tenancy was particularly high in the relatively more prosperous
eastern counties, Traill and Moody. The poorer financial position
of the tenants in the Northern Great Plains as compared with owners
(fig. 10} appeared in many instances to be related to the more recent
establishment of the tenant farms and to their smaller size.
In most instances the majority of the farmers who were insolvent
were tenant-operators on small farms who had been operating in their
17
Bureau of the Census, United States Census of Agriculture: 1935, op. cit.
Digitized by
Goog Ie
38 • FARMING HAZARDS IN THE DROUGHT AREA
respective counties less than 10 years. If they had had a more favorable period in which to establish themselves, some of them might have
maintained their solvency.
Tenants also comprised a considerably higher proportion of the
farmers who had suffered losses than of those who had not. Again
this appeared to be due as much to the fact that the tenants were more
recent occupants of the area and had smaller farms as to the fact that
they were tenants.
~
16
14
12
A111ts
Thousand dollars
10
8
6
4
Ill
Liabilities
2
0
Thousand dollars
4
2
0
COUNTY
Divide
Hettinc;ier
Sheridan
Hydt
Troill
Moody
Tenants
Owners
F1G.IO-AVERAGE VALUE OF FARM ASSETS AND AMOUNT OF LIABILITIES
OF SELECTED FARMERS IN REPRESENTATIVE COUNTIES
IN THE NORTHERN GREAT PLAINS
BY TENURE
1935
Tenants were relatively more numerous among relief clients than
among selected farmers. They comprised 42 percent of the relief
clients (appendix table 22) as compared with 30 percent of all farmers 18
in Hettinger County. In Sheridan County they comprised 61 percent of the relief clients and 38 percent of all farmers. In Moody
County they comprised 82 percent of the relief clients as compared
Since no data were available, however, for farmers who were forced to give up
farming because of financial losses, the financial status represents only that of
survivors.
18
Dtgilized oy
Google
THE NORTHERN GREAT PLAINS •
39
with 58 percent of all farmers. In Hyde and Divide Counties, where
more than 80 percent of the farmers were on relief, the extent of tenancy
among relief clients was of course not greatly different from that
among all farmers in the county.
The average net worth of tenants was much less than that of owners. The greatest disparity was in Hyde County, S. Dak., where the
average net worth of selected owners was $7,491 and that of selected
tenants was $405. The average net worth of selected Traill County
owners was $8,819, whereas that of tenants averaged $2,772. The
average net worth of Moody County owners was $7,893, whereas that
of tenants was $1,739. Tenancy was especially high in these two
relatively prosperous counties.
While tenants suffered from lack of opportunity to accumulate
reserves because of their recent arrival in the area, owners suffered from
depreciated land values. In Moody County, for instance, six of the
seven farmers who reported themselves insolvent in 1935 were tenantoperators, five of whom had been in the area less than 10 years. Seven
of the eleven selected farmers who had not been able to accumulate
capital were owner-operators whose losses, in most instances, were
incurred through the depreciation of real-estate values, and two of
the four tenants who had suffered losses had been in the area less than
10 years.
Ownership ol Land
Corporation holdings should not present a problem in the development of a rehabilitation program in the Northern Great Plains.
Although foreclosures in recent years had transferred ownership of
some land to corporate lending agencies, in 1935 corporations owned
not more than 7 percent of the land in any of the central and western
counties and not more than 12 percent in either of the eastern counties.
Private individuals owned 79 percent of the land in Divide County,
91 percent in Sheridan County, 85 percent in Hettinger County,
74 percent in Hyde County, 91 percent in Traill County, and 87
percent in Moody County (table 9).
Ta&le 9.-Percent of Land Owned by Different Types of Owners in Representative
Counties in the Northern Great Plains, 1935
Percent of land owned
Type of owner
Divide
Bettinger
Sheriden
Hyde
Moody
Traill
- - - - - - --100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Total. _____ --- -- --- -.. ·- ·- .•. -- -- . -·
--------- --------87.2
79.2
85.0
90.D
74.1
DI. 2
Private ..... ·-··-···-- .•... ····-·--··----Corporate..... -·--·· ·-·· ··-·-··· ·--·. ··-··
lltate and county_.·······-·-···-··-···--·
Federal Land Bank ..... ·-·-·-···-·-···-··
Other--.................•...... ·-··-···- ..
7.0
4. 6
2.3
7.0
6.3
I.I
0.3
8.3
3.8
1.5
0.4
3. 4
.
5.6
10. 6
0.3
i. 5
0.D
9. 6
0.4
11.6
0.8
0.4
•Lesa than 0.06 percent.
Souroel: Aulcnltural Adjustment Admlnlstrntlon rontracts and records In offices of county tax assessors.
o 11i1i2Pd hy
Goog [e
40 • FARMING HAZARDS IN THE DROUGHT AREA
Absentee ownership, on the other hand, is an important factor
to consider. Much of the land in this area was owned by nonresidents
in 1934 and 1935 although not to so great an extent as in some portions
of the Central and Southern Great Plains.
Records taken from the county registration books in the various
counties in 1935 showed that nonresidents owned 33 percent of the
land in Divide County, 27 percent in Hettinger County, 51 percent
in Sheridan County, and 29 percent in Traill County. Data taken
from production control contracts of the Agricultural Adjustment
Administration showed that in 1934 nonresidents owned 29 percent
of the farm land in Hyde County and 18 percent in Moody County.
The ownership of such large proportions of the land by nonresident
landlords creates a problem since such landlords are often less interested in cooperating in a program for conserving the land and building
a balanced farm economy than they are in collecting immediate
returns.
Dtgilized oy
Google
Chapter II
THE CENTRAL GREAT PLAINS
THE DROUGHTS of 1931-34 were less severe and agricultural conditions during the period were less acute in most of the Central Great
Plains-western Nebraska and Kansas and eastern Wyoming and
Colorado-than in most of the Northern Great Plains. The western
part of the Central Great Plains experienced considerable distress,
but in none of the counties surveyed were conditions as serious as in
some of the Dakota counties.
The major portion of the winter wheat area of the United States
lies within the Central Great Plains States, but livestock production
predominates in central Nebraska and north central Kansas, and in
some of the western sections, where range livestock predominates.
Intensive production of such crops as sugar beets and alfalfa predominates in those parts of the area where irrigation is practiced.
The counties selected for this study represent all of these types of
farming as well as different types of problems, different degrees of
fann distress, and different rehabilitation needs of farmers in the
various sections of the region 1 (fig. 1, p. xv). Sherman County,
Nebr., was selected for study because it was representative of the
Loess Hills Area of central Nebraska where a larger part of the farm
population was receiving emergency relief in 1935 than in any other
1
The counties surveyed are typical of other counties in their areas as follows:
County surveyed
Area represented
Other counties in area
Sherman, Nebr______________ Loess Hills of central Nebraska _________ _ Kebraska:
Custer
Dawson
Garfield
Greeley
Perkins, Nebr_______________ Southwestern Wheat Area or Nebraska .. Nebraska:
Chase
Cheyenne
Goshen, Wyo ________________ Southeastern Wyoming ________________ _ Wyoming:
Laramie
Platte
Nebraska:
Scotts Bluff
Cheyenne, Colo_____________ High Plains or eastern Colorado ________ _ Colorado:
Kiowa
Kit Carson
Loup
Valley
Wheeler
Deuel
Keith
Washington
41
D gillzed by
Google
42 • FARMING HAZARDS IN THE DROUGHT AREA
large area of the State. Cheyenne County, Colo., and Goshen
County, Wyo., were selected for study as representative of the High
Plains of ea.stern Colorado and southeastern Wyoming where drought
and unfavorable conditions had prevailed for a number of years prior
to 1935. These areas were considered to be in need of a comprehensive rehabilitation program. In Goshen County wind erosion had
damaged a large proportion of the cropland, and most of the eroded
acreage was marked for retirement from cultivation.
Since Goshen County includes both irrigated and nonirrigated farm
land, however, the choice of this county for study affords an opportunity to examine differences in fann prosperity between an irrigated
and a nonirrigated section. By several indices farms in the irrigated
section of this county were in a more favorable position in 1935 than
were farms in other sections.
Perkins County, Nebr., was chosen for study as representative of
the cash-grain areas of southwestern N ebra.ska. Financial conditions
of farmers throughout Perkins County were relatively favorable in
1935 as compared with other sections of Nebraska.
SITUATION OF FARMERS AFTER THE 193-4 DROUGHT
Reductions in incomes and in livestock inventories, changes in
sources of income, and the proportions of farmers on relief or rehabilitation rolls show the effects of the 1934 drought on farmers who were
still operating in the Central Great Plains in the spring of 1935. No
data are available concerning those farmers who had completely lost
out and left the area.
Reduction In Incomes
Largely because of crop failures, gross cash receipts in 1934, including relief and other Government benefits, had been reduced to one-third
of normal in Sherman County and cut in half in Perkins and Cheyenne
Counties and in the nonirrigated section of Goshen County (table 10
and appendix table 24). Ca.sh receipts were nearest to normal in the
irrigated section of Goshen County where the reduction from normal
was less than one-third. Except in this irrigated area, most of the
1934 gross cash receipts reported by selected farmers, as in the Northern Great Plains, came from direct or indirect Government expenditures.
Most of these Government expenditures were in the form of Agricultural Adjustment Administration benefits or payments for livestock.
None of the selected farmers in the irrigated section of Goshen County
and the loam section of Perkins County reported ca.sh receipts from
emergency relief payments in 1934. In Sherman and Cheyenne
Counties, the sandy loam section of Perkins County, and the nonirrigated section of Goshen County, less than 4 percent of the gross
cash receipts was derived from emergency relief. Work off the fa.rm,
which was often under Government auspices, likewise accounted for
o a,,,,pd by
Goog Ie
THE CENTRAL GREAT PLAINS• 43
a very small proportion of the gross cash receipts, averaging less than
7 percent in any county.
Selected farmers in Sherman County reported that their average
cash receipts in 1934 were only $502 as compared with $1,534 in
normal years. Almost all of this amount in 1934 was derived from
Government funds. Crop sales, normally supplying about one-third
of the gross cash receipts in this county, were practically nonexistent
in 1934. More than 90 percent of the cash receipts of selected farmers
in Sherman County in 1934 came from the sale of livestock and livestock products or from Agricultural Adjustment Administration
contract payments.
In Cheyenne County farmers reported that their gross cash receipts
had dropped to $938 in 1934 from an average of $1,798. Normally
nearly one-half of their average gross cash receipts was derived from
crop sales, but in 1934 the proportion from this source dropped to 11:
percent. About 60 percent of the cash receipts came from livestock
sales, mostly to the Government, and from Agricultural Adjustment
Administration benefit payments.
Tal,le 10.-Average Gron Receipts per Farm on Selected Farms in Representative
Counties in the Central Great Plains, by Source of Receipts, 1934
Average receipts per farm
Goshen
Perkins
Bouroe of receipts
Sherman
(67
farms)
Loam
900tlon
(36
Bandy
loam
section
(37
farms)
farms)
CheyIrrigated Nonlrrl- enne (56
aectlon gated sec• farms)
lion (43
(29
farms)
farms)
------ --- --- --Total farm receipts • • •••.••• •. ... ••.
Total cash receipts ............ .. ... .
Crop sales ... . ......... • ...• • .•.•....•... .
Livestock sales . . . . ............• .•... . .• •.
W~~;M~'?.:~~:::::::::::::::::::::::
Agrirultural Adjustment Administration
contract payments .............. .. ... .. .
Emergency Relief Administration •.••.. . .
Other . •..... .•••••••••••••.••••..... .. .. ..
Total products wed In home ..... . . .
Dau-y products . •......•.••............. • .
p,-'.".1_uc~·.::::::: :::::::: :::::::::
r,oe~:?.
Crops and garden ... .. .. . ... .. •.. ..• .•.. ..
$614
S2. 544
$1,006
2
161
12.~
22
652
ZIO
36
224
695
167
37
174
784
14
4
li6
112
22.5
157
00
79
52
67
s:l.595
St, 506
Sl,084
875
211
73
n•
382
367
16~
48
100
447
168
62
5n
433
342
3
113
32
47
65
26
18
170
146
88
65
34
13
69
- - - 1138
-----=602= =
3,421
1,336
I, 749
2,319
lltll
1,
2
"""'-=== =
=
==a:====
174
- - - - - - --- - - - ----88
43
31
34
I
4
57
40
3
65
40
11
49
37
1
Crop sales normally provided from 70 to 77 percent of the gross
cash receipts in Perkins and Goshen Counties, livestock sales providing only from 22 to 26 percent. In 1934, however, the relative
importance of the two products was largely reversed in all but the
irrigated section of Goshen County. Crop sales provided only 13
percent of the cash receipts in the sandy loam section and 24 percent
D1ri11tzed hy
Goog Ie
44 • FARMING HAZARDS IN THE DROUGHT
AREA
in the loam section of Perkins County, and 29 percent in the nonirrigated section of Goshen County. Livestock and livestock products
sales furnished about 40 to 50 percent of the gross cash receipts in all
three sections and Agricultural Adjustment Administration benefits
provided most of the balance. Most of the livestock sales were made
to the Government (fig. 9, p. 27) except in Perkins County, where
most of the cattle sales were made through the regular market.
Average gross cash receipts were reduced in 1934 to $2,319 from a
norm of $4,536 in the loam section of Perkins County; to $1,749
from a nonn -of 53,647 in the-sandy loam -section of the same-county;
and to $1,336 from a norm of $2,534 in the nonirrigated section of
Goshen County.
Crops were still the most important source of income in the irrigated section of Goshen County in 1934, but their share of the total
cash receipts had been reduced from 77 percent to 52 percent, while
receipts from livestock and livestock products had increased in importance from 22 to 31 percent of the total. Agricultural Adjustment
Administration contracts were relatively unimportant, accounting
for only one-eighth of the gross cash receipts. Total cash receipts in
1934 averaged $3,421 as compared with a norm of $4,972.
The average value of farm products used in the home in 1934
ranged from $112 in Sherman County to $225 in the loam section of
Perkins County. When these amounts are added to the cash receipts,
the average receipts per farm ranged from $614 in Sherman County
to $3,595 in the irrigated section of Goshen County, but these figures
do not reflect the losses suffered by farmers as a result of decreased
livestock, feed, and equipment inventories.
Farmen on Relief and Rehabilitation Roll,
Nowhere in the representative counties of the Central Great Plains
did the proportions of farmers receiving emergency relief or rehabilitation loans in the spring of 1935 equal the proportions in most of
the Northern Great Plains counties. About one-third of all farmers
in Cheyenne County and one-fifth in Goshen and Sherman Counties
were on emergency relief or rehabilitation rolls. In Perkins County,
Nebr., only 7 percent of the farmers received relief, either human or
drought relief.
Not all farmers on relief rolls actually received relief, as some had
been placed on the rolls to make them eligible for rehabilitation loans.
In Cheyenne County, for instance, in May 1935, county relief officials
reported that 16 percent of all farmers in the county (in addition to
the 32 percent listed as relief clients) had registered on the relief rolls
in order to become eligible for rehabilitation loans. These farmers
had barely made a living in 1934, and their reserves were nearly
exhausted.
o 11i1i2Pd hy
Goog [e
THE CENTRAL GREAT PLAINS • 45
The 1934 drought was not the only cause of the farmers' distress.
A number of factors combined to bring farmers to dependency. A
series of dry years prior to 1934 in some parts of the area, wind and
water erosion in other parts, and faulty organization of farms in some
sections, with too much land in crops and too little dependence on
livestock, are some of these factors.
Reduction of livestock inventories was forced by a series of dry
years preceding 1934 in all but Sherman County and the irrigated
section of Goshen County. Crop yields were low in these sections
from 1931 through 1933. Hence, when crops failed in 1934 feed
reserves to take care of the emergency had been exhausted. Incomes
from cash crops had likewise been reduced in the preceding years so
that the farmers were unable to purchase feed.
Many of the farmers who were forced to accept relief grants or
rehabilitation loans were apparently farmers who had not been
established in the area long enough and in a favorable enough period
to build up reserves with which to cope with the natural hazards of
the region. Nearly one-third of the relief clients in Sherman County
and over two-fifths of those in Perkins County had been in their
respective areas for less than 6 years. If these individuals had had
more time and a more favorable period in which to establish themselves and accumulate reserves, it is possible that at least some of
them could have remained self-supporting.
As it was, the resources of the farmers on relief and rehabilitation
were very low as compared with those of selected farmers interviewed.
In Goshen County the rehabilitation applicants who were owneroperators reported an average net worth of $1,046 as compared with
from $5,000 to more than $7,000 reported by selected farmers in the
county. Those who were tenant-operators had an average net worth
of only $176 as compared with about $1,600 reported by tenantoperators among the selected farmers. Of the relief clients in Perkins
County the owner-operators had an average net worth of only $603
as compared with about $10,000 to $14,000 reported by selocted
owner-operators. Similarly the tenant-operators on relief in this
county reported an average net worth of $273 as compared with
$582 and $1,202 reported by selected tenant-operators in the county
(appendix table 47).
The relief needs of farmers in Sherman County appear to have
been more recent than in the other counties. Seven-eighths of the
farmers on relief in the spring of 1935 had come on the rolls since
the preceding November (table 11). In Cheyenne County, on the
other hand, farm distress was of longer standing, as indicated by the
fact that most of the farmers on relief had come on the rolls prior to
November 1934. Most of the small number of relief clients in Perkins
County had come on relief since November 1, 1934.
D gillzed by
Google
46 • FARMING HAZARDS IN THE DROUGHT AREA
It is evident that physical disabilities and the handicap of large
families had little to do with the farmers' distress. Most of the relief
clients in the counties studied were in the active age groups (appendix
table 25), and the few who did report physical disabilities may have
had family labor to supplement their own. The usual number of
children per family was only one to four (appendix table 26), and in
none of the selected counties did more than one-fifth of the relief
clients have more than four children who were under 16 years of age.
Analysis of the natural conditions in the region, of the organization
of farms, and of such factors as land ownership and tenancy help to
throw further light on reasons for the farmers' distress. These
factors must be related, of course, to types of farming in the area.
Ta&le 17.-Date of first Relief to Farm Operators on Relief in April-May 1935 in
Representative Counties in the Central Great Plains
Number or !arm operators 1
Date or first relier
Sherman
Perkins
Cheyellll8
Total•-------------------------------------------------------258
'Zl
188
1----1----1--M arch 1, 1935, or later. _____________ . _____ • __ • ___ • ___ • ______ •..• _.__
119
l
November 1, 1934-February 28, 1935________________________________
107
15
17
Prior to November 1, 1934 ____ ---- -----------······- ------ ---------32
12
168
Comparable data not available for Goshen County.
• Number in sample reportilli date relier was begun.
1
TYPES OF FARMING
The natural factors affecting agriculture and the response of
various crops to those factors have largely determined the type of
fanning developed in the Central Great Plains States. In the
eastern section-central Nebraska and north central Kansas-where
the soils and climate have favored the production of corn and alfalfa
hay, primary emphasis ha.s been placed on livestock production with
cash grains a supplementary enterprise. In the tillable portions of the
High Plains Section where wheat is favored, cash-grain production is
predominant. In the sand hills and in other areas not suited for cultivation range-livestock production predominates. The intensive production of such crops as sugar beets and alfalfa hay predominates in the irrigated sections, with minor emphasis placed on the productionoflivestock.
Sherman County, a portion of the central Nebraska. Loess Hills,
has a type of farming characterized as "livestock, some cash-grain."
In a classification based on gross income in 1929, 50 percent of the
farms in the area were classed as animal-specialty farms, and 54
percent of the gross income for all farms in the area was derived
from the sale of meat animals_ General farms were second in importance, accounting for 23 percent of the farms, followed by cashgrain farms (17 percent). 2
' Elliott, F_ F., Types of Farming in the United States, u_ S. Department of
Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Washington, D. C., 1933, table 5.
Diq111zed bv
Goos IC
THE CENTRAL GREAT PLAINS• 47
Perkins County, in the Platte High Plains, has a cash-grain and
livestock type of fanning. Of the farms in 1929, 77 percent were
classed as cash-grain, and of the 1929 gross income for all farms in
the area 67 percent was from the sale of cash grains.
Cheyenne County, Colo., also part of the High Plains Area, is
characterized by range-livestock, cash-grain production. Of the
income of farms in the area in 1929, 40 percent was derived from the
sale of meat animals and 38 percent from cash grains. Although
livestock is more important than cash grains as a source of income,
cash-grain production accounts for the predominant group of farms,
38 percent of the total. Animal-specialty farms and stock ranches
together account for 23 percent of the farms, and general farms
account for 20 percent.
Goshen County, Wyo., with both irrigated and nonirrigated land,
shows interesting contrasts in types of farming. Three different
type-of-farming areas are found in the county. The irrigated portion,
part of the Scotts Bluff Basin, is characterized by the production of
sugar beets, livestock, and potatoes. Nearly three-fourths of the
farms in the Scotts Bluff Basin area were classed as crop-specialty
farms in 1929, and 37 percent of the 1929 gross income for all farms
was derived from the sale of sugar beets. About one-half of the farm
land in this section was irrigated. The northern portion, part of the
Niobrara Plains, is characterized by the production of range-livestock,
and the southern part of the county, in the Platte Piedmont, is part
of a larger area characterized as "cash-grain, livestock." 8
Hard winter wheat is the principal crop throughout the nonirrigated
portions of the Central Great Plains with the exception of central
Nebraska and north central Kansas. In the latter areas corn is the
most important crop, followed in order of their importance by oats,
hay (primarily alfalfa), wheat, and barley. In the northwestern
portion of the Central Great Plains wheat is the most important
crop on nonirrigated land, followed in importance by com, oats, and
barley. On the irrigated land sugar beets and alfalfa hay are the
principal crops, followed in importance by barley, oats, and potatoes.
In the western and southern portions of the area wheat, sorghums,
barley, and corn are the major crops.
NATURAL FACTORS AFFECTING AGRICULTURE
Top09raphy
Gradually sloping from the High Plains in the west to the Missouri
Valley Prairies in the east, the Central Great Plains are generally
undulating to rolling. The High Plains Section comprises the major
portion of the region. Across this broad upland plain the Arkansas
3
Ibid.
o a,,,,pd by
Goog Ie
48 • FARMING HAZARDS IN THE DROUGHT AREA
River in the south and the Platte River in the north flow from the
Rocky Mountains in a general easterly direction, each occupying a
broad, leisurely-descending valley.' Other indentations in the surface
of the High Plains are caused by smaller drainage channels. Some
of these are not large enough to cause any material interruption in
the general terrain. Others form deep box-like canyons bordered by
a rough terrain.
Deposits of wind-blown sand in the form of dunes or small rounded
hills and ridges of moderate height appear on the generally smooth
plains in some t10Ctions. These areas of sand hills ue -extremely
susceptible to wind erosion unless covered with native vegetation,
and when the vegetation is destroyed by overgrazing, burning, or
cultivation, they become a waste of shifting dunes. The most extensive sand-hills area of the Central Great Plains is that of north
central Nebraska, but smaller areas are located in southeastern
Wyoming, ea.stem Colorado, and southwestern Nebraska.
Within the sand hills surplus water drains into irregular basins or
flats which have no surface outlet. Some of these basins, particularly those located in the northern part of the area, are occupied by
lakes or marshes during years of normal or excessive rainfall. Others
are dry the greater part of the year.
In southeastern Wyoming the High Plains consist of broad flat
uplands broken by extensive escarpments and isolated buttes. The
valley of the North Platte River and the Goshen Hole, a low plain
formed by the erosion of the river and its tributaries, interrupt the
upland features in this section.
The topography of the Missouri Valley Prairies to the east is more
varied than that of the High Plains, ranging from level plains to
rolling hills dissected by numerous drainage channels. The Platte
River, as in the High Plains, flows through a wide, relatively shallow
valley. In general, however, the main streams flow through this
section in narrow valleys bordered by rough land similar to that of
the "Bad Lands" in the Northern Great Plains.
Soll,
The soils of the Central Great Plains, as in the Northern Great
Plains, are subhumid and arid. 6 They include the Chernozems or
Black soils, which are also found in the Northern Great Plains east
of the Missouri River, and the Northern Dark-Brown soils, also
found in the Northern Great Plains west of the Missouri River. In
addition there are two other major groups in the Central Great
Plains-the Brown soils and the sand hills of Nebraska (fig. 2, p. 8).
'Johnson, W. D., The High Plains and Its Utilization, 21st and 22d Reports,
U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D. C., 1899-1900.
6 Bureau of Chemistry and Soils, Atlas of American Agriculture, Part III, U. S.
Department of Agriculture, Washington, D. C., 1935, p. 72.
o g,t, 7 Pd by
Goog Ie
THE CENTRAL GREAT PLAINS • 49
In this area the Chernozems are found in the prairie sections of
central Kansas and Nebraska. The Northern Dark-Brown soils
occupy all of the High Plains Section lying within the Central Great
Plains with the exception of the sand-hills area of north central
Nebraska and a portion of south central and central Colorado occupied
by the Brown soils.
Of the counties included in this survey, Sherman County, Nebr.,
is the only one occupied by the Black soils which predominate in
the counties studied in the Northern Great Plains. Colby silt loam
is the dominant type in this county.
Because of severe erosion the surface layer of the Colby soils in
this region is shallow. Much of the terrain occupied by Colby silt
loam is too rough for cultivation. It is used for pasture and supports
a good growth of nutritious grasses. The cultivated areas are used
for hay and feed crops, chiefly corn, alfalfa, and sweet clover.6 The
Holdrege soils, occupying much of south central Nebraska and north
central Kansas, also occur in this county. They are upland soils,
generally appearing in areas of level topography. In Sherman
County they are used for all crops which are commonly grown in
the area.7
In the dry-land areas of Goshen County, Wyo., the southeastern
portion of Perkins County, Nebr., and the eastern and north central
portions of Cheyenne County, Colo., the predominant soils are the
Rosebud series of the Dark-Brown group. Rosebud loam occupies
a level to rolling topography in Perkins County, the rolling portions
being used for pasture and hay production and the more level portions for com and wheat. 8 Rosebud silt loams and very fine sandy
loams in Goshen County occupy level to undulating topography.
The lighter type is best adapted to wheat production although barley
and potatoes are grown with a fair degree of success. Under proper
dry-land farming methods good yields of all the common dry-land
crops have been obtained on the silt loams, but under irrigation it
is probable that this soil would be a little more difficult to handle
than the fine sandy loam or fine sand types, such as are at present
under irrigation in this area. 9
Another body of soils classed as the Dawes series is also located
in Per~s County, generally occupying a flat to gently undulating
1 Brown, L. A., Gemmell, R. L., and Hayes, F. A., Soil Survey of Sherman
County, Nebraska, Series 1931, No. 5, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau
of Chemistry and Soils, Washington, D. C., 1934, pp. 19-21.
7 Ibid., pp. 17-18.
• Wolfanger, Louis A., Russom, V. M., and Strieter, E. H., Soil Survey of
Perkina County, Nebraska, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Soila,
Washington, D. C., 1924, pp. 899-906.
• Veatch, J. 0. and McClure, R. W., Soil Survey of the Fort Laramie Area,
Wyoming-Nebraska, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Soils, Washington, D. C., 1921, pp. 23-29.
Diq111zed bv
Goos IC
50 • FARMING HAZARDS IN THE DROUGHT AREA
terrain. The dominant type is a loam which is used both for pasture and for the production of wheat and corn. The smaller areas
of sandy loams are used primarily for the production of corn and
•
sorghums. 10
The Laurel series, usually sandy loams and fine sandy loams underlain by a bed of gravel, predominates in the valleys of the main
drainage channels throughout the Dark-Brown soils belt. In the
Fort Laramie area of Goshen County, Wyo., and the adjoining
Scotts Bluff County, Nebr., these soils are generally irrigated and
are used for the production of alfalfa, potatoes, sugar beets, and
sweet clover. 11
Climate
The climate of the Central Great Plains is characterized by wide
extremes of temperature, great variations in precipitation from
season to season and from year to year, much sunshine, dry air, and
considerable wind movement. Precipitation increases from west to
east, with the result that the climate of the western sections is usually
described as semiarid, whereas that of the Prairies Section is described as dry subhumid. The climate of the entire area can be said
to vary from year to year between arid and humid, with the arid years
occurring more frequently in the High Plains Section than in the
Prairies Section.
The length of growing season increases from the northwest to the
southeast (fig. 4, p. 11). At Fort Laramie, Wyo., in the northwestern
portion of the area, the average frost-free season is 124 days. At
Dodge City, Kans., in the southern part of the area. the average
frost-free season is 186 days.
Climatic conditions in the Loess Hills Area. of central Nebraska
are favorable to the production of grain and hay and the raising of
livestock. Cool moist spring weather favors the growth of small
grains. Summers are long with temperature sufficiently high to favor
the growth of corn. Annual precipitation averages about 25 inches,
with 81 percent occurring during the period from April through
September. Moisture is usually sufficient for crop production during
the critical spring and early summer months although short dry
periods sometimes occur in July and August.
In the western section, as typified by Goshen County in southeastern Wyoming, Perkins County in southwestern Nebraska, and
Cheyenne County in eastern Colorado, precipitation is less abundant
and more irregular than in the eastern section. In Goshen County,
Wyo., in the northwestern portion of the High Plains Section, annual
precipitation averages little more than 13 inches. About 75 percent
of that amount normally occurs during the period from April through
10
11
Wolfanger, Louis A., Russom, V. M., and Strieter, E. H., op. cit., pp. 907-911.
Veatch, J. O. and McClure, R. W., op. cit., pp. 44-46.
Digitized by
Goog Ie
THE CENTRAL GREAT PLAINS• 51
30
30
LO UP CIT Y, SHE RMAN COU NTY
NEBRASKA
20
20
10
10
0
1927
1928
1929
1930
19 31
1932
30
1933
1934
1935
1936
0
Nor m al
FT. LARAMIE, GOSHEN COUNTY
WYOMING
:
.,:;
u
.!: 20
[
.!:
.•
.,:;
u
.5
.5
C
C
.!:!
.!:!
~
·a
10 ·.;
~
·a
·.; 10
l
l
0
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
1936
0
Normol
30
30
CHEYENNE WELLS, CHEYENNE COUNTY
COLORADO
20
20
10
10
0
1927
F1G.
1928
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
1936
Normol
0
ll·NORMAL MONTHLY PRECIPITATION AND PRECIPITATION
BY MONTHS, SELECTED STATIONS IN THE
CENTRAL GREAT PLAINS
1927-1936
Source: U.S. Deportment of
Agriculture, Weather Bureau.
AF-2781, WPA
o gill 7 Pd by
Goog Ie
52 • FARMING HAZARDS IN THE DROUGHT AREA
September so that in years of normal precipitation the production of
small grains and drought-resistant, early-maturing feed crops is
possible. The short growing season restricts the production of com
for grain. Because of the low annual amounts and the extreme
variations in precipitation, only dry-land farming methods are practiced on nonirrigated benchlands. The production of such crops as
sugar beets and alfalfa is possible only where water is available for
irrigation.
Annual precipitation in Perkins County and in Cheyenne County
averages about 17-18 inches, with 78-79 percent occurring from
April through September. Crops favored by climatic conditions in
these portions of the High Plains are similar to those in Goshen
County, except that a longer growing season gives com and other
feed crops a better chance to mature. Crop production is more
stable in Perkins County than in Goshen County, but inCheyenne
County higher precipitation is offset by higher temperature, a greater
wind movement, and a higher rate of evaporation.
Rainfall has frequently been deficient during the critical spring
and early summer months (fig. 11). During the period from 1927
to 1936 it seems to have been deficient in Sherman County, Nebr.,
in 1929, 1931, 1933, 1934, and 1936; in Perkins County, Nebr., in
1931, 1933, 1934, and 1936; in Goshen County, Wyo., in 1928, 1931,
1934, and 1936; and in Cheyenne County, Colo., in 1929, 1931, 1932,
1934, 1935, and 1936.
Because of the frequent torrential character of the rainfall and the
subsequent runoff, amounts of precipitation do not always indicate
the moisture available for crops. However, precipitation and crop
yields show a high degree of correlation.
The period 1931-1934 was one of subnormal rainfall throughout
the Central Orea t Plains, and in many regions the lack of rainfall
was more serious in 1934 than in any other year from 1924 through
1936. Such periods of drought were not without precedent, however.
Early reports and precipitation records indicate that the years 18601863, 1874-1876, 1887-1890, 1893-1895, 1910-1914, 1916-1918, as
well as 1931-1936, were periods of general drought throughout the
entire area. The western portion was affected by an additional
period of drought from 1879 to 1882, and the eastern portion was
affected from 1924 to 1926 (fig. 12).
Annual precipitation was less than in 1934 in 14 of the 62 years for
which precipitation records are available at North Platte, Nebr.
{1875-1936); and during the 4-year period from 1893 to 1896 annual
precipitation averaged less than during the 4-year period from 1931
to 1934. At Cheyenne, Wyo., annual precipitation was less than in
1934 in 14 of the years from 1871 to 1936 for which records are available. During the 4-year period from 1886 to 1889 annual precipita-
Digitized by
Goog Ie
THE CENTRAL GREAT PLAINS• 53
~ Annual
precipitation
r:1 Grawino season precipitation
(j April - September
30
CHEYENNE , LARAM IE COUN TY
WYOMING
15
_§
10
10
l·a.
5
5
.§ 15
2
·a.
-~
a:
2
, 35
~ 30
NOR TH PLATTE, LI NCOL N COUNT Y
NEBRASKA
I
25
25
j
20 .!:
.!: 20
_§
-~
2
·a.
15
15
a:
10
10
·~
-~
ll.
5
5
0
2
·a.
0
0
oP
'
F1G.12-ANNUAL AND GROWING SEASON PRECIPITATION, SELECTED
STATIONS IN THE CENTRAL GREAT PLAINS
1900-1936
Source: US. Department of Agriculture, Weather Bureau.
AF-271&, WPA
tion at Fort La.ramie, Goshen County, Wyo., averaged only 65 percent of that from 1931 to 1934. At Dodge City, Kans., average annual
precipitation during the 4-year period 1916-1919 was less than that
from 1931 to 1934. Annual precipitation was less than in 1934,
however, in only 3 of the 62 years for which records are available
(1875-1936).
Population Movemenh as Alfeded by Precipitation
Precipitation, or lack of it, has caused frequent mass movements
of farmers in and out of the area. At the time of the original settlement of the Central Great Plains, information about the climate was
D gillzed by
R8A89 • -88------8
Google
54 • FARMING HAZARDS IN THE DROUGHT AREA
limited. The first wave that really populated the area was at its
height from 1883 to 1886, a period of above normal precipitation
throughout most of the area. Misled by the popular belief in the
migration of rainfall and encouraged by the Government, the press,
railroads, land companies, and various financial interests, settlers
moved into the area to stake out homestead tracts of 160 acres provided by the Government. Soon the farmers found that precipitation was normally limited and variable, and that their homesteads
were too small to provide a living. Many of the farmers moved out
of the area. The next period of ample rainfall, however, brought
other farmers into the region, only to go through the same experience.
Thus, the history of the occupation of the Central Great Plains is one
of alternating advance and recession. 12
After 1895, however, emigration during droughts was less noticeable
than during earlier periods. As the requirements of the area became
apparent, the value of larger holdings was realized, and the Government in its later Homestead Acts provided for 320- and 640-acre
tracts. Moreover, precipitation from 1895 to 1909 was relatively
high and reasonably stable so that during that period the settlers had
an opportunity not only to adapt their farm organization to the area
but also to acquire reserves and to prepare themselves for less productive periods.
·
Ford County, Kans., illustrates the history of the occupation of the
Central Great Plains. During a relatively humid period the population increased from an average of 0.77 person per square mile in 1883
to 8.86 persons per square mile in 1887, while the farm population 13
increased from an average of 2.80 persons per square mile in 1885 to
5.32 persons in 1887. During the dry period from 1887 to 1890 the
farm population declined to an average of 2.98 persons per square
mile in 1891 and increased in 1892 and 1893 after the drought was
broken. From 1893 to 1895, another period of drought, the farm
population declined to a point slightly less than that of 1885. After
1895 the farm population of Ford County increased more uniformly
than in the preceding decade although periods of drought were usually
accompanied, or immediately followed, either by a decline in population or by a period in which the increase in population was retarded.
Each year from 1895 to 1932 tha·t the annual precipitation at Dodge
City fell below 17 inches, the farm population of Ford County remained stationary for a year or declined. In all other years it increased, the average annual increase during the 37-year period being
0.14 person per square mile.
12 See Taeuber, Conrad and Taylor, Carl C., The People of the Drought States,
Research Bulletin Series V, No. 2, Division of Social Research, Works Progress
Administration, Washington, D. C., 1937.
11 County population, less that of villages and towns.
Biennial Reports, Kansas
State Board of Agriculture, Topeka, Kans.
Digitized by
Goog Ie
THE CENTRAL GREAT PLAINS• 55
Causa of Crop Damage
Drought was reported as the most frequent cause of crop damage
throughout the Central Great Plains in the experience of the farmers
interviewed (table 12 and appendix table 27). Because of the inclusion
of reports from farmers whose experience does not extend prior to the
recent period of drought, however, it is probable that in most of the
selected counties the importance of drought as a cause of crop damage
was overemphasized.
Table 12.-Percent of Years 1 Different Causes of Crop Damage Were Reported on
Selected Farms in Representative Counties in the Central Great Plains
Percent of years de.ma,e was reported
Col!Dty
Drought
SberrnBD_______________________
Perkins:
Loam sootlon ___ -·-··-----Sandy IOlllll section _________
Goshen:
lrrll(Rted aecllon ___________
ls onirriimted section _____ ..
Cheyenne __________________ ---1
For length of record -
Soil
blowIng
Hall
Imects
Rust
Exoosslft
preoipltalion
Frost
--------- ------ --45
II
6
5
2
2
2
47
38
21
15
12
10
6
4
17
6
3
II
8
14
2i
52
15
8
2
11
15
7
20
6
5
7
II
g
4
3
21
-
2
1
11
appendix table 27.
Selected farmers in Sherman County, Nebr., estimated that their
crops had been damaged by drought more than 3 years out of 7, the
damage being slight 1 year in 5, serious 1 year in 6 or 7, and total I
year in 12. Farmers in the loam section of Perkins County, Nebr.,
reported a more serious situation. They estimated that crop damage
by drought had occurred almost one-half of the years. Those in the
sandy loam section of the county estimated that it had occurred about
2 years out of 5. In both the loam and the sandy loam sections
total damage to crops by drought occurred about 1 year in 7 or 8.
Crop damage by drought was reported as having occurred about 1
year in 7 in the irrigated section of Goshen County, Wyo., and 1 year
in 3 or 4 in the nonirrigated section. Damage in the irrigated section
of Goshen County was due partly to inadequate supplies of irrigation
water Hand partly to the operation of some nonirrigated cropland in
the irrigated section. In Cheyenne County, Colo., crop damage by
drought was reported as occurring in more than one-half of the years.
16 Reports from managers of the various irrigation projects in Goshen County
show that the supply of irrigation water in the Horse Creek and Torrington
Districts was maintained at normal or near normal levels in 1934. But in the
Goshen District in the western part of the irrigated section, the supply of water
available for irrigating some 45,000 acres of land had declined from an average of
about 3.0 feet per acre during the 11-year period 1922-1932 to 2.0 feet tn 1933
and to 0.6 foot in 1934. About one-third of the relief clients and rehabilitation
applicants in Goshen County in 1935 were located in the irrigated portion where
supplies of irrigation water were low in 1934.
D gillzed by
Google
56 • FARMING HAZARDS IN THE DROUGHT AREA
Hail was second only to drought as a cause of crop damage in all of
the areas surveyed with the exception of Goshen County. Serious
damage from hail was not the general rule, however, since destructive
hailstorms are usually confined to rather narrow belts. Some damage
to crops as a result of hail occurred 1 year in 5 in Cheyenne County
and in the loam section of Perkins County and 1 year in 6 or 7 in the
sandy loam section of Perkins County and in the irrigated section of
Goshen County.
Damage to crops from soil blowing occurred only about 1 year in
17 in Sherman County, but at the other extreme it was reported about
1 year in 6 or 7 in the nonirrigated section of Goshen County. In
limited areas, such as the western portion of Goshen County, erosion
is so severe that land is being retired from crop production (fig. 3,
p. 9). Farmers on relief in the nonirrigated section of the county in
1935 were concentrated in areas where it had been recommended that
at least part of the farm land be retired from cultivation.
Insects, primarily grasshoppers, were another major cause of crop
damage in the loam section of Perkins County and in the irrigated
section of Goshen County, but in the other selected areas damage from
this source occurred less than 1 year in 10.
Frost was most destructive in the northwestern part of the area
where the growing season is shortest. Because of the adaptation of
crops to the area, however, damage by frost was infrequent, occurring
less than 1 year in 10 in the irrigated section of Goshen County and in
the sandy loam section of Perkins County, the two areas in which it
was most important as a cause of crop damage.
Occasional damage to small grains by rust, and to other crops by
excessive precipitation, was reported throughout the area.
CROP YIELDS
Precipitation, more than any other factor, has controlled crop
production in the Central Great Plains. Average crop yields decrease
with precipitation from east to west; but variable precipitation, combined with other factors affecting plant growth, has frequently caused
wide departures from average yields (table 13 and appendix table 28).
County yields of important crops have closely approximated those
in the type-of-farming area in which each representative county is
located. Com has yielded the highest quantity of feed per acre in
central and southwestern Nebraska, represented by Sherman County,
and its yields have varied little more than those of other crops. In
the nonirrigated sections of southeastern Wyoming, represented by
Goshen County, wheat yields have been more stable than those of
com. In the irrigated sections both com and wheat yields have been
high as well as relatively stable, hut these crops have been largely
Digitized by
Goog Ie
Twenty Bushels From Thirty-eight Acres!
o g,t, 7 f'd by
Goog Ie
. .....
.,
Digitized by
Goog Ie
THE CENTRAL GREAT PLAINS •
57
replaced by sugar beets and alfalfa. In western Kansas and eastern
Colorado, represented by Cheyenne County, com yields have been
higher than wheat yields, but the com yields have been more variable
(appendix table 29).
To&le 13.-Average Yield per Harvested Acre of Important Crops in Representative
Counties in the Central Great Plains, 1910-1932
1
Average yield per harvested acre (bushels)
County
Wheat
Sherman••••••.•..........•............................
Perkins ••••••••••••••..•........•......................
Ooshen ...•••••.......•..............•...•••...........
Cheyenne •••••••..•••••••••••••....••.•••.•....•.••••..
1
14. 3
13. 0
13. 6
9. 1
Barley
22. 2
22.0
17. I
12. 7
Oats
25. 7
23.0
26. 7
15. 7
Corn
22. 4
20.3
111.3
13.0
For :,ears data were not available see appendix table 28.
Roureee: Ann1utl Rer,ort,,. NebrsskR State Board or Agriculture, Lincoln, Nebr., 1913--1922; N,bra•ka
AgricuJtural Sl'lli•tiu, bepartment or Agriculture, Lincoln, Nebr., 1923-1932; W1,1ominq AgricvJtural Slatulica, State Department or Agriculture, Cheyenne, Wyo., 1923-111.12; and Yearboou of tht State of Cowrado,
State Board of Immigration, Denver, Colo., 11118--1933.
Estimates of farmers 16 interviewed in this study show that crop
failures and poor yields have occurred less frequently in the eastern
than in the western part of the area. In Sherman County, Nebr., for
example, the farmers estimated that failures of wheat, com, and oats
had occurred only 1 year in 8 or 9 and poor yields only 1 year in every
5, whereas the farmers in Cheyenne County, Colo., estimated that
wheat failures had occurred more than 3 years out of 7, com failures
more than 3 years out of 10, and oats failures more than one-half of
the years (appendix table 30).
During the period of subnormal rainfall from 1931 to 1933 crop
yields reported by selected farmers failed to approximate the long-time
average in any of the counties studied except Sherman County, Nebr.,
and the irrigated section of Goshen County, Wyo. (appendix table 31).
Together with the cumulative effects of this period, the deficiencies in
precipitation and the abnormally high temperatures in 1934 brought
crop yields in that year to new lows.
11 The farmers tended to report higher crop yields than were reported by the
8tate agricultural statisticians, but average yields calculated from the farmers'
estimates of good and poor yields and their frequency of occurrence corresponded
rather closely with the county averages (table 13 and appendix table 30). The
most notable exception to this was the farmers' estimates in Cheyenne County,
Colo., which indicated yields of wheat and oats considerably smaller than the
county average. However, their estimates showed failures or poor yields of both
wheat and oats three-fifths of the years. In all other instances the farmers'
estimates of yields were actually higher than the 8tate statisticians' reports 11ince
the latter were on a harvested-acre basis while the former were more nearly on a
seeded-acre basis.
Digitized by
Goog Ie
58 • FARMING HAZARDS IN THE DROUGHT AREA
ORGANIZATION OF FARMS
AB in the N orthem Great Plains, the organization of many farms in
the Central Great Plains is not well adapted to the natural conditions
of the area. Many farms are too small, too much acreage has been
placed in cash crops, and livestock numbers are sometimes inadequate.
The 1934 drought, following several years of deficient rainfall, furthered these weaknesses by forcing farmers to reduce their livestock
inventories.
Size of Operating Unit
In the Central Great Plains, particularly in the High Plains Section,
areas have been classified by State land use consultants as containing
many farms too small for profitable operation. The 160-acre farm,
the size of the original homestead tracts, is the most frequent size in
Sherman County, Nebr., and in the irrigated section of Goshen County,
Wyo. In the nonirrigated section of Goshen County, Wyo., and in
Cheyenne County, Colo., the 320-acre farm is the most frequent size.
In Perkins County, Nebr., much of which was settled during the
operation of the Kincaid Act, 16 the 640-acre farm is the most prevalent
size.
In this study it was found that selected farmers on the smaller
farms had usually been operating at a loss, as indicated by their
estimates of assets and liabilities when they began farming in the area,
by additions to or deductions from their business, and by their assets
and liabilities in 1935 (appendix table 32). Exceptions were found
only in the sandy loam section of Perkins County and the irrigated
section of Goshen County. It must be remembered, however, that
the records indicate the brighter side of the picture, as they represent
only survivors. An unknown number of farmers had given up farming and had left the area.
The records of selected farmers indicate that in Sherman County
a form of 360 acres is necessary for profitable operation. On the
avernge, only the farmers operating farms of this size reported that
they hnd been able to increase their cnpitnl since they began farming
in the area (appendix table 32). Yet data secured from com-hog
contracts representing 1,097 farms (appendix table 34) and from 57
selected farms, avernging about the same size as all farms in the
county, 17 indicate that about one-half of the farms in Sherman County
in 1934 were less t.lwn 200 acres in size and that only one-fourth to
one-t.hird of the farms were 280 acres or larger.
In Perkins County the consensus of the 73 farmers interviewed was
that a 400-acre farm was the minimum usually necessary to provide an
15 The Kincaid Act of 1904 provided for homesteads of 640 acres in we.'>tern
Nebraska.
17 The 1935 Census of Agriculture reported 1,444 farms in Sherman County
with an average size of 242 acres; the average size of the farms rPprei<entcd by
corn-hog centracts was 248 acres and that of the sl•lccted farms was 241 acres.
Digitized by
Goog Ie
THE CENTRAL GREAT PLAINS • 59
adequate family income. In the sandy loam section farmers on all
sizes of farms had been able on the average to increase their capital
since farming in the area, but in the loam section the operation of ·
less than 400 acres was unprofitable (appendix table 32). Yet data
from com-hog contracts representing 798 farms, averaging about the
same size as those enumerated in the census, 18 showed that 22 percent
of the farms were less than 281 acres in size and 24 percent were
between 281 and 440 acres (appendix table 34).
In Goshen County many of the farmers in the irrigated section
were of the opinion that 80 or 90 acres were sufficient to provide an
adequate family living, but the consensus among farmers in the
nonirrigated section was that 640 acres should be the minimum size of
an operating unit. Farmers on acreages of all sizes in the irrigated
section had been able on the average to increase their capital since
they began farming in the area. In the nonirrigated section the operation of less than 281 acres was unprofitable on the average (appendix
table 32). Of the farms with com-hog contracts, 41 percent in this
section were 460 acres or smaller in size (appendix table 34). In the
irrigated section 23 percent of the farms with corn-hog contracts had
only 100 acres or less, while 58 percent were between 101 and 280
acres 1n size.
In Cheyenne County almost all of the selected farmers estimated
that 640 acres were necessary to afford profitable operation. On
second-grade land only the group operating 720 acres or more had
been able to show capital increases, and on the third-grade land the
operation of less than 400 acres, exclusive of free range utilized, was
unprofitable. Production control contract data show that 54 percent
of the corn-hog contract farms were 440 acres or smaller in size and of
the 56 selected farms 24 were less than 560 acres in size, 19
On the other hand, the largest farms in all areas reported that
their normal incomes were sufficient to meet expenses. More large
than small farms in most sections normally earned incomes sufficient
18 The 1935 Census of Agriculture reported 958 farms in Perkins County, Nebr,,
with an average size of 566 acres; the farms with corn-hog contracts averaged
577 acres each.
19 In both Goshen and Cheyenne Counties the average size of the production
control contract farms and of the selected farms is not comparable to that of all
farms enumerated by the 1935 Census of Agriculture, owing to the fact that
these data exclude large ranches which are included in the census data. The
census reported 1,538 farms in Goshen County, averaging 770 acres in size; the
production control data represented 175 farms in the irrigated section of the
county, averaging 201 acres, and 395 farms in the nonirrigated section, averaging
724 acres; of the 72 selected farms, those in the irrigated section averaged 276
acres and those in the nonirrigated section averaged 959 acres. In Cheyenne
County the census reported 671 farms, averaging 764 acres, whereas the average
size of 397 corn-hog contract farms was 548 acres and that of 56 selected farms
was 666 acres.
rng,ttzedoyGoogle
60 • FARMING HAZARDS IN THE DROUGHT AREA
to increase their capital {appendix table 24). They had experienced
fewer years when their incomes were not sufficient to meet their
· expenses or to reduce their indebtedness.
Size of Relief Clients' Farms
The average size of farm operated by the relief clients in all of the
selected counties was smaller than that operated by the selected
farmers.
The average size of farm operated by the relief clients in Perkins
County was only 212 acres as compared with a county average of 566
acres. The majority of the relief clients were operating 180 acres
or less. In Goshen County the relief farmers were concentrated in
~
0
COUNTY
100
II
Relief clients
200
300
Acres
400
All farmers ,cc
500
600
700
800
Sherman
Perkins
Goshen
Cheyenne
FIG. 13-AVERAGE SIZE OF FARM OPERATED BY RELIEF CLIENTS
AND BY ALL FARMERS IN REPRESENTATIVE COUNTIES
IN THE CENTRAL GREAT PLAINS
1935
* United States Census of Agriculture: /935.
localities where small forms predominated. In Cheyenne County the
farms operated by relief clients averaged only 403 acres as compared
with a county average of 764 acres.
In Sherman County the difference was not great, the average size
of farm operated by the relief clients being 200 acres as compared
with a county average of 241 acres (fig. 13 and appendix table 33).
Two-thirds of the relief clients, however, were operating farms of
180 acres or less.
Use of Land
Throughout the Central Great Plains, where soils and topography
are at all suitable for crop production, the land is generally utilized
as cropland. Where the topography is too rough for the convenient
Digitized by
Goog Ie
THE CENTRAL GREAT PLAINS• 61
use of machinery, or where the soils are not adapted to crop production either because of their nature or because of damage by erosion,
the land is commonly utilized for grazing.
Much of the acreage in cropland should, in the interest of soil
conservation, be shifted to permanent pasture. This is true on many
farms, both large and small, but particularly on the small operating
units where the proportion of the farm land that is used as cropland
is usually higher than on the large operating units.
The proportion of farm land devoted to crops in 1934 amounted
to 73 percent in Perkins County and 60 percent in Sherman County,
according to census figures, 20 but only 34 percent cf the farm land in
Cheyenne County and only 25 percent of that in Goshen County was
used for crops. A preponderance of rolling land and limited precipitation restricted the possibilities for crop production in the latter
county. In the northern part of the county, for instance, 73 percent
of the land area was in farms and 90 percent of the farm land was in
pasture. In the irrigated section, however, the major portion of the
land was in crops, as indicated by corn-hog contracts representing
175 farms in the central or irrigated section. They show that in
1934, 60 percent of the farm land in that section was used as cropland and 32 percent as native pasture. In the nonirrigated or dryfarming section in the southern part of the county, however, only 37
percent of the farm land was used as cropland and 60 percent was
used as pasture (appendix table 34).
Data from the representative farmers in the irrigated section of
Goshen County indicate a somewhat smaller proportion of the fa.rm
land used as cropland and a larger proportion used as pasture than
that shown by the com-hog contracts. In the nonirrigated section
they reported a slightly higher proportion of the farm land used as
cropland and a slightly lower proportion used as pasture than that
shown by the com-hog contracts (appendix table 35).
In Goshen County 52 percent of the land farmed by selected farmers
in the irrigated section was owned by the operators, 28 percent was
share-rented, and 20 percent was cash-rented. In the nonirrigated
section 58 percent of the land operated was owned by the operators,
21 percent was share-rented, and 21 percent was cash-rented. In
both sections the major portion of the share-rented land was used
as cropland, while the major portion of the cash-rented land was used
as pasture. The proportion of the owned land that was used as
pasture was higher in the nonirrigated than in the irrigated section
(fig. 14 and appendix table 36).
In Sherman County data from 57 selected farmers and from comhog contracts representing 1,097 farms (table 14 and appendix tables
to Bureau of the Census, United States Census of Agriculture: 1935, U. S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D. C.
01g11i
ro hy
Goog Ie
62 • FARMING HAZARDS IN THE DROUGHT AREA
lllllll Cropland
~ Hoy and posture
~ Other
Percent
COUNTY
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90 100
SHERMAN
PERKINS
Loom section
Sandy loom section
GOSHEN
Irrigated section
Nonirrigated section
CHEYENNE Second•grode land
Third• grade land
FIG.14-UTILIZATION OF LAND ON SELECTED FARMS IN
REPRESENTATIVE COUNTIES IN THE
CENTRAL GREAT PLAINS
1934
AF• 2699, WPA
34 and 35) indicate that in 1934, 58 or 59 percent of the farm land
was cropland, 30 or 31 percent was native pasture, and 6 or 7 percent
was native hay. Of the land operated, less than one-fourth was
owned by the operator, one-fourth was cash-rented, and over one-half
was share-rented (fig. 14 and appendix table 36). Approximately
two-thirds of the land owned by the operator, seven-tenths of the
share-rented land, and three-tenths of the cash-rented land were
used as cropland.
Ta&/e 14.-Utilization of Land on Selected Farms in Representative Counties in the
Central Great Plains, 1934
A vernge number or acres per farm
County
Number
or ranns
reporting
Total
Cropland
Native gn,ss Former Farm•
stea,l
croJ.>and
Hay Pasture land
waste
--- ------ ---- -Sherman .•....••..•...•......................
Perkins:
Loam section .... _..................... .
Sandy loam section ..••.•.•..........•. .
Goshen:
Irri~eted section .... _.......•............
Nonirrig•ted section .••.•....•...........
Cheyenne ........................... . ....•...
57
241
144
15
7t
8
36
714
588
465
1
3
9t
31
126
JO
15
122
410
3
120
7
I
505
3IO
17
24
26
22
37
619
29
276
43
959
666
66
327
7
In Cheyenne County corn-hog contracts representing 397 farms
indicate that even in the farming sections of the county little more
than one-half of the farm land wns used as cropland and most of the
remainder as pasture. Use of farm lnnd by selected farmers was
Digitized by
Goog Ie
THE CENTRAL GREAT PLAINS • 63
similar to that shown by the com-hog contracts {appendix table 34).
The proportion of the total land used by them as cropland ranged
from 60 percent on farms of less than 400 acres to 46 percent on farms
of 720 acres or more, and averaged 49 percent for all farms. The
proportion used as pasture ranged from 35 percent on the smaller
farms to 51 percent on those of 720 acres or more and averaged 4 7
percent for all farms. On both the second- and third-grade land
approximately two-fifths of the land operated was owned by the
operators, more than one-half was share-rented, and less than onetenth was cash-rented. The use of both the owned and the sharerented land was rather evenly distributed between cropland and hay
and pasture land. Most of the cash-rented land was used as pasture.
In Perkins County, Nebr., data from corn-hog contracts representing 798 farms indicate that in 1934, 74 percent of the fa.rm land was
used as cropland, 1 percent as native hay, and 19 percent as native
pasture. The proportion of the farm in cropland and in native hay
or pasture was nearly the same for groups of different sized farms up
to 880 acres, but on the larger farms the proportion of the farm land
in pasture was greater than on the smaller farms. The selected
farmers in the grain-producing section in the northwestern part of
Perkins County had more cropland and less pasture than did those
in the sandy loam section of the southeast. In both sections more
than two-fifths of the land operated was owned by the operator,
one-half was share-rented, and one-tenth was cash-rented. Most of
the owned and share-rented land was used as cropland, but nearly
one-half of the cash-rented land in the loam section and seven-tenths
of the cash-rented land in the sandy loam section were used as pasture
{appendix table 36).
Com occupied the highest percentage of the cropland on the selected
forms in 1934 in Sherman and Cheyenne Counties and in the sandy
loam section of Perkins County (appendix table 37). Wheat occupied
the highest percentage of the cropland in the loam section of Perkins
County and in the nonirrigated section of Goshen County, while
sugar beets and alfalfa were the most important crops, as measured
by the acreage occupied, in the irrigated section of Goshen County.
In Sherman County com was grown on all of the selected farms
in 1934, oats on nearly all, and wheat and barley on about one-half
of the farms. Alfalfa was reported on nearly all of the large farms.
Com occupied a higher percentage of the cropland on the small than
on the large farms.
In Perkins County corn was grown on all of the selected farms in the
sandy loam section and on nearly all of the selected farms in the loam
section, but it occupied a higher percentage of the cropland in the
former section. The opposite was true of wheat, which was grown on
nearly all farms in both sections but occupied a higher percentage of
Digitized by
Goog Ie
64 • FARMING HAZARDS IN THE DROUGHT AREA
the cropland in the loam section. Feed crops were grown on most of
the farms in both sections. Barley and oats were grown on most of
the farms in the loam section but on less than one-half of the farms
in the sandy loam section. Summer fallow was the usual practice in
the loam section, but it was limited primarily to the larger farms in
the sandy loam section.
In the nonirrigated section of Goshen County both corn and wheat
were grown on three-fourths of the selected farms in 1934. Wheat,
however, occupied 37 percent of the cropland, whereas corn occupied
only 12 percent. Barley and oats were grown on less than one-half
and sorghums on less than one-fifth of the farms. Summer fallow
practices were followed on about one-half of the farms, primarily the
larger units. About one-fourth of all cropland was fallowed in 1934.
In the irrigated section of Goshen County both sugar beets and
alfalfa hay were grown on nearly all of the farms in 1934, each occupying more than one-fourth of the cropland. Barley was grown on
more than two-thirds of the farms and oats and potatoes on nearly
three-fifths. Corn was grown only on the smaller farms.
In Cheyenne County corn and sorghums for feed were grown on
nearly all and barley on about two-fifths of the farms. Only 2 of
the 56 selected farmers had wheat and only 2 had land that was being
summer fallowed.
The drought of 1934 had not greatly affected the proportion of
acres seeded to different crops in the selected counties of the Central
Great Plains. Except for a reduction in corn acreage in 1934, no
marked departure from established to emergency crops had been
made during the period 1930-1934 (appendix table 38). It is probable
that much of the corn acreage reduction was due to the crop adjustment program of the Agricultural Adjustment Administration.
Livatoclc
As in the Northern Great Plains, cattle was normally the most
important livestock enterprise in the Central Great Plains (appendix
table 39). Range livestock was of particular importance in the sandy
loam section of Perkins County and in Cheyenne County. Hogs
were an important enterprise only in Sherman and Perkins Counties.
Poultry flocks, normally averaging 100 birds or more, were reported
by most of the farmers interviewed.
In the Central Great Plains as a whole reductions from normal as a
result of drought were more drastic for hogs than for any other class
of livestock (appendix table 39). The total number of hogs was
reduced two-thirds or more in all of the selected areas except the
irrigated section of Goshen County. The number of brood sows was
reduced as drastically as the number of all hogs in the representative
counties with the exception of Sherman County.
THE CENTRAL GREAT PLAINS •
65
In general, feed loans had enabled most farmers to maintain the
major portion of their cattle herds, including a nucleus for breeding
operations. Milk cows were maintained at normal levels in both sections of Perkins County and in the irrigated section of Goshen County.
They had been reduced only slightly in Cheyenne County. The
greatest reduction in cattle had been made in Sherman County where
the number of milk cows had been reduced from an average of 10 to 7
per farm, and the number of all cattle from an average of 22 to 15
per farm.
Reduction of beef herds was generally greater than that of milk
herds. In the areas where cattle herds were an important enterprise,
however, the numbers of beef cows or of other cattle maintained were
usually sufficient to rebuild the herds in a relatively short time.
Numbers of poultry reported on April 1, 1935, were generally about
one-fifth to one-third lower than normal. Sheep production was not
an important enterprise in any of the selected areas, but in all counties
where sheep were reported, the numbers on April 1, 1935, were normal
or above. Work stock had not been reduced materially in any of
the counties.
Although sufficient stock remained in the counties as a whole to
rebuild the various classes of livestock to normal numbers, individual
farmers needed assistance in restoring livestock. In all of the selected
areas some farmers had disposed of nearly all of their livestock by
April 1, 1935 (appendix table 40). In Sherman County 12 of the 57
selected farmers had no brood sows and 22 had no other hogs; 2 farmers
had no milk cows, 3 had no chickens, and 1 farmer had no work stock.
More than one-third of the farmers had less than 6 milk cows, twofifths had 10 or less head of all classes of cattle, more than one-half
had 3 or less brood sows, and three-tenths had 50 or less chickens. In
the other counties more largely dependent on crops, the proportions of
farmers without milk cows or brood sows were somewhat larger.
From 1 in 18 to 1 in 5 had no milk cows, and from 2 out of 3 to 2 out
of 5 had no brood sows.
Except in Sherman County relief clients had much smaller numbers
of livestock than did the selected farmers (appendix tables 33 and
39). The differences were especially marked in Perkins and Goshen
Counties.
Use of Labor and Machinery
Lack of labor was not in general an important factor in limiting the
size of farms in the Central Great Plains (appendix table 41). The
smaller farms were using about the same amount of labor as some of
the larger farms. In Cheyenne County, for example, the amount of
labor regularly employed on the 320-acre farms was approximately
the same as that used on the 480-acre farms, and in Sherman County
the amount of labor regularly used on the 160-acre farms was approxi-
o g,t, 7 Pd by
Goog Ie
66 • FARMING HAZARDS IN THE DROUGHT AREA
mately the same as that used on the 240-acre farms. In all areas the
larger farms required more extra harvest labor in years of good crop
yields than did the smaller farms, but with the use of larger equipment
general on the larger farms, such a. difference was usually not great.
In the irrigated section of Goshen County, however, where intensive farming is practiced, the 160-acre farms were using approximately
one-sixth more regularly employed labor and a. great deal more extra
hired labor than were the 80-acre farms. In most of the selected areas
in the Central Great Plains one man could operate a. 160-acre farm
without help and a. 320-acre farm with some help during the seeding
and harvesting seasons. A 160-acre farm in the irrigated section of
Goshen County, however, would require the labor of two men, plus
extra. hired labor during the beet and haying seasons.
The average estimated value of machinery ranged from $249 on
tenant-operated farms in the nonirrigated section of Goshen County
to $1,815 on owner-operated farms in the loam section of Perkins
County. In general, the average investment in machinery was lowest
in the com producing areas and highest in the small grain areas
(appendix table 47).
Fann Buildln91
Farm buildings in Perkins and Sherman Counties and in the irrigated section of Goshen County were generally adequate. Minor
building repairs were needed on many farms, but rehabilitation of
most farmers would not require a. large cash expenditure for farm
improvements. Where expansion of livestock enterprises was desirable, however, some additional farm buildings might be necessary.
The average estimated value of all farm buildings in these counties
ranged from $2,583 per farm in the irrigated section of Goshen County
to $4,142 per farm in the loam section of Perkins County. The average
estimated cost per farm of all building repairs needed ranged from
$51 in the irrigated section of Goshen County to $270 in Sherman
County (table 15 and appendix table 42).
To&le 15.-Average Value of Farm Buildings and Estimated Cost of Needed Repairs per
Farm on Selected Farms in Representative Counties in the Central Great Plains, 1935
County
Number
of farms
reporting
Value of bufldlngs
Total
Dwelling
Cost of needed reJ)Rirs
Other
Total
Dwelling Other
--- --- --- --- -------Sherman _____ .......•. ___ •• ____ ..
Perkins:
Loam section ......... _. _.....
Sandy foam section. ___ ._ ....
Goshen:
Irrigated section ............ . .
Non irrigate•! section .........
Cheyenne......................
57
$2,692
$1,314
$1,278
$270
$117
$153
~e
4,142
1,11-13
1,305
2,499
1,765
811
li2
36
53
70
1, 1119
6M
1,384
1149
1,2\H
61
37
HI
104
96
~
62
62
37
a, o~o
29
2, 58.1
1,604
2,043
43
56
7b2
Digitized by
102
Goog Ie
14
l Vc,rb P rogru s A<l ml11i8l rt1 t io11 .
A Typical Bar11yard.
Digitized by
Google
Digitized by
Google
THE CENTRAL GREAT PLAINS • 6 7
On the other hand, farm buildings were inadequate in Cheyenne
County and in some portions of the nonirrigated section of Goshen
County. The average estimated value in 1935 of all fa.rm buildings
was only $1,604 per fa.rm in the nonirrigated section of Goshen County
and only $2,043 in Cheyenne County. Moreover, approximately
two-filths of the total value of farm buildings in both sections was
represented by dwellings. The average estimated cost per farm of all
building repairs needed was $141 in the nonirrigated section of Goshen
County and $104 in Cheyenne County.
INDEBTEDNESS
Real-estate mortgages and taxes place a heavy burden on the fa.rm
owners of the Central Great Plains (appendix table 47). A few of the
owners in the counties studied reported no real-estate indebtedness
but, in general, real-estate mortgages, averaging from more than onethird to more than one-half of the estimated value of all owneroperated farms, represented the chief source of owners' indebtedness.
Chattel mortgages, the tenant-operators' largest source of indebtedness, were reported by most of the tenants and by most of the owneroperators as well. Indebtedness for crop and feed loans was not so
serious in this region as in other parts of the drought area. in 1935.
The meaning of mortgages and taxation to the farmers in the
Central Great Plains may be exemplified by a hypothetical case.
A 160-acre farm in Sherman County, Nebr., with a nominal mortgage
of $5,000 and assessed at the usual rates would have an annual fixed
charge of $300 for interest and $60 for taxes. An average com yield of
22 bushels, if worth only 50 cents a bushel, would provide a gross
return of $11 an acre. At that rate 33 acres of the crop, or half that
normally produced on the usual 160-acre farm, would be required to
meet these fixed charges. In 1934 the entire cash income received on
the average 160-acre farm, including that received from the various
governmental agencies, was little more than enough to meet these
fixed charges.
Real-Estate lndebtedn-
From 26 to 41 percent of all land in the representative counties of
the Central Great Plains was mortgaged in 1935, according to mortgages of record taken from the county registration books. From 3 to
9 percent of the land carried more than one mortgage.
The average indebtedness per acre ranged from $4.43 in Cheyenne
County, where a Ii ttle more than one-fourth of the land was mortgaged,
to $29.10 in Sherman County, where two-fifths of the acreage was
mortgaged (table 16).
·
Because of depreciation in land values the ratio of indebtedness to
valuation had nearly doubled between 1930 and 1935, although indebtedness per acre in 1935 was slightly lower than that reported by the
D1011,zed hy
Goog Ie
68 • FARMING HAZARDS IN THE DROUGHT AREA
census for all full owner-operators in 1930. 21 In some of the counties
in 1935 a number of the farmers must have been carrying an indebtedness approximately equal to, or higher than, the estimated value of
their farms.
To&le 16.-Acreage Mortgaged and Average Indebtedness per Acre, Mortgages of
Record in Representative Counties in the Central Great Plains, 1935
Number or arrp.s mort•
gaged
Percent or nll land
mortga~ed
A ~Prn2e
- - - ~ - - - 1 · - - - - - - - I indebted•
nes.-. P&
County
Sherman ..•..•.•...•......................
Perkins .......................•.••.........
Goshen .....•...•.•.......•....••........ . .
Cheyenne ................................ .
First
mortgage
Other
mortgage
Flr,,t
mortgage
Other
mortgage
150, fl9-I
19'l, 4i8
26,210
49, 8L'i
89,593
20,427
41
34
35
7
9
47◄ •
5m
293, 52'l
211
7
I
3
acre
$29. IO
14. 65
5. 44
4.43
Private individuals, corporations, and the Federal Land Bank held
most of the first mortgages (appendix table 43). The Federal Land
Bank Commissioner held most of the second mortgages. In Perkins
and Cheyenne Counties, where many former private and corporate
loans had been refinanced, the Federal Land Bank held almost twofifths of the first mortgages. The usual interest rate on mortgages was
between 5 and 6 percent.
Crop and Feed Loam
On December 31, 1934, the unpaid balance of 1934 crop and feed
loans ranged from $6,790 in Cheyenne County to $57,623 in Goshen
County (appendix table 44). On February 28, 1935, the unpaid balance of 1934-1935 feed loans ranged from $26,446 in Perkins County
to $290,128 in Sherman County. Combined, these outstanding loans
averaged from $39 per farm in Perkins County to $206 per farm in
Sherman County.
Although not so extensive as in many parts of the Great Plains
drought area, these loans represent a financial burden which mt.st be
considered in any attempt to rehabilitate the farmers.
Taxation and Tax Delinquencies
Taxes remained delinquent in May 1935 on 17 percent of the land
area in Perkins County and on 28 percent of the land area in Cheyenne
County. In some instances they had been delinquent for 4 years or
more. Taxes for the year 1933 became delinquent on approximately
one-fourth of the land area in Sherman County and on more than twofifths of the land area in Goshen County. Most of these delinquencies had been paid by 1935. The payment of taxes did not always
mean that the farmer was in a relatively strong financial position since
11 Bureau of the Census, Fifteenth Census of the United States: 1930, Agriculture
Vol. II, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D. C., 1932.
Digitized by
Goog Ie
THE CENTRAL GREAT PLAINS •
69
in many cases delinquent taxes had been redeemed by holders of
mortgages on the land. The redemption of taxes by the mortgage
holder meant an increase in the farmer's indebtedness and financial
burden even though it might not necessarily imply an impending
foreclosure.
The rate of taxation varied among counties throughout the area
and among school districts within each county. The assessed valuation varied within each county, depending on soil, use of land, location,
and improvements. The usual real-estate tax in 1934 was approximately $60 for a 160-acre farm in Sherman County. It was $135 for
a 640-acre farm in Perkins County, $60 for a 320-acre farm in Cheyenne County, and $45 for a 320-acre farm in the dry-farming section
of Goshen County. The usual tax in Goshen County on a 160-acre
irrigated farm with 100 acres of irrigated land and 60 acres of dryfarming land was approximately $110.
Relief Cllenb' lndebtedn-
ln all of the counties studied the average indebtedness reported
by both the owner-operators and the tenant-operators who were receiving relief was smaller than that reported by the selected farmers
(appendix tables 45 and 47). Indebtedness of owner-operators, and
to a lesser degree that of tenant-operators, corresponded to the size
of farm operated. Real-estate mortgages usually represented a
smaller proportion, and chattel mortgages and other debts a larger
proportion, of the indebtedness of owner-operators on relief than of
those selected for study. Chattel mortgages usually represented a
smaller proportion of the indebtedness of tenant-operators on relief
than of those selected for study.
Statements of assets and net worth for farmers who received
drought relief in Perkins County, and for those who applied for rehabilitation loans in Goshen County, 23 show that their small indebtedness, as compared with that of the selected farmers, was due to the
fact that their assets were proportionately limited. Even with their
smaller indebtedness, the relief clients' equity in their property was
more nearly exhausted than was that of the selected farmers.
OWNERSHIP OF LAND AND TENURE OF OPERATORS
In 1935 the great majority of the land in the selected counties of the
Central Great Plains was owned by private individuals. They owned
about 80 percent in Sherman and Cheyenne Counties and the irrigated
section of Goshen County and 96 to 100 percent in Perkins County
and the nonirrigated section of Goshen County (table 17). Although
foreclosures during recent years had transferred ownership to lending
n Such statements were not available for relief clients in Sherman and Cheyenne
Counties.
o 11i1i2Pd hy
86869'--:{8--7
Goog [e
70 • FARMING HAZARDS IN THE DROUGHT AREA
agencies on a large scale in some of the counties, not more than 17
percent of the land in any of the selected counties was owned by corporations, including all loan, mortgage, and insurance companies, as
well as joint stock land banks.
Table 17.--Percent of Land Owned by Different Types of Owners in Representative
Counties in the Central Great Plains, 1935
Percent or land owned
Goshen
Type or owner
Sherman
Perkins
Irrigated
section
Total................................
Prlvate....................................
Corporate.................................
Publlc.....................................
~~~t:~'.i~.-.-:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Cheyenne
Nonlrrl•
gated sec-
tion
100
100
100
100
100
80
96
81
100
SO
1
2
1----,----i----1----:--16
2
17
•
4
11
5
:
•Less than 0.5 percent.
Soarcres: Agrlcultaral AdJllStment Administration contracts and records ln offices or county tu asaessor,
Private ownership is not an indication of owner-operation, and land
operated by tenants may be subjected to exploitative practices
whether privately or corporately owned. Under the usual rental
agreement a tenant is offered no incentive to conserve soil productivity,
and he is likely to exploit the soil unless some supervision or restriction
is exercised by the owner.
Residents of the county owned from three- to four-fifths of the
farm land in all counties studied with the exception of the irrigated
part of Goshen County, Wyo. Here nonresidents owned 58 percent
of the land in striking contrast with the nonirrigated section of the
county where only 22 percent of the land was owned by nonresidents
of the county (appendix table 46). These data represent only the
farms with production control contracts, however, and consequently
do not show fully the tendency toward absentee-ownership in such
areas as Cheyenne County, Colo., where grazing lands predominate.
Tenants operated most of the land in Sherman and Perkins Counties,
Nebr., owner-operators being found on only 38 and 30 percent of the
land, respectively. All of the farm land owned by nonresidents of
these counties was operated by tenants. In Cheyenne County, Colo.,
three-fifths of the land was owner-operated. Few resident owners in
this county rented farms to tenants, but practically all of the nonresident owners had turned over the operation of their land to tenants.
From 1920 to 1930 farm tenancy had increased steadily in the
Central Great Plains. In Sherman County the proportion of all
farm operators who were tenants increased from 38 to 52 percent and
in Perkins County the proportion increased from 35 to 49 percent.
Digitized by
Goog Ie
THE CENTRAL GREAT PLAINS•
71
In both Goshen and Cheyenne Counties the proportion of tenantoperators trebled from 1920 to 1935 (table 18).
To&le 78.-Farm Tenancy in Representative Counties in the Central Great Plains, 1920,
1930, and 1935
Percent of farm operators who Peroent of farm land operated
were tenants
by tenants
County
1113()
!WO
Sherman _________________________________ _
Perktna __________________________________ _
38
{6
36
Oo,shen_ - ----- ---- - - - - ---- - --- ---- - - - - -- - -
13
14
'"
Cheyenne __ ------------------- __________ _
11136
33
40
!WO
62
37
41)
21)
39
411
9
10
lll30
45
37
16
21)
80
40
20
32
Bomoee: Bureau of the Cenaus, FourtetfllA Cetutu of Ille Unlud 814tu: 19IO and Uniud Stotu Cffl,ua o{
A,rfeulture: 193:,, U. 8. Department of Commerce, Washington, D. C.
In spite of a larger indebtedness owner-operators in all of the selected
areas were in a much stronger position financially than were tenantoperators in 1935 (fig. 15 and appendix table 47). The tenant~
22 20
18
16
Ill Liabilities
Assets
Thousand dollars
14 12 10 8
6
4
2
Thousand
dollars
0 2 4
0
COUNTY
SHERMAN
PERKINS
Loam section
Sandy loam section
GOSHEN
lrrigatea section
Nonirrigated section
CHEYENNE
Second-grade land
Third-grade land
Owners
Tenants
F1G.15·AVERAGE VALUE OF FARM ASSETS AND AMOUNT OF LIABILITIES
OF SELECTED FARMERS IN REPRESENTATIVE COUNTIES
IN THE CENTRAL GREAT PLAINS
BY TENURE
1935
a,•2701,WM.
o ri,1,zP.d by
Goog Ie
72 • FARMING HAZARDS IN THE DROUGHT AREA
operators' reserves usually were not sufficient to carry them through
a series of adverse years. On the average, however, all groups of
owner-operators and o.11 groups of tenant-operators, with the exception
of the tenants operating in the nonirrigated section of Goshen County,
were solvent.
The average net worth of owners ranged from $4,347 on third-grade
land in Cheyenne County to $14,060 in the loam section of Perkins
County. The greatest disparity between the average net worth of
owners and tenants occurred in the nonirrigated portion of Goshen
County, where owners had an average net worth of $4,989 and tenants
were insolvent.
The weak financial position of tenants as compared with owners is
indicated by the larger proportions of tenants among relief clients as
compared with all farmers (table 18 and appendix table 45). In
Sherman County over three-fourths of the relief clients as compared
with one-half of all farmers were tenant-operators, and in Perkins
County the proportion was four-fifths as compared with one-half. In
Goshen County almost three-fifths of the relief farmers were tenants
as compared with two-fifths of all farmers. Less than one-half of all
farmers in Cheyenne County were tenants, whereas two-thirds of the
relief farmers were tenants.
Digitized by
Goog Ie
Chapter Ill
THE SOUTHERN GREAT PLAINS
THE SOUTHERN Great Plains presents problems of agricultural
adjustment different from those in the Central and Northern Great
Plains because of higher temperature, more rapid evaporation, and
longer frost-free periods. Marked contrasts in farm conditions
appear within the region.
Winter wheat production has dominated farming in part of the
area. In other sections row feed crops, such as sorghums, have
assumed greater importance. Corn is an alternate crop in some
sections. Cotton production has been developed on large acreages
in the southern portions of the area. In the rough and sandy sections
range livestock production is maintained.
Within the limits of the Southern Great Plains are sections in which
farming has been definitely successful. These sections, adjacent to
or near the so-called Dust Bowl, have received scant attention.
Publicity has been directed toward the wind-eroded areas where
farming on light soil with long-continued drought has produced a
situation favorable to soil blowing.
Three counties were surveyed as illustrative of different agricultural
conditions in the Southern Great Plains 1 (fig. 1, p. xv). Economic
and financial conditions in Dallam County, Tex., were considered rep1
The counties surveyed and the areas they represent were as follows:
County surveyed
Area represt"nted
Other counties In area
Dallam,Te1 •.•..••••••.. North Plains of Texas ..........•...••.•..•.. Texas:
Bartley
New Mexico:
Union
Hale, Tei ............... South Plains of Texas Panhandle ..•••.••... Texas:
Armstrong
Floycl
II all
Hailey
Briscoe
Lomh
Carson
Pnrnwr
Castro
Ramlali
Deal Smith
Rwis~er
Curry, N. l\Iex .......... Upper South Plains of Texas Panhanclleancl Texns (same counties as above)
lligh Plains of eastern New Mexico.
!sew Mexico:
Quay
Roosevelt
73
o a,,,,pd by
Goog Ie
74 • FARMING HAZARDS IN THE DROUGHT AREA
resentative of the Ca.nadian-Cim8JTOn High Plains of Texas and northeastern New Mexico. Here wind erosion had aggravated the drought
situation and rural distress was acu'te. Curry County, N. Mex.,
represented an area whose low mean annual precipitation and frequent
droughts had subjected it to emigration and to adjustment in the
type of agricultural production. Hale County, Tex., was selected as
typical of the South Plains area since its crop production and farm
practices are representative of the small grain-producing counties to
the north and also of the cotton-growing counties to the south.
SITUATION OF FARMERS ARER THE 193-4 DROUGHT
Reduction In Incomes
Incomes of farmers of the Southern Great Plains were sharply
curtailed in 1934. Farmers' estimates of normal cash receipts show
that 1934 cash receipts were one-third of normal in the row-crop
section and one-fourth of normal in the grain section of Dallam
County, two-thirds of normal in the row-crop section and about
three-filths of normal in the grain section of Curry County, and threefourths of normal in Hale County (table 19 and appendix table 48).
Ta&le 19.-Average Gross Receipts per Farm on Selected Farms in Representative
Counties in the Southern Great Plains, by Source of Receipts, 193-4
Average receipts per farm
Source or recelp•,s
Dallam
Row-erop
section
Total rarm receipts____________________
Hale (11511
Grain
section
Row-erop
section
farms)
(43 Carms)
(37 farms)
$1,128
Sl,081
(63 farms)
Grain
aection
(47 farms)
$2,037
$1,334
$1,479
978
1162
1,861
I, 181
I, aog
19
4119
28
227
1,()!115
74
IIO
220
195
30G
414
M
164
l====l====l====l====I,===
Total cash recelpta_ - -------------- -- --
sales---------------------------------
Crop
Llva,tock
sales____________________________
Livestock products________________________
Agricultural Adjustment Administration
contract payments __ -------------------Emergency Reller Administration_________
Other_____________________________________
Total products wed In home__________
Dalryproducts____________________________
Poultry products__________________________
1----1----1----1----1----
24
39
437
227
3711
313
196
185
278
133
104
1
17
172
355
44
33
178
153
170
l====l====l====l===,I===
150
119
1----1----1----1----1----
53
40
41
Meat______________________________________
44
40
32
Crops and garden-------------------------
13
8
58
46
41
32
M
48
37
63
411
12
27
44
Normally from two-thirds to more than four-fifths of the farmers'
receipts came from crop production. Even in the row-crop sections,
definitely better adapted to feed than to grain crops, normal receipts
from crops were reported to be double those from livestock, although
livestock sales were more important there than in the other sections
studied.
Digitized by
Goog Ie
THE SOUTHERN GREAT PLAINS • 75
In 1934, however, the principal sources of cash receipts in Dallam
County were livestock sales, made largely to the Government during
the Emergency Livestock Purchase Program, Agricultural Adjustment Administration contract payments, and, on the smaller farms,
grants from the Federal Emergency Relief Administration. Income
from these same sources was important in Hale and Curry Counties
but not so important as receipts from crop sales.
Receipts from crop sales were closely related to the severity of
drought, increasing in amount toward the South and East. They were
negligible in Dallam County (2 or 3 percent of the total), but in Curry
County they accounted for 29 percent of the total cash receipts in the
grain section and 37 percent in the row-crop section. Crop sales
remained the most important source of the gross cash receipts in
Hale County in the southernmost part of the area, accounting for
57 percent of the total.
Livestock sales were the source of about one-half of the cash receipts
in the row-crop section of Dallam County, one-fourth in the grain
sections of both Dallam and Curry Counties, one-fifth in the row-crop
section of Curry County, and one-eighth in Hale County. Crop
production control payments and relief grants were the source of
nearly one-half of the cash receipts in the grain section of Dallam
County, about one-third in the row-crop section of Dallam County
and in the grain section of Curry County, and about one-seventh in
the row-crop section of Curry County and in Hale County.
The average cash receipts received by the selected farmers in 1934,
including Government benefits, were slightly under $1,000 in Dallam
County as compared with normal receipts of about $3,300. They
were about $1,200 in the row-crop section of Curry County as compared with $1,800 normally, and $1,300 in the grain section of Curry
County as compared with $2,300. In Hale County the 1934 gross
cash receipts were about $1,900 as compared with about $2,500
normally (table 19 and appendix table 48). The value of farm products used in the home added from $119 to $176 to the annual farm
income in each area. surveyed.
These estimates make no allowance for losses because of decreases in
livestock, feed, and equipment inventories, or for the portion of the
reported cash receipts which may have been attached through liens
and chattel mortgages. In Dallam County, for example, the farmers
actually received only 36 percent of the total payment for all cattle
purchased in the county by the Government during the Emergency
Livestock Purchase Program; 64 percent of the payment went directly
to those holding liens and chattel mortgages on the cattle.
The inadequacy of the farmers' incomes in 1934 in the various
selected areas is shown by reports of individual formers. About onehalf of the farmers interviewed in Dallam County reported that their
o a,,,,pd by
Goog Ie
76 • FARMING HAZARDS IN THE DROUGHT AREA
receipts in 1934, including all Government benefits, were not sufficient
to meet their expenses. Only 1 farmer in 10 in the row-crop section
and 1 in 20 in the grain section reported receipts greater than expenses.
In Curry County almost one-third of the farmers in the grain section
and one-sixth of those in the row-crop section reported that their 1934
receipts were not sufficient to meet expenses, while only one in five
in the row-crop section and one in eight in the grain section reported
that they were able to increase capital. On the other hand, almost
four-fifths of the farmers in Hale County reported receipts equal to
or greater than operating expenses.
The precariousness of the farmers' situation in the Southern Great
Plains is shown not only by their losses in 1934 but also by the large
number that had sustained financial losses since they began farming
in the area. The proportions of the selected farmers who had been
operating at a loss since beginning farming in the area were 67 percent
in the grain section and 42 percent in the row-crop section of Dallam
County, 30 percent in Hale County, and 17 percent in the row-crop
section and 6 percent in the grain section of Curry County.
Farmers on Relief and Rehabilitation Rolls
Reports of the State relief administrators in the Southern Great
Plains indicate that from one-eighth to two-fifths of the farm families
in most of the Texas Panhandle counties and over one-half of the farm
families in the extreme southeastern Colorado counties were receiving
relief in March 1935. In the extreme southwestern portion of Kansas
the rural case load in March 1935 was equivalent to one-third to onehalf of the number of farmers in the different counties. Similar
reports for Oklahoma and New Mexico counties were not obtained.
In May 1935 the County Relief Administrator in Dallam County,
Tex., reported that 199 farmers, or 28 percent of all farmers in the
county, were receiving relief. Fifty-eight of these had been accepted
as rural rehabilitation clients. In Hale County 219 farmers, or 12
percent of all farmers in the county, were receiving relief in April
1935. Only 46 of these had received rehabilitation loans by July
1935. In Curry County 220 farmers, or 15 percent of all farmers in
the county, were on the relief rolls in May 1935, and 94 of these had
been accepted as rural rehabilitation clients. 2 Only 135 farmers had
actually received relief, the other clients having applied for relief
solely to become eligible for rehabilitation loans.
The fact that three out of five relief clients in Curry County began
receiving relief after June 1, 1934, when it became apparent that the
1
The usual amount of relief received by Curry County clients was between
$15 and $25 per month, and the average amount received by all client.".! was $23
per month. The 94 farmers who had been acceptt:>d as rehabilitation clients had
received no rehabilitation loans at the time of this study but their budgets called
for loans averaging $ii36.
Digitized by
Goog Ie
THE SOUTHERN GREAT PLAINS • 77
crops in 1934 were a failure, reflects their dependence on crops. Of
the 135 relief recipients in Curry County, 20 began receiving relief
prior to January 1934, 33 between January and May, 35 between
June and October, and 47 after October. In both Hale and Curry
Counties farmers on relief rolls had an unusually high proportion of
their land devoted to crops.
Tenancy and dependency appeared related. The proportion of
relief clients who were tenants was much greater than that among the
selected farmers, and in all of the areas studied owner-operators were
stronger financially than tenant-operators. However, another factor
may have been the recent arrival of these farmers in the area and the
small resources which they had been able to accumulate in that time.
Many of the farmers who were in the worst straits had been in the
area. a relatively short time. In Curry County about half of the
relief clients had been farming in the area. not more than 10 years.
It is unlikely that physical disabilities or an unusually large number
of dependents contributed to the need for assistance of many of
the relief clients. More than four-fifths of the relief clients in the
selected counties were 55 years of age or younger, and in none of the
selected counties were more than one-twelfth over 60 years of age
(appendix table 49). In Dallam County only 5 percent of the relief
clients reported disabilities that incapacitated them for work. None
of the relief clients in Hale County who had been approved for
rehabilitation, and only 2 percent of all relief clients in Curry County
were unable to work. Most of the relief clients had children, but in
Dallam County only one out of eight and in Curry County only one
out of six had more than three children under 16 years of age (appendix table 50). In Hale County only one out of five of the relief
clients who had been approved for rehabilitation had more than three
children under 12 years of age.
TYPES OF FARMING
Variations in natural factors, and their effects on crop production,
give rise to different systems of farming in different sections of the
Southern Plains. The northern portion of the area, where the
topography and climatic conditions favor the production ·of crops,
is a cash-grain area. Primary emphasis is placed on the production
of winter wheat on the heavier soils and grain sorghums on the lighter
soils. 3 A large proportion of the area immediately south of the
cash-grain area (along the Canadian River) is too rugged for crop
production and is used predominantly for range livestock. Further
south, where the higher temperatures and the long growing season
permit its production, cotton is the principal cash crop.
1 Carter, William T., Jr., The Soils of Texas, Bulletin 431, Texas Agricultural
Experiment Station, College Station, Tex., 1931, p. 145.
o 11i1i2Pd hy
Goog [e
78 • FARMING HAZARDS IN THE DROUGHT AREA
Dallam County, Tex., is located in the cash-grain area. In the
southern and western sections of the county grain sorghums are the
principal cash crop, whereas in the northern and eastern portions of
the county winter wheat predominates. Hence, in this report the two
sections are referred to as the row-crop and the grain sections. In
the type-of-farming area. which includes the grain section of Dallam
County, according to a. classification of farms based on the gross income
from the 1929 crop,' 76 percent of the farms were cash-grain farms,
7 percent crop-specialty farms, 6 percent general farms, and only 7
percent animal-specialty or dairy farms or stock ranches. In the
type-of-farming area which includes the southern and western sections
of Dallam County, 48 percent of the farms were classed as cash-grain
farms, 3 percent as crop-specialty farms, 5 percent as general farms,
and only 12 percent as animal-specialty farms or stock ranches.
Hale County, Tex., and Curry County, N. Mex., are located south
of the Canadian River in an area where some cotton is produced.
Little cotton is produced in Curry County, however, since its high
altitude and low temperature make the production of cotton hazardous. In Hale County cotton production is an important enterprise
in the southern part. In a classification of farms in the area in which
both Hale County and Curry County are located,6 60 percent of the
farms were classed as cash-grain farms and 23 percent as cotton
farms.
NATURAL FACTORS AFFECTING AGRICULTURE
The 1934 drought was not solely responsible for the distress of
farmers in the Southern Great Plains in the spring of 1935. Study
of the natural conditions of the region shows that agriculture is
normally hazardous.
Topography
The topography of the Southern Great Plains is similar to that of
the Central Great Plains. The area in general is a high plain sloping
in a southeasterly direction from an elevation of approximately 6,000
feet in northeastern New Mexico to an elevation of approximately
2,000 feet at the southeastern comer of the Texas Panhandle. The
High Plains Section to the west is generally level to undulating, interspersed with rough areas along the drainage channels. The eastern
portion of the area is irregularly undulating. The principal drainage
channels consist of the Cimarron River and its tributaries in southern
Kansas and the Oklahoma Panhandle, the Canadian River and its
tributaries in the northern and central portion of the Texas Panhandle,
and the head waters of the Red and Brazos Rivers in the southern
portion of the Texas Panhandle.
t Elliott, F. F., Types of Farming in the United States, U. S. Department of
Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Washington, D. C., 1933, table 5.
1
Ibid.
Digitized by
Goog Ie
THE SOUTHERN GREAT PLAINS • 79
The continuity of the Plains is further broken by sand dunes or
low rounded hills and ridges in localities where the soils are nearly
pure sand. Such regions are extremely susceptible to wind erosion
unless protected by a vegetative cover. In the southern portions of
the area there are numerous small depressions or lake beds, which
seem to have been caused by the sinking of the surface or by the
removal of soil material by wind. These basins range in size from a
few acres to 50 acres or more. They have no surface outlets but often
remain dry for several years, containing water only during seasons of
heavy rainfall. 6
Soll,
The Southern Great Plains has three soil groups-the Chernozem
or Black soils and the Brown soils, which occur in other sections of the
Great Plains, and the Southern Dark-Brown soils (fig. 2, p. 8).7
Soils in the western and southwestern portions of Dallam County,
Tex., are of the Otero series of the Brown group, which generally
occupy a rolling area that is subject to erosion. Those in all other
portions of the county are of the Springer series of the Dark-Brown
group. The fine sandy loam of the Springer series is used for crop
production, while the loamy fine sand and fine sand are used almost
exclusively as range land for livestock.8 Because of their sandy
characteristics, the soils in the southwestern and south central portions
of the county are best adapted to the production of sorghums and
other row crops. The heavier soils in the other portions of the county
are adapted to the production of small grains.
Soils in Hale County, Tex., are Amarillo loams, clay loams, and
sandy loams. They are adapted to the production of small grains
and sorghums, and in the southern part of the county, where the
growing season is longer, they are adapted to the production of cotton.
Soils in Curry County, N. Mex., are of the Springer series, ranging
sandy loams and sands in the southern and western portions of
the county to heavier or "tight" soils in the rest of the county. The
heavy soils are adapted to the production of small grains, \\·hile the
light sandy soils are adapted to the production of sorghums and other
row crops.
from
Climate
The climate of the Southern Great Plains is characterized by rather
severe winters, considerable wind movement during the spring and
early summer months, and warm summer days with comparatively
• Carter, William T., Jr. and Others, Reconnaissance Soil Survey of Northwest
Texa,, Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Soils, Washington, D. C., 1922, p. 3.
7 Bureau of Chemistry and Soils, Atlas of American Agriculture, part III, U. S.
Department of Agriculture, Washington, D. C., 1935, p. 74.
• Sweet, A. T. and Poulson, E. N., Soil Survey of the Fort Sumner Area, New
Mmco, Series 1930, Bulletin No. 1, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of
Chemistry and Soils, Washington, D. C., 1933, pp. 9-11.
o a,,,,pd by
Goog Ie
80 • FARMING HAZARDS IN THE DROUGHT AREA
cool nights. Dry periods, accompanied by hot winds, are not uncommon during the summer months. Local hailstorms occur frequently
during the late spring and early summer. The climate may be
classified as varying from year to year between arid and subhumid.
As in the other Great Plains areas the average length of the frost-free
season increases from northwest to southeast, ranging from approximately 170 days in southeastern Colorado to over 210 days in the
southeastern portion of the Texas Panhandle 11 (fig. 4, p. 11 ). It has
been from 2 to 3 weeks shorter than average in about one-fifth of the
years for which records are available.
As in the other Orea t Plains areas the average annual precipitation in
the Southern Great Plains increases from west to east. The average
annual precipitation ranges from as low as 12 inches in southeastern
Colorado to approximately 25 inches in the eastern part of the area.
Approximately three-fourths of the annual precipitation normally
occurs during the warm growing season from April through September.
More precipitation is required for plant growth in the southern
than in the other portions of the Great Plains, owing to a high rate
of evaporation caused by high temperatures throughout the summer,
much sunshine,1° low humidity, and high wind movements. During
the summer months, June through August, average monthly temperatures range from about 70 to 80 degrees. Precipitation during the
summer is often local in character with the result that crops in one
locality may produce fair yields, whereas those in an adjacent locality
may be complete failures.
Precipitation in the selected counties is usually adequate for plant
growth (fig. 16), but the frequent departures from normal make the
production of crops hazardous. This is particularly true in the
northern and western portions of the area represented by Dallam
County, Tex., and Curry County, N. Mex., although the production
of crops adapted to the climate and soils is usually possible. Hard
winter wheat and sorghums are best adapted to the climate in these
regions. The length of growing season is almost always adequate
for the maturing of sorghums unless their seeding has been delayed
because of moisture deficiency in the spring.
Hard winter wheat, barley, and sorghums are also adapted to the
climatic conditions in Huie County, Tex. In the southern part of
the county, as in other counties lying immediately south, the production of cotton is possible because of the long growing season and the
high summer temperatures.
9 Bureau of Chemistry and Soils, Atlas of American Agriculture, "Climate,"
Frost and the Growing Season, U. 8. Department of Agriculture, Washington,
D. C., 1918, pp. 38-39.
10 Bureau of Chemistry and Soils, Atlas of American Agriculture, "Climate,"
Temperature, Sunshine and Wind, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington,
D. C., 1928, pp. 32-33.
Digitized by
Goog Ie
THE SOUTHERN GREAT PLAINS • 81
30
30
DALHART, DALLAM COUNTY
TEXAS
20
20
10
10
-J
0
1928
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
1936
0
Normal
30
PLAINVIEW , HALE COUNTY
TEXAS
ro
•
.
•
!s 20
20 'fi
.5
.s
.5
I
5!
i•
C
'6
i
10 u
10
!
A.
CL
0
1927
1928
1929
)930
19 31
19 32
1933
1934
1935
1936
0
Normal
30
30
CLOVIS, CURRY COUNTY
NEW MEXICO
20
20
FIe.l6-NORMAL MONTHLY PRECIPITATION AND PRECIPITATION
BY MONTHS, SELECTED STATIONS IN THE
SOUTHERN GREAT PLAINS
1927-1936
Source: U.S. Department of
AQl'iculture, Weather Bureau.
AF-2779,Wl'A
D1g111zed oy
Google
82 • FARMING HAZARDS IN THE DROUGHT AREA
~ Amual
precipitation
El GrowinQ season precipitation
LI April - September
40
40
CLOVIS
CURRY COUNTY
35
35
NEW MEXICO
., 30
1.
-~ 25
.5
.5
j
20
20
§
i
i
15 ·.;
·.; 15
l
l
10
10
5
5
0
40
40
35
i
r
30
PLAINVIEW
H ALE COUNTY
TEXAS
35
30
.
1.
25
.5 25
.5
t
.5
20
15
10
10
5
5
&
iu
l
F1G. 17 -ANNUAL AND GROWING SEASON PRECIPITATION, SELECTED
STATIONS IN THE SOUTHERN GREAT PLAINS
1900-1936
Source: U.S. Department of Aoriculture, Weather Bureau.
AF -2717, WHo
Although for the area as a whole the drought of 1933 and 1934 was
the worst on record (fig. 17), years of extremely low rainfall and long
periods of subnormal rainfall are common in the area. Records of
precipitation available since 1900 indicate that 1901-1903, 1910,
1916-1918, and 1931-1934 were general periods of subnormal rainfall
in the area, and that 1924 and 1927 were additional years in which
precipitation was generally deficient.
o 11i1i2Pd hy
Goog [e
THE SOUTHERN GREAT PLAINS• 83
During the period 1927-1936 rainfall during the critical spring and
early summer months seems to have been deficient in Dallam County,
Tex., in 5 years; in Hale County, Tex., in 4 years; and in Curry
County, N. Mex., in 6 years. The lack of rainfall was more serious
in l 934 than in any of the previous years.
The period 1931-1934 was one of subnormal precipitation throughout the Southern Great Plains but only the 2 years, 1933 and 1934,
comprised a period of abnormal drought. The 9. 78 inches of precipitation recorded in Dallam County, Tex., in 1934 was the lowest
on record. In Hale County, Tex., however, precipitation in both
1910 and 1917 was less than the 13.75 inches recorded in 1934, and in
Curry County, N. Mex., precipitation recorded in 1917 and in 1924
was less than the 11. 77 inches recorded in 1934.
Cau1et of Crop Damas•
Most of the damage to crops in the Southern Great Plains is due to
drought, soil blowing (fig. 3, p. 9), and hail. When damage to crops
by drought and soil blowing occurs, it is usually general throughout
the area. although it is frequently more severe in the northwestern
portion. Damage by hail is usually confined to small localities.
Estimates of selected farmers indicate that damage to crops by
drought has occurred from approximately one-fifth to one-third of
the years in Dallam County, approximately two-fifths of the years in
Curry County, and almost one-half of the years in Hale County
(table 20 and appendix table 51). Soil blowing has damaged crops
less frequently than drought, but soil blowing and drought combined
have caused serious damage to, or total loss of, crops approximately
l year in 3 in all of the selected counties except in the grain section of
Dallam County, where this damage has occurred 1 year in 4.
Tobie 20.-Percent of Years 1 Different Causes of Crop Damage Were Reported on
Selected Farms in Representative Counties in the Southern Great Plains
Percent of years damage was reported
County
Drought
Soil
Hail
blowing
Smut and
rust
Insects
Excessive
precipita•
tion
Frost
--- --- --------Dalian::
Row-crop aectlon ___________
Grain section ____________ ._
Hale. __________________________
Curry:
Row-crop section ___________
Grain section ______________
1
---
35
22
49
9
12
H
33
3
I
4
I
6
4
4
6
I
4
II
2
40
44
14
17
7
6
1
2
12
1
6
1
-4
7
2
For length of record see appendix table 51.
Damage from hail has occurred less than 1 year in 10 in Dallam
County, 1 year in 6 in Curry County, and 1 year in 3 in Hale
County. Severe damage to crops by hail has been infrequent ex-
0 gi11zed by
Goog Ie
84 •
FARMING HAZARDS IN THE DROUGHT AREA
cept in Hale County, where serious damage to, or total loss of, crops
from this cause has occurred about 1 year in 6. Other causes of
crop damage reported by the selected farmers included smut and
rust, insects, frost, and excessive precipitation, but their occurrence
was infrequent and the damage caused by them was usually slight.
Excessive periods of drought have not only destroyed crops but
also have augmented wind erosion to such an extent that the productivity of the land has been greatly impaired. Considerable cropland
and, in some localities, entire farms have been abandoned because of
wind erosion. Small farms have suffered particularly because of their
high proportion of land in crops. Such damage has been most extensive in the northern portion of the area and, of the three representative counties, in Dallam County. In that county most of the
farmers receiving relief or rehabilitation advances in the spring of 1935
were concentrated in the sandy sections most affected by wind erosion.
Farmers in the grain section of Dallam County estimated that an
area equivalent to 31 percent of their cropland had been damaged
severely and an area equivalent to 50 percent had been damaged
slightly by wind erosion. Farmers in the row-crop section estimated
that an area equivalent to 46 percent of their cropland had been
damaged severely and an area equivalent to 45 percent of their cropland had been damaged slightly. Farmers in Curry County reported
that an area equivalent to 6 to 8 percent of their cropland had been
damaged severely and an area equivalent to 38 percent of their
cropland had been damaged slightly. Farmers in Hale County
reported little damage to their land by wind erosion. Some damage
to permanent pastures by wind erosion was found where the sod
adjacent to cropland was covered by drifting soil.
CROP YIELDS
As in the Northern and Central Great Plains precipitation is the
most important factor controlling crop production in the Southern
Great Plains, but the timeliness and character of precipitation are
more important here than in the other Great Plains areas. Because
of variations in character as well as amounts of precipitation, crop
yields vary widely from year to year as well as from one locality to
another within the same year, and crop failures have been common.
Amounts of precipitation do not always indicate the availability
of moisture for crops. In 1931, for example, when precipitation in
the two Texas counties was limited, crop yields were well above average because of soil and subsoil moisture following abundant rainfall
during the preceding year. On the other hand, after the dry year
of 1931, precipitation in 1932 approximated or exceeded normal in
all of the selected counties. Yields of all crops in Dallam and Curry
Counties and those of small grains and cotton in Hale County, however,
were decidedly below average because even normal amounts of
o 011,zPd hy
Goog Ie
lf(Jrks
l'rtJ!/H' l:l8
Atlmiui~trutiou.
A/ter the Dust Storm.
D1g111m:loyGoogle
Digitized by
Goog Ie
THE SOUTHERN GREAT PLAINS• 85
rainfall were not sufficient to offset the depleted supplies of soil moisture. Yields of row crops were reasonably good in Ha.le County but
only because these crops were planted late and because the long
growing season permitted the utilization of the abundant rainfall
which occurred during the summer months.
In 1933 and 1934 amounts of precipitation were more directly
related to crop yields than in the 2 preceding yea.rs. Coincident
with the deficiencies in precipitation, crop yields were extremely low
in 1933 throughout the entire area. In 1934 they were almost complete failures in all but a few local areas where precipitation occurred
at a critical time.
Crop yields over a long period of years are not available for any
of the selected counties or for the central and southern portions of
the area. Crop yields available for southwestern Kansas, however,
might serve as an index of crop production possibilities in the northern
areas. Because of similarities in soils as well as climatic conditions,
crop yields reported for Baca County, Colo., may be considered generally representative of those portions of the area. typified by Dallam
County, Tex. (appendix table 52).
The variability of crop yields per harvested acre is illustrated best
by the yields reported in southwestern Kansas. Here yields of
winter wheat were usually between 3 and 17 bushels per harvested
acre but ranged from complete failure to 24 bushels per acre. Yields
of com and barley were as variable as those of wheat. Grain sorghums
yields were more stable, and no complete failures were reported during
the period 1915-1932.
Yields per seeded acre were, of course, lower than were yields per
harvested acre, and they were also more variable. From 1911 to
1931 the average yield of wheat per seeded acre was only 9.2 bushels.
One-fourth of the crop yields per seeded acre reported during that
period were 2 bushels or less; one-third were 4 bushels or less; and more
than three-fifths exceeded or fell short of the average by 5 or more
bushels.
The especially low yields of crops from 1930 to 1934 (appendix
table 53) help to explain the relative degrees of distress throughout
the area in 1935. Crop yields were almost a complete failure in
Dallam County in 1933 and 1934 and in Curry County in 1934. With
the exception of those obtained in Hale County in 1934, wheat yields
had not approximated the long~time average in any of the selected
areas since 1931, and in Dallam County they had been almost a com. plete failure since that time. Corn yields had not approximated the
long-time average yield in Dallam County since 1931 and in Curry
County since 1932. Yields of sorghums had been generally higher
than those of other crops during the drought years, but even sorghums
had produced low yields since 1931 in Dallam and Curry Counties.
Digitized by
Goog Ie
86 • FARMING HAZARDS IN
THE DROUGHT AREA
Yields reported by selected farmers in the counties studied show
how yields vary from one section to another {appendix table 54 ).
Farmers reported higher yields of wheat and less frequent failures in
the grain section than in the row-crop section of both Dallam and
Curry Counties. Calculated yields of com and the frequency of poor
yields or failures were about the same in the two sections of each
county. Yields of grain sorghums were slightly higher and poor
yields and failures were less frequent in the row-crop than in the
grain section of Dallam County; but in the row-crop section of
Curry County yields were lower and poor yields or failures more
frequent than in the grain section. Yields of feed sorghums 11 were
about the same in the grain and row-crop sections of both Dallam
and Curry Counties.
Cotton yields were reported by farmers in Hale County. They
averaged 182 pounds per seeded acre, with poor yields or failures
occurring 2 years in 5.
These farmers' estimates emphasize the precarious position of any
farmer in the Southern Great Plains. They indicate that poor yields
or failures of wheat had occurred from nearly one-half of the time
in Hale County to four-fifths of the time in the row-crop section of
Dallam County. Poor yields or failures of com had occurred from
two-fifths to one-half of the time; and poor yields or failures of grain
sorghums had occurred from three-tenths to over one-half of the time
(table 21 and appendix table 54).
TalJle 21.-Percent of Years I Poor Yields or Failures of Important Crops Were Reported
by Selected Farmers in Representative Counties in the Southern Great Plains
Percent of years reported
Wheat
Count.y
Poor
yield
Dallam:
Row-crop section ________________
Grain section ____________________
Hale __ -----------------------------Curry:
How-crop section ____________ .. __
Grain section ____________________
I
Corn
Failure
Poor
yield
Grain sorghums Food sorghums
Failure
Poor
yield
Failure
Poor
yield
Failure
-- ---- ---- ---- -4
21
77
44
24
29
27
37
33
16
-
23
24
-
13
20
23
18
22
21
17
20
24
33
28
UI
26
24
16
29
23
23
35
16
23
21
18
17
14
17
For number ot crops reported see appendix table M.
ORGANIZATION OF FARMS
As in the other sections of the Great Plains, size of farm, amount
of cropland and pasture, crops grown, and number and kinds of livestock were significant factors to be considered in analyzing the plight
of farmers in 1934 and 1935 and the possibilities for their rehabilitation.
11 Grain sorghums yields as reported may be high because farmers tended to
report yields only when grain was produced and not to report sorghums which
were cut for forage.
Oqit1zed by
Google
THE SOUTHERN GREAT PLAINS • 87
Too much dependence on crops and too little dependence on livestock in a region of frequent crop failures seemed to contribute to the
distress of the farmers. Livestock farmers had made more financial
progress than crop farmers in Dallam and Curry Counties. This was
particularly true of the row-crop section in Dallam County where
most of the crop farmers had suffered heavy losses while most of
the livestock farmers had accumulated some capital since they
began farming in the area.
On the other hand, in Hale County in the southeastern part of the
Southern Great Plains a major livestock enterprise is apparently not
so essential to a successful farm economy. A somewhat higher proportion of the crop farmers in this county were able to make financial
progress, and their average annual accumulation of capital was larger
than that of the livestock farmers. In part, of course, this may
have been due to larger farms and larger acreages of cropland on
the crop farms.
Moreover, length of residence in the area was an important factor
in relation to financial progress. Of those who had suffered financial
losses in the row-crop section of Dallam County, 83 percent, and of
those in the grain section, 72 percent, had been operating 10 years or
less in the area. Of those who had suffered losses in the other areas,
all in the row-crop section and two-thirds in the grain section of Curry
County and over two-fifths in Hale County had been operating 10
years or less in the area. Had these farmers been in the area for a
longer time, it is possible that some of those who were operating large
farms might have been able to make some financial progress. But,
with so much dependence placed on crop sales for income and with
crop failures common in the area, it is not likely that many who were
operating small farms could have prevented financial losses (appendix
table 55).
Size of Operating Unit
Because cash-grain production is adapted to large-scale farming,
the cash-grain farmers in the northern part of the Southern Great
Plains generally operate larger acreages than do the cotton farmers
in the southern part. For the same reason farms located in the wheatproducing sections of the cash-grain area are generally larger than
those in the row-crop sections. Stock ranches in either section are
larger than grain or cotton farms.
According to the 1935 Census of Agriculture the average size of
farm in Dallam County was 1,107 acres. In Curry County it was
606 acres, and in Hale County it was 318 acres. A tendency in the
past to adjust the size of farm to the production possibilities of the area
was apparent only in Curry County. From 1920 to 1935 the number of farms in Dallam and Hale Counties had increased materially,
whereas the average size of farms had decreased. In Curry County
Dig111zed bv
Goog Ie
88 • FARMING HAZARDS IN THE DROUGHT AREA
the number of farms had increased between 1925 and 1935 but the
average size of fa.rm had also increased. 11
Data from corn-hog production control contracts representing 71
percent of all farms in the county indicate that farms of 160, 320, and
640 acres were the most common in Dallam County in 1934 (appendix table 56). The average size of the 80 farms in Dallam County
for which fa.rm records were taken was 974 acres, those in the rowcrop section averaging 904 acres and those in the grain section averaging 1,056 acres (appendix table 57). In both the row-crop and the
grain sections the 320- and 640-acre farms predominated.
In Hale County data pertaining to the size of farms in 1934 were
secured from farmers with cotton as well as com-hog production control contracts. Farms represented by the cotton contracts (appendix
table 58) were generally somewhat smaller than those represented by
the corn-hog contracts, but the 160- and 320-acre farms were most
common in both groups. The average size of com-hog contract farms
was 325 acres, whereas that of the cotton farms was 282 acres. The
160- and 320-acre farms were also most common among the 156
selected farms for which records were taken. The average size of
these farms was 387 acres, one-third of them being 200 acres or smaller,
and about two-thirds being 400 acres or smaller (appendix table 57).
The 160-, 320-, and 480-acre farms were most common in Curry
County. The 491 farms represented by corn-hog production control
contracts averaged 557 acres in size. The 110 selected farms averaged 591 acres, those in the row-crop section averaging 511 acres and
those in the grain section averaging 699 acres. About two-thirds of
the farms in the row-crop section and nearly one-half of the fanns in
the grain section were less than 560 acres in size.
In Dallam County many farms were too small for economic operation. In the grain section of Dallam County only farms of 881 acres
or more reported capital increases on the average since beginning
operations in the area (appendix table 55). On the average, in the
row-crop section of the county operators of less than 441 acres had
not made expenses. A small operating unit was characteristic of the
farmers on relief rolls. The average size of farm operated by the 46
relief clients in Hale County who had been approved for rehabilitation
loans was only 71 acres as compared with an average of 282 acres for
all farms with cotton contracts, an average of 325 acres for all farms
with corn-hog contracts, and an average of 318 acres for all farms in
the county. Approximately two-thirds of the clients who had been
approved for rehabilitation were operating farms of 60 acres or less
and all but three were operating farms of 160 acres or less (appendix
table 59).
11 Bureau of the Census, United Statu Censua of Agriculture: 1935, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D. C.
Digitized by
Google
THE SOUTHERN GREAT PLAINS • 89
In Curry County the average size of farm operated by relief clients
was 284 acres as compared with an average of 557 acres for all farms
represented by com-hog contracts and an average of 606 acres for all
farms in the county. Forty-four percent of the farms operated by
relief clients, as compared with only twenty-seven percent of those
represented by com-hog contracts, were less than 280 acres in size,
and about three-fourths of them, as compared with about one-half of
the com-hog contract farms, were less than 380 acres in size.
Data pertaining to the acreage operated by relief clients in Dallam
County were not available.
u.. of Lond
In 1935 crops occupied 45 percent of the farm land in Dallam
County, 53 percent in Curry County, and 78 percent in Hale County. 11
Information from production control contracts and from selected
farmers (fig. 18, table 22, and appendix tables 56, 57, and 58) in Dallam
and Curry Counties indicates a somewhat higher percentage of the
farm land utilized as cropland than that report.lid by the census.
Presumably, this was because a large proportion of the farms in Dallam
and Curry Counties were ranches with a high proportion of land in
pasture, and such farms were not generally included among either
the farms surveyed or those with production control contracts. Information from contracts and from selected farmers in Hale County
was similar to that reported by the census. There were few ranches
in Hale County, and a larger proportion of all farms was represented
in the samples than in the other two counties.
Tal»le !!.-Utilization of Land on Selected Farms in Representative Counties in the
Southem Great Plains, 1934
County
Average number of acres per farm
Number 1 - - ~ - - ~ - - ~ - - ~ - ol farms
Former
Ferm•
reporting
Total Cropland Pasture cropland ste;~:::id
------------t---f--- --- --- --- --Dallam:
Row-erop oectlon ____________________ _
Grain section ________________________ _
Hale _______________________ --- __ -- -- -- -- -Curry:
Row-erop section ____________________ _
Grein section ________________________ _
43
904
37
166
l,OM
387
5.14
7118
3l8
3,52
267
63
511
353
135
47
6W
482
5
4
66
:an
8
3
13
17
13
15
13
The proportion of the farm land that was used as cropland was
generally higher on the small farms than on the large farms. The
difference in land use by small and large farms was most pronounced
in Dallam and Curry Counties, where the proportion of land in crops
on the small farms was generally higher than the average in crops for
all farms. This explains why small farms, especially in Dallam
County, suffered more from wind erosion than did the large farms.
11
Ibid.
Dig111zed bv
Goog Ie
90 • FARMING HAZARDS IN THE DROUGHT AREA
Most of the land operated by the selected farmers was either owned
by the operators or share-rented. Land that was rented for cash
represented less than 2 percent of the total land operated in Hale
County, 4 percent in Dallam County, and 6 percent in the grain section and 8 percent in the row-crop section of Curry County (appendix
table 60). About three-tenths of the land operated in Curry County,
two-fifths in Dallam County, and one-half in Hale County were sharerented, while from one-half of the land operated in Hale County to
nearly two-thirds of that operated in Curry County was owned by
the operator. Most of the cash-rented lend was used for hay or
pasture, and most of the share-rented land was used as cropland.
11111 Croplond
~
Hay and posture
~
Other
80
90 100
Percent
COUNTY
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
DALLAM Ro"'.•crop _section
Grain section
HALE
CURRY
Row-crop section
Grain section
FIG. 18 -UTILIZATION OF LAND ON SELECTED FARMS IN
REPRESENTATIVE COUNTIES IN THE
SOUTHERN GREAT PLAINS
1934
AF• 2705, WPA
In 1934 wheat occupied one-half or more of the cropland on the
farms in the grain sections of Dallam and Curry Counties, about onethird of the crop acreage in Hale County and the row-crop section of
Curry County, and less than one-fifth in the row-crop section of
Dallam County (appendix table 61). It was planted on three-fourths
of the farms in Hale County; on more than four-fifths of the farms in
the grain section of Curry County; on about one-half of the farms in
the grain section of Dallam County and the row-crop section of Curry
County; and on less than one-fourth of the farms, principally the
larger units, in the row-crop section of Dallam County.
Wheat seeded on fallow land was limited primarily to the grain
sections of Dallam and Curry Counties although some wheat on fallow was reported in Hale County on a few of the larger farms and in
the row-crop section of Curry County. In the grain section of Dallam
County less than one-fourth of the farms and in the grain section of
Curry County only three-tenths of the farms had wheat planted on
fallow. Primarily these were the larger units in both counties.
oiglli ro hy
Goog Ie
THE SOUTHERN GREAT PLAINS • 91
Sorghums were the principal forage crop planted in both Dallam
and Curry Counties, and in Hale County they were second only to
wheat in acreage occupied. In the grain section of Dallam County
and in Hale County they were planted on practically all farms, and
in the row-crop sections of both Dallam and Curry Counties they
were planted on all farms. Most of the farmers in the grain section
of Curry County also planted sorghums.
Com was planted on two-thirds of the farms in the row-crop section
of Dallam County, on almost four-fifths in the row-crop section and
on more than one-half in the grain section of Curry County, and on
one-third in the grain section of Dallam County.
Cotton occupied approximately one-seventh of the cropland in Hale
County and was planted on almost all of the farms.
In the grain section of Dallam County fallow land was reported on
none of the small farms and on only one-sixth of all farms, but idle
cropland was reported on three-fourths of all farms. In the row-crop
section fallow land was limited to a few of the larger farms, but more
than four-fifths of the farmers reported idle cropland.
In Hale County fallow land wns reported on more than one-half of
the larger farms and on more than two-fifths of all farms. Idle cropland was reported on about three-tenths of the farms and was not
limited to farms of any particular size.
In the grain section of Curry County a smaller proportion of the
cropland was left idle than in the grain section of Dallam County.
Almost one-half of the fam1ers reported fallow land, but little more
than one-fourth of them reported idle cropland. In the row-crop
section both fallow land and idle cropland were reported on about onefifth of the fanns, the fallow land being limited to the larger farms
and the idle cropland being distributed among farms of all sizes.
The large proportion of Dallam County cropland that was left idle,
in 1934 indicates that the acreage seeded to various crops in that year
was not normal. Reports of the acreage seeded from 1930 to 1934
(appendix table 62) show that in Dallam County the acreage seeded
to each of the important crops in 1934, and to a lesser degree the
acreage seeded in 1933, was less than that seeded in the 3 preceding
years. However, the proportion of the cropland seeded to the various
crops had not changed materially except for com, which had become
relatively less important. Acreages seeded in 1933 and 1934 might
in general be considered representative of conditions in the county
during dry years, while acreages seeded in 1930 and 1931 might be •
considered representative of conditions in the more moist periods.
In Hale County, where drought had not been so severe, crop acreages were more stable than in Dallam County. The acreage seeded
to wheat had declined only gradually from 1930 to 1934, but the
decline probably resulted from the crop reduction program as much
D1g11tzed hy
Goog IC
92 • FARMING HAZARDS IN THE DROUGHT AREA
as from unfavorable seeding conditions. The acreage seeded to sorghums was increased slightly in 1934 and to that extent may have
represented a substitution of sorghums for other crops.
In both the row-crop section and the grain section of Curry County
drought conditions had resulted in a substitution of drought-resistant
sorghums for com and wheat. The acreage seeded to wheat in 1930
was less than that seeded from 1931 to 1934 but that seeded in 1933
and 1934 was less than that seeded in the 2 preceding years. The
acreage seeded to com declined materially in 1933 and 1934, but the
acreage planted to sorghums in 1934 was slightly higher than in any
of the preceding 4 years.
Uvatoclc
In April 1935 cattle comprised the one important livestock enterprise in all of the selected areas (appendix table 63). On most farms
the hog enterprise provided meat for home consumption only. In
none of the areas studied did the selected farmers have an average of
more than one brood sow per farm in April 1935, and many of the
farmers had none. Poultry was raised on most of the farms. Sheep
were reported only on a few of the larger farms in Hale County.
In Dallam County farmers in the row-crop section normally had
more cattle than did the farmers in the grain section. In April 1935
this superiority of numbers still held although reductions had been
more drastic in the row-crop section than in the grain section on many
of the farms. On the other hand, farmers in the grain section of
Curry County reported larger numbers of cattle normally kept on
their farms than did those in the row-crop section.
Following the 1934 drought large numbers of livestock were sold by
the farmers in the Southern Great Plains. From a normal averc1.ge of
30 head of cattle per farm in the row-crop section of Dallam County
the average number per farm had been reduced to 17 by the spring of
1935. In the grain section the number of cattle had been reduced
from 21 to 13. Numbers of milk cows had been reduced by about
one-half in both sections. Numbers of beef cows were reduced from
an average of 16 to 6 per farm in the row-crop section and from 5 to
4 in the grain section (appendix table 63).
Reduction of cattle was marked in the grain section of Curry
County, possibly as a result of overstocking, but approximately normal
numbers were retained in the row-crop section. In Hale County the
number of all cattle was reduced from an average of 16 to 11 per
farm, milk cows from 9 to 6 per farm, and other cattle from 7 to 5
• per farm.
Most of the cattle sold in 1934 were purchased by the Government
during the Emergency Livestock Purchase Program. The farmers'
reports show that approximately 2 out of 3 of the cattle sold in Dallam
and Curry Counties and 7 out of IO of those sold in Hale County
Oqit1zed by
Google
1l"ork H P rugn~s,s Ad m ill is t ra t ifln.
Drying H' al er Hul es Fo rce Cal/ le Sa il's .
Dig1lized by
Goog Ie
Digitized by
Google
THE SOUTHERN GREAT PLAINS • 93
were sold to the Government (fig. 9, p. 27). Approximately 12,000
head of cattle were purchased in Dallam County by the Government
and about the same number in Hale County. Nearly 15,000 head
were purchased in Curry County.
The number of work stock was reduced by about one-third in
Dallam County and one-fourth in Curry County. It was generally
maintained at normal levels in Hale County. Poultry flocks were
reduced to about one-half to two-thirds of normal in the three counties.
The farmers' reports of livestock numbers and their estimates of
the carrying capacity of their pastures indicate that on the average
most farmers had retained as many livestock as their depleted pastures would support in the spring of 1935. Feed loans had enabled
most farmers to maintain the young animals in their cow herds, and
sufficient stock remained in the areas to rebuild cattle numbers as
the carrying capacity of pastures increased. Some farmers, however,
had sold nearly all of their livestock and were in need of replacements.
The majority of the selected farmers still had some cattle in April
1935, including one or more milk cows, but few farmers had any beef
cows and about one-half of them had no hogs (appendix table 64).
Most of the farmers had chickens although more than one-half of
those in Dallam and Hale Counties had not more than 50. The
proportion of the farmers who had no work stock ranged from about
one-sixth in Hale County to more than one-half in the grain section
of Dallam County.
The farmers on general relief reported much smaller numbers of the
various classes of livestock in all of the counties studied than did
the selected farmers (appendix tables 59 and 63). Numbers on even
the largest farms operated by relief clients were less than those
reported on the smallest selected farms. A large proportion of the
relief clients owned no livestock. Since the relief clients' reports
were taken from their relief applications, many of which were filed
before the general drastic reduction of livestock in 1934, their dependence on livestock for income as compared with that of the selected
farmers must have been even smaller than these reports indicate.
In Dallam County one-fourth of the relief clients who had been
approved for rehabilitation had no milk cows, one-half had no work
stock, three-fifths had no hogs, and 1 out of 14 had no poultry. The
proportions of the relief clients who had not been approved for rehabilitation and who had none of the various classes of livestock were much
larger than those just cited. In Hale County nearly three-fifths of
the relief clients who had been approved for rehabilitation loans had
no cattle, three-fourths had no work stock, nine-tenths had no hogs,
and three-fifths had no poultry. In Curry County about one-seventh
of the relief clients had no milk cows, over one-third had no work
stock, one-half had no hogs, and one-seventh had no poultry.
o 11i1i2Pd hy
Goog [e
94 • FARMING HAZARDS IN THE DROUGHT AREA
U1e of Machinery and Labor
Power machinery is used extensively throughout the grain-producing
sections of the Southern Great Plains. In the small grain sections of
the cash-grain area tractors and combines were part of the usual
equipment and trucks were used on about one-half of the selected
farms. Tractors were part of the usual equipment throughout the
row-crop sections of the cash-grain area and in the area where both
grain and cotton are produced. The average investment in machinery
was smaller and power machinery was used less extensively on the
smaller farms of the cotton area.
Nine-tenths of the selected farmers in the grain section of Dallam
County and seven-tenths of those in the grain section of Curry
County were using tractors (appendix table 65). In the row-crop
section of Dallam County and in Hale County three-fifths of the
farmers were using tractors. In the row-crop section of Curry County
two-thirds of the farmers were using tractors.
The average estimated value per farm of all farm machinery and
equipment was $1,067 in the row-crop section and $1,749 in the grain
section of Dallam County, $911 in the row-crop section and $1,103 in
the grain section of Curry County, and $1,183 in Hale County
(appendix table 72).
Machinery on many of the farms was badly in need of repair, particularly in the small grain section. In many instances at least a
portion of the machinery needed replacement. The average estimated
cost of machinery repairs needed per farm was $55 in the row-crop
section and $131 in the grain section of Dallam County, $41 in the
row-crop section and $113 in the grain section of Curry County, and
$44 in Hale County.
The average estimated cost of machinery repairs needed was proportionally highest in the grain sections of Dallam and Curry Counties
and lowest in Hale County. It ranged from less than 4 percent of the
value of the machinery in Hale County to 10 percent in the grain
section of Curry County, and in most instances it was higher on
tenant-operated than on owner-operated farms.
The use of power machinery was an important factor in determining
the labor requirements of farms. Few of the farms were operated by
more than two men.
In all of the selected areas, as would be expected, the crop acreage
operated was generally larger on farms with two or more workers
than on those with one worker, and it was larger on farms operated
with tractors than on farms operated without tractors. In Dallam
and Curry Counties crop acreage on farms operated by one man
without a tractor averaged about two-fifths of the crop acreage on
farms operated by one man with a tractor. In Hale County it was
oiglli ro hy
Goog Ie
THE SOUTHERN GREAT PLAINS •
95
only a little over one-third of that operated by a man with a tractor
(appendix table 65).
Under the systems of farming commonly practiced in the area, the
crop acreage which one man operated without a tractor and without
additional help averaged about 200 to 220 acres in the row-crop
sections, about 250 to 260 acres in the grain sections, and about 130
acres in Hale County. Some additional labor was no doubt needed
during the harvest season. Those who operated larger acreages
satisfactorily reported either a tractor or additional help regularly
1
employed on the farm.
Farm Buildings
Buildings on many farms in the cash-grain area of the Southern
Great Plains were small, poorly constructed, and in need of paint and
repairs. They were particularly poor on the small farms.
On the whole, farm buildings in the row-crop sections were more
nearly adequate and in a better state of repair than those in the grain
sections. In the cotton area, where crop yields in recent years have
been relatively reliable, where livestock production is not an extensive
enterprise, and where the climate is less severe than in the northern
areas, farm buildings were in a better state of repair than those in the
cash-grain area.
In all of the selected areas the average value of dwellings constituted about two-fifths of the value of all farm buildings (table 23
and appendix table 66).
TolJle !3.-Average Value of Farm Buildings and Estimated Cost of Needed Repairs per
Farm on Selected Forms in Representative Counties in the Southern Great Plains, 1935
County
Number
of farms
reporting
Value of buildings
Total
Dwelling
Cost of needed repairs
Other
Total
Dwelling Other
--
--- --Dallam:
Row-crop section _____________
Grain section _________________
Hele _____________________________
Curry:
How-crop section _____________
Grain section ________________
43
37
156
$2,331
1,956
1,953
63
1,615
1,334
46
$009
776
838
6110
557
$1,422
I, 18/J
1,115
$105
143
78
$63
76
47
$42
67
31
955
777
93
159
53
93
66
40
The value of all farm buildings tended to be proportional to the
size of farm. Within each area the estimated cost of needed repairs
was relatively high on the small farms. The average estimated value
of all farm buildings per farm ranged from $1,334 in the grain section
of Curry County to $2,331 in the row-crop section of Dallam County.
The average estimated cost of needed repairs ranged from $78 per
farm in Hale County, or 4 percent of the total value of all buildings,
to $159 per farm in the grain section of Curry County, or 12 percent of
the value of all buildings.
D1011,zed hy
Goog Ie
96 • FARMING HAZARDS IN THE DROUGHT AREA
Failure to maintain farm buildings must have been due, for the
most part, to depleted finances rather than to a lack of incentive or
responsibility on the part of the farm operators. This is indicated
by the fact that in the areas where the estimated cost of building
repairs was highest in relation to the total value of buildings, the
proportion of the selected farms which were owner-operated tended to
be higher than in the other areas.
INDEBTEDNESS
Throughout the Southern Great Plains farmers are burdened by
taxes and carrying charges on indebtedness which are relatively high
when compared with the productivity of their farms. In their efforts
to meet these charges they tend to follow soil-depleting practices.
Real-estate mortgages were the primary source of indebtedness on
the owner-operated farms surveyed, ranging from an average of onethird of the estimated value of all owner-operated real estate in the
grain section of Curry County to approximately two-thirds of the
value of all owner-operated real estate in both the row-crop and grain
sections of Dallam County (appendix table 72). Real-estate mortgages and chattel mortgages, which included Government feed and
seed loans, represented more than nine-tenths of the owner-operators'
indebtedness in the Southern Great Plains.
Chattel mortgages were the primary source of the tenant-operators'
indebtedness. They were reported by most tenants and represented
from seven-tenths to more than nine-tenths of their indebtedness.
In portions of the Southern Great Plains affected most adversely
by drought the burden to farmers of taxes and carrying charges on
indebtedness can be seen in the reports of 10 owner-operators in the
grain section of Dallam County who were operating farms approximating 320 acres. Their average indebtedness, by sources, consisted
of real-estate mortgages, $2,691; chattel mortgages (including crop
and feed loans), $1,040; delinquent taxes, $115; and other debts, $182.
If assessed for taxes at the usual rates and if charged the usual interest
rates on these various sources of indebtedness, these farmers would
have an annual fixed cost of at least $240. The average yield of wheat
per acre is only 9 bushels, and at 75 cents a bushel about 36 acres, or
more than one-fourth of the wheat usually produced, would be utilized
in meeting these fixed charges. In adverse years all of the crops
produced on these farms would not pay the taxes and interest, and
it is in such years that the farmers' indebtedness accumulates. In
1934 these same farmers reported an average gross cash income of
only $510, or little more than twice the amount of these fixed charges.
Their average cash income in 1934 from other than governmental
expenditures would pay about one-half of their annual taxes and
interest charges.
D1□11,zed hy Goog Ie
THE SOUTHERN GREAT PLAINS • 97
Real-Estate lndebtedn-
Mortgages of record taken from the registration books in the selected
counties indicate that 44 percent of the land in Dallam County,
39 percent in Hale County, and 36 percent in Curry County were mortgaged in 1935 (table 24). More than one mortgage was outstanding on 15 percent of the land in Dallam County, 14 percent in Hale
C-0unty, and 10 percent in Curry County.
Tol,le N.-Acreag_e Mortgaged and Average Indebtedness per Acre, Mortgages of
Record in Representative Counties in the Southern Great Plains, 1935
County
Dallam ................................... .
Hale ..................................... .
Curry .......•..•..•.•.•........•.........
Number of acres mort•
Percent of all land
gaged
mortgaged
Average
1 - - - ~ - - - 1 - - - ~ - - - 1 indeb1'1d·
ness per
First
Other
First
Other
acre
mortgage mortgage mortgage mortgage
432,300
146,931
259,351
31~. 774
IIO, 169
86,~l
«
39
36
15
14
10
$8.42
15.85
6.6i
In Dallam County the amount of the mortgage was usually between
$2.50 and $15 per acre, averaging $8.42 per acre for all mortgages, or
74 percent of the average value placed by the census a on all farm
land and buildings in the county. A number of the farmers were
evidently carrying mortgage indebtedness greater than the current
value of their farms.
In Curry County, also, a number of the farmers must have been
carrying a debt approximately equal to, or greater than, the current
value of their farms. Seventeen percent of the encumbered acreage
was mortgaged for more than $10 an acre and the land and buildings
were valued at $12.45 an acre. 16 The usual mortgage indebtedness
was less than $10 per acre and the average indebtedness was $6.67
per acre.
In Hale County, on the other hand, few of the farms were mortgaged for more than their current value. Only 2 percent of the
encumbered acreage was mortgaged for more than $30 an acre, the
approximate average value per acre of all farm land and buildings in
the county. 16 The usual amount of mortgage indebtedness was
between $7.50 and $22.50 an acre and the average was $15.85.
Most of the mortgages in the Southern Great Plains were held by
the Federal Land Bank, Federal Land Bank Commissioner, private
individuals, and lending corporations. Mortgages held by the Fedu Bureau of the Census, United States Census of Agriculture: 1935, U. S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D. C.
11 ll>id.
II ll>id.
D gillzed by
Google
98 • FARMING HAZARDS IN THE DROUGHT AREA
eral Land Bank were first mortgages, whereas most of those held by
the Federal Land Bank Commissioner were second mortgages.
Together, these two agencies held 55 percent of the first mortgages
and 62 percent of all mortgages in Dallam County (appendix table
67). They held 80 percent of the first mortgages and 84 percent of all
mortgages in Hale County and 76 percent of the first mortgages and 75
percent of all mortgages in Curry County. Between 1933 and 1935 a
number of farmers throughout the entire area refinanced through
the Federal Land Bank and the Federal Land Bank Commissioner
mortgages which had previously been held by other lending agencies.
Crop and Feed Loans
Federal crop and feed loans of 1934 outstanding in Dallam County
on December 31, 1934, totaled $253,571, while feed loans of 19341935 outstanding on February 28, 1935, totaled $30,834. Together
they averaged $401 for every farm in the county (appendix table
68). In Curry County these loans averaged $151 per farm, but in
Hale County they averaged only $57 per farm.
Taxation and Tax Delinquencies
Tax delinquency has been chronic in the Southern Great Plains.
That the farmers' ability to pay taxes declined between 1928 and
1932 is shown by reports on tax delinquency of rural real estate in
10 New Mexico counties, 55 Texas counties, and 15 Oklahoma.
counties. 17 From 1928 to 1932 the accumulated unpaid delinquency
per acre in the 10 New Mexico counties increased from 10 cents to
31 cents, or 210 percent. In the 55 Texas counties it increased from
21 cents per acre to 40 cents, or 90 percent, and in the 15 Oklahoma.
counties it increased from 37 cents to 76 cents, or 105 percent. In
each State the accumulated unpaid delinquency of each year exceeded that of the preceding year, indicating that new delinquencies
in each year of the period exceeded all previous delinquencies which
had been redeemed during that year.
Records on file in the county indicate that tax certificates on 236,156
acres in Dallam County had been redeemed between 1932 and 1935,
but that in 1935, 252,011 acres, or 26 percent of all land, were still
delinquent on 1931, 1932, or 1933 taxes (appendix table 69). About
80 percent of this land was delinquent for 1933 only. A large munher of the redemptions were made in 1934 and 1935, partly as a result
of the refinancing of mortgages previously mentioned and partly as
17 Bureau of Agricultural Economics, Division of Finance, Tax Delinquency of
Rural Real Estate in 10 New Mexico Counties, 1928-33, June 18, 1935; Tax
Delinquency of Rural Real Estate in 55 Texas Counties, 1928-33, September 27,
1935; and Tax Delinquency of Rural Real Estate in 15 Oklahoma Counties, 1928-SS,
mimeographed reports, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D. C.,
July 9, 1935.
Diq111zed bv
Goos IC
THE SOUTHERN GREAT PLAINS • 99
a result of a State law passed in January 1935 rescinding all penalties
and interest on general property taxes delinquent before August 1,
1934, if paid before March 15, 1935.
In Hale County tax certificates on 133,465 acres of tax-delinquent
land had been redeemed, but taxes on 262,239 acres, or 40 percent
of all land, were still delinquent for 1931, 1932, 1933, or 1934. Approximately one-third of the delinquent land was delinquent for 3 or
4 years while two-thirds was delinquent for only 1 or 2 years.
In Curry County 105,639 acres, or only 12 percent of all land,
remained delinquent in 1935 for 1931, 1932, or 1933 taxes. About
one-half of this delinquent acreage was delinquent for taxes due in
all 3 of the years and more than one-third was for 1933 only. Tax
certificates on 9,510 acres had been redeemed during the first 5 months
of 1935.
The total tax levied against real estate in 1934 averaged about
$2.45 per $100 valuation in Dallam County, $2.50 in Curry County,
and $2.67 in Hale County. In 1934 assessed valuations in Dallam
County averaged about $5 per acre and the usual tax on a 320-acre
farm was about $40. In Hale County assessed valuations in 1934
ranged from $7 to $12 with $8 as the modal valuation. The usual
tax was about $68 on a 320-acre farm.
Relief Clients' Indebtedness
Statements of the relief clients' liabilities (appendix table 70) indicate an average indebtedness smaller than that reported by the
selected farmers. In Curry County, however, the relief clients who
were owner-operators of farms of 559 acres or less reported more
indebtedness than did the selected farmers who were owner-operators
of farms of similar size (appendix table 71). Tenant-operators on
relief rolls in this county who were operating farms of less than 280
acres reported larger indebtedness than the selected tenants on
farms of the same size. The indebtedness reported by relief clients
who were tenant-operators of farms larger than 280 acres was
somewhat smaller than that reported by selected tenant-operators of
farms similar in size. However, in view of the fact that the relief
clients had less livestock and probably less other mortgageable
property, it is probable that their net worth was considerably smaller
than that of the selected farmers.
OWNERSHIP OF LAND AND TENURE OF OPERATORS
Corporate-owned land does not present a pressing problem in
connection with the rehabilitation of farmers in the Southern Great
Plains. Ownership data taken from the county records indicate that
most of the land in the selected counties in the Southern Great Plains
was owned by private individuals. Of the land with recorded owner-
0 gi11zed by
Goog Ie
100 • FARMING HAZARDS IN THE DROUGHT AREA
ship, corporations owned only 5 percent in Dallam County, 4 percent
in Hale County, and 3 percent in Curry County (table 25).
Tol,le .25.-Type and Residence of Ownen of Land in Representative Counties in the
Southern Great Plains, 1935
Ownership of land (percent)
County
Dallam __________ --- ____________
Hale ____________________________
Curry ________ -- ---- -- ----------
Total area
(acres)
Private Individuals
Resident
Nonresl•
dent
44
68
73
41
Z'l
I 958, 167
'604,647
881,451
I
Corporation.,
Resident
22
.
2
1
Nonresl•
dent
3
4
2
Others
10
1
2
•Less than 0.5 percent.
t Data represent 97 percent of all land In the county.
• Data represent 92 percent ol all land In the county.
a Data represent 98 percent ol all land In the county.
Sources: Aiflcultural Adjustment Administration contracts and records In offices of county tax assessors.
On the other hand, nonresident ownership is a major problem.
Nearly one-half of the privately-owned land and three-fifths of the
corporate-owned land in Dallam County were owned by nonresidents.
Nonresidents owned nearly three-tenths of the privately-owned land
and nearly all of the corporate-owned land in Hale County and more
than one-fifth of the privately-owned land and two-thirds of the
corporate-owned land in Curry County.
Nonresident owners who rent out their land may not be in a position
to counteract soil-depleting practices which are encouraged by the
usual rental agreement. Those in the wheat sections of Dallam
and Curry Counties who operate their own farms may not be able to
check wind erosion when it occurs since they live on or near their
holdings only during the seeding and harvesting seasons. Not only
their own farms but also those adjacent to them may be damaged.
Tenancy is another major problem in the rehabilitation of farmers
in the area. In 1934 tenants operated 44 percent of the farm land
represented by corn-hog contracts in Dallam County, 52 percent of
the land represented by cotton contracts in Hale County, and 28
percent of the land represented by corn-hog contracts in Curry
County (table 26).
The proportion of the farmers who were classed as tenants and the
proportion of all land in farms that was operated by tenants had
increased considerably in all of the selected counties from 1920 to
1935. 18 In Dallam County the proportion of farmers who were tenants
18 Bureau of the Census, Fifteenth Census of the United States: 1930, Agriculture
Vol. II, and United States Census of Agriculture: 1935, Vol. I, U.S. Department of
Commerce, Washington, D. C.
oiglli ro hy
Goog Ie
THE SOUTHERN GREAT PLAINS • 101:
had increased from 32 to 47 percent and the proportion of farm land
operated by tenants had increased from 12 to 29 percent (table 27).
In Hale County the proportion of tenants had increased from 40 to 55
percent and the land operated by tenants had increased from 29 to 48
percent. In Curry County the proportion of all farmers classed as
tenants had increased from 18 to 39 percent and the proportion of all
farm land which they were operating had increased from 14 to 29
percent.
Tobie JcS.-Tenure of Operators of Farm Land in Representative Counties in the Southern
Great Plains, 1934
Operators of farm land (percent)
Tenant
Total llCJ'tl.S
reported
County
Not
Resident Nonresl<lent specified
owner
owner
Owner
Dallam
___________
··-··-····-··--------------_
Hale. ______
••• _. ____________________________
CWTy - --·--· -··- -- .••• ··-···--·-. - . -- --- -- . I
1
I 295,038
'413,1144
I 273,272
llS
21
23
48
29
i2
17
23
11
Umler com-hog production control contracts.
Under cotton production control contracts.
Tenants were heavily overrepresented among farmers in need of
public assistance in the spring of 1935. They comprised about
three-fourths of the relief clients in Dallam and Curry Counties,
whereas they made up only one-fourth of the interviewed farmers.
In Hale County 45 of the 46 relief clients who had been approved for
rehabilitation were tenants as compared with only 60 out of 154
selected farmers (appendix tables 59 and 72).
Tol>le 27.-Farm Tenancy in Representative Counties in the Southern Great Plains, 1920,
1930, and 1935
Percent of lann operators
who were tenants
Percent ol larm land operated
by tenants
County
1920
1930
1935
1920
1930
1935
------------------ -----------DaTiam.·-·······--···------·-··----·--·-HaJe __ --··-·- •.• ___ • __ •• _____ . ____ ••.• -· __
Curry•--··············--···········-···--
32
40
18
34
52
34
47
55
39
12
29
14
Z1
47
31
211
48
211
Bouree!!: Bureeu of the Census, Fourtunth Ctmu., of lht Unittd Stata: 19t0 and Unittd Statu Ctmiu of
Agriculture: 19116, U. 8. Department of Commerce, Washington, D. C,
In all of the selected areas owner-operators were stronger financially
than tenant-operators as measured by total assets and liabilities.
The average net worth of both owners and tenants was higher in Hale
County than in Dallam and Curry Counties. In Dallam County
86869°-ss-ll
Oqit1zed by
Google
.......
.... -..-::.-::
.. . . .. . .
....
. . . . .. . . . .. : ·..· .
:9:•• : :•:; :-j<5~;~~iic,~~AZARDS IN
THE DROUGHT AREA
both owners and tenants in the row-crop section were considerably
stronger financially than were those in the grain section (fig. 19 and
appendix table 72).
~
18
16
14
Assets
Thousand dollars
10
8
6
12
4
2
Liabilities
Thousand
dollars
0
0
2
DALLAM
Raw-crap section
Grain section
HALE
CURRY
Row-crop section
Grain section
Tenants
Owners
FIG. 19-AVERAGE VALUE OF FARM ASSETS AND AMOUNT OF LIABILITIES
OF SELECTED FARMERS IN REPRESENTATIVE COUNTIES
IN THE SOUTHERN GREAT PLAINS
BY TENURE
1935
AF•ZT07, WPA.
o 11i1i2Pd hy
Goog [e
Chapter IV
PROSPECTS FOR REHABILITATION OF
FARMERS
CoNTINUED DROUGHT and low crop yields in 1935 and 1936
intensified the economic and agricultural distress of farmers in the
Great Plains drought area of 1934, and additional loans to finance
their crops ran the farmers further into debt. Because the future of
the Great Plains depends upon the economic recovery of the thousands of financially crippled or destitute farmers, agricultural agencies
have concerned themselves with the possibilities for their permanent
rehabilitation.
In most of the areas studied such rehabilitation involves an increase
in size of some of the farms, the movement of some farmers out of
the area, retirement of some land from crops, an increase in pasture
acreage, replacement of depleted livestock herds, repairs to buildings,
and repairs or replacement of machinery. Adjustment of the farmers'
debt.a and advances of working capital will often be necessary to
accomplish these changes in farm economy and organization. Only
by such reorganization, however, can many of the farmers hope to
build up adequate reserves against future drought periods. Accomplishment of this result will have some repercussions on the community
structure.
In the Northern Great Plains four of the six areas studied presented
most of these rehabilitation problems to a greater or less degree. The
areas represented by Dh;de and Hettinger Counties, N. Dak., and
Hyde County, S. Dak., were seriously in need of rehabilitation measures, while in the area represented by Sheridan County, N. Dak.,
the problems were somewhat less urgent. Two areas-those represented by Traill County, N. Dak., and Moody County, S. Dak.presented no rehabilitation problems at all or no pressing ones.
Throughout the Northern Great Plains, but particularly in the
central and western sections, the livestock enterprise on many farms
should be increased beyond the point considered normal in 1934 in
order that the farmers may have more diversified and more stable
103
Digitized by
Google
104 • FARMING HAZARDS IN THE DROUGHT AREA
sources of income. A rehabilitation program should assist the farmers
with least reserves in acquiring replacements. An increase in the
livestock enterprise, however, should go hand in hand with an increase
in the size of operating units and should be accompanied by a shifting
of some cropland to permanent pasture and some replacement of cash
crops by feed crops. An increase in livestock with no increase in
feed will only intensify the present overgrazing and feed shortages.
Under such circumstances future drought periods might necessitate
a reduction of livestock even greater than that which occurred in 1934.
To encourage farmers to seed large acreages to permanent grasses,
provisions of grass seed, soil-conserving payments, and tax exemptions
while the sod is being established will probably be necessary.
Increased size of operating units would also make possible more
extensive use of summer fallow farming.
A rehabilitation program would need to make provision for the
repair and replacement of machinery on many farms in the central
and western counties. In some cases new buildings are needed, particularly if livestock numbers should be markedly expanded.
Many farmers in the N orthem Great Plains are so overburdened
with debt that a fundamental rehabilitation need is either downward
adjustment of their indebtedness or assistance in paying carrying
charges. Some means of caring for or deferring payments on mortgages, interest, and taxes appears necessary.
In the Central Great Plains the sections represented by Cheyenne
County, Colo., and Goshen County, Wyo., were seriously in need of
rehabilitation, but problems were less urgent in Sherman County,
Nebr., and there were no pressing problems in Perkins County, Nebr.
The variations among the counties studied illustrate the range in the
severity of land-use problems throughout the Central Great Plains.
In many sections farmers needed assistance in restoring livestock
numbers, while in others practically normal numbers had been retained. Since the farmers who needed livestock replacements or
increases in the size of their normal herds were the financially weakest,
and since in the event of a good year competition would place livestock in the hands of the financially strongest, it is probable that some
assistance would be required to obtain a desirable distribution of stock
among the farmers. Return of eroded acreages to natural grass is
needed in many sections, together with the adoption of sound soil
conservation practices to prevent further erosion.
As in other sections of the Great Plains, many farms in the central
counties were too small to provide for carrying charges and operating
costs and yet insure adequate support of the operator's family. While
crop and feed loans are not so extensive as in many areas, they represent an increased financial burden which also should be considered in
any attempt to rehabilitate the families of the area.
01g11i
ro hy
Goog Ie
PROSPECTS FOR REHABILITATION• 105
In order to effect redistribution of land so as to enlarge the smaller
holdings, some counties could care for the present farm population
through greater concentration in the more fertile sections. In other
cases, such as in Cheyenne County, emigration was already under
way. Emigration from this area following extensive periods of
drought in the past serves to emphasize the importance of anticipating
future periods of drought through rehabilitation measures.
In the Southern Great Plains also it is apparent that the recurrence
of drought periods must be anticipated in the organization of any
successful rural rehabilitation program. The three areas studied,
however, illustrate marked contrasts in farm conditions. That represented by Dallam County, Tex., was the only one where rehabilitation
problems were urgent at the time of the survey. Some adjustment
to the natural requirements of the area had already been made in
Curry County, N. Mex. The region represented by Hale County,
Tex., was favorably situated as to soil and precipitation and presented
few immediate problems.
Wind erosion is a special problem to be met in portions of the
southern area. A vegetative cover has proved the most effective
means of controlling wind erosion, but, since periods of drought have
destroyed and then prevented the reestablishment of a vegetative cover
on cropland, cultivated land which is most susceptible to wind erosion
should be diverted from crop production. To accomplish the comprehensive program of soil conservation which is needed requires
governmental assistance and concerted action on the part of farmers.
Any farmer who is entirely dependent on grain production for his
livelihood is in a precarious position because of the frequent low yields
and crop failures. Such farmers need drastic adjustments in land
use to provide for a livestock enterprise and the requisite pasturage.
Moreover, only the growing of feed crops in all years and the carrying over of supplies from years of good production to years of poor
production will insure ample feed for livestock. 1 Where pasture is
available, range livestock should often form the primary be.sis of the
farm enterprise.
Rehabilitation of farmers in the cash-grain section of the Southern
Great Plains will require extensive repairs to farm buildings. On
the other hand, rehabilitation of farmers in the cotton section, represented by Hale County, for the most part will require only minor
repairs to farm buildings.
Throughout the Southern Great Plains many farmers are in need
of advances of working capital as a result of exhausted credit. In
such relatively favorable areas as that represented by Hale County,
1 Mathews, 0. R. and Brown, L. A., Winter Wheat and Sorghum Production
Under Limited Rainfall, Circular 477, U. S. Department of Agriculture,
Washington, D. C., July 1938.
0 gi11zed by
Goog Ie
106 • FARMING HAZARDS IN THE DROUGHT AREA
temporary financial assistance will be sufficient to rehabilitate most
operators.
Although rehabilitation problems are generally similar in all
drought-stricken areas of the Great Plains, the measures needed to
restore financial independence or to prevent future dependency
differ somewhat from one county to another. More detailed suggestions for the rehabilitation of farmers and the improvement of the
farm economy in the Great Plains are therefore presented below for
the counties surveyed, each county being considered typical of conditions in its geographic and type-of-farming area.
NORTHWESTERN NORTH DAKOTA AND NORTHEASTERN MONTANA
As Typi8ed by Divide County, N. Dale.
Permanent removal of northwestern North Dakota and northeastern Montana from the frequently distressed class implies a drastic
change in producing units. The weather hazard cannot be eliminated,
and, according to their own statements of financial progress, farmers
in Divide County, which is typical of the area, have not been generally successful. Operators of the smaller farms reported least
success.
Summer fallow can to some extent reduce the drought hazard, but
on a small farm a summer fallow practice leaves an unprofitably small
acreage of crops. Permanent pasture lends stability to livestock production, but the size of many farms does not provide for a sufficient
acreage of both pasture and cropland.
Before the drastic reduction in livestock in this county in 1934
many farms in the North Dakota Black Prairies Section and some of
the smaller farms in the Scobey-Plentywood Section were overstocked. Hence, an increase in pasture acreage and a more equitable
distribution of pasture land constitute desirable steps in a rehabilitation program for this area. While farms of 800 acres or more in the
Scobey-Plentywood Section of Divide County had one-half of their
acreage in pasture, smaller farms in that section and practically all
farms in the North Dakota Black Prairies Section had a much smaller
proportion in pasture.
The majority of interviewed farmers considered 320 to 480 acres to
be the minimum-sized farm for profitable operation, but statements
of the financial progress of these farmers indicate that a larger acreage is desirable. Wheat contracts indicated that almost two-thirds
of the farms are smaller than even this minimum size.
A readjustment of land holdings to bring the average of small farms
to 480 acres would probably displace about 7 percent of the farmers
reported by the census in 1935. A trend in this direction would
make feasible the reseeding of some of the less desirable cropland to
permanent grasses. Farmers might be encouraged to shift crop acre-
D gillZPrl hy
Goos Ie
lull lLa11 y r ).
R n t11/('llt e 11t Ad11 1i11, strat
Dr oug ht Re fug ees.
Digitized by
Goos Ie
Digitized by
Google
PROSPECTS FOR REHABILITATION • 107
age to pasture by advances to provide grass seed and tax exemptions
on land during the process of establishing a permanent sod. Organization of grazing districts is desirable as a means of adjusting the
control of pasturage as well as a means of preventing overgrazing.
The crop yields usually obtained, the frequency of failures in the
area, and the low earning capacity per acre cast doubt on the proposition that much of the land, even with a. revised organization, would
be able to support a valuation or debt burden heavier than that carried in 1935. Partial losses of past investment, with no marked rise
of the price level, may be unavoidable, but adjustments of size of
farm and farm organization to the productive capacity of the area
may avoid a future return of the condition found in 1935.
In a number of cases machinery repairs and even replacement of
worn-out machinery and repairs of buildings are needed for continuation of farm operations. If ownership by the operator is to be retained, some means of caring for or deferring payments on mortgages,
interest, and taxes is necessary. When normal crop production is
resumed and feed is available, intermediate tenn loans to finance
purchase of breeding stock will be in order.
SOUTHWESTERN NORTH DAKOTA
A, TypiAed by Hettin9er County
Some adjustment is needed in the present organization of southwestern North Dakota farms. Farm tenancy has increased, indicating that farm operators are now less able than formerly to acquire
land. Real-estate mortgage indebtedness has mounted, and, since
land values have declined, the burden of mortgage indebtedness has
been accelerated even more rapidly than the value of mortgages.
The vast amount of indebtedness incurred through Federal emergency
loans and the inability of many farmers to pay either the principal or
interest when due, the increase in tax deliquencies, and the resultant
financial difficulties of school districts and other taxing units are all
indicative of inadequate incomes under the present system of farming.
Many farms are not large enough to yield sufficient income to meet
the carrying charges on the land and other operating expenses and to
provide the operator and his family with a living. Until reduced,
outstanding indebtedness, which has increased so rapidly in recent
years, will tend to keep fix('d costs at a relatively high level.
On the basis of the size of farm recommended and the income and
financial progress statements made by farmers operating farms of
different sizes in Hettinger County, representative of the area, farms
of less than 480 acres appear not to be economical units, on the whole.
The census report in 1930 showed 541 farms in the county between 50
and 500 acres in size. To combine those smaller farms so that all
operators would have a unit of 480 acres would involve the displace-
D1gi11Zed oy
Google
108 • FARMING HAZARDS IN THE DROUGHT AREA
ment of about 15 percent of the total number of farmers reported in
Hettinger County by the 1935 Census.
Pasture acreage on the small farms must be expanded if the operators
are to be encouraged to increase their livestock.. These small farms
were apparently overgrazed before reductions took place in 1934 and
the remaining numbers are all that their present pasturage can
support.
A rehabilitation program should provide for minor repairs on most
farm buildings and machinery in the area. The average cost of
needed building repairs on all farms was estimated at $348, or 15
percent of the estimated value of all buildings.
A portion of the lighter soils in the area should be returned to permanent grass cover in the interest of soil conservation and sound fa.rm
management. Farm operators should be induced to seed to permanent grass at least part of the cropland which has been unprofitable in
recent yea.rs. Possible inducements could be in the form of advances
to provide grass seed and tax exemptions on the acreage during the
process of establishing the sod. Although the percentage of fa.rm land
in crops dropped between 1929 and 1934 and 11 percent of the fa.rm
land became idle, this cannot be regarded as a permanent tendency in
the area. Unless restrictions are placed on the planting of crops, the
land that was left idle will probably be put back into crops as soon as
moisture supplies become favorable.
CENTRAL NORTH DAKOTA
A, TyplAed by Sheridan County
Frequent crop failures need not be expected in central North
Dakota, and with the return to normal crop production most of the
farmers should no longer need assistance. However, a rehabilitation
program in the area should, as far as possible, assist the farmers in
reorganizing their operating units so that they will be able to build up
reserves against future drought periods.
From a short-time standpoint those farmers who were forced to sell
nearly all of their livestock need assistance in reestablishing breeding
herds. Other farmers need help in reconditioning farm buildings to
prevent rapid depreciation and high replacement expense. Many
need assistance in the repair or replacement of farm machinery.
From a long-time standpoint some adjustment in the size of operating units is desirable. Many of the farms are too small to provide
the operator with an income sufficient to pay his high fixed costs,
support himself and his family, and accumulate reserves for years of
low income. If a more nearly equal distribution of acreage can be
effected among the farmers operating in the area by assisting farmers
on the smaller farms to acquire portions of the larger farms, few, if
any, farmers need be displaced.
Digitized by
Goog Ie
PROSPECTS FOR REHABILITATION • 109
Because of the rolling topography and the prevalence of glacial
boulders on the surface, much of the present crop acreage is suited to
range production of livestock rather than to crop production. From
the standpoint of soil conservation and the maintenance of soil prod uctivity such acreage should be shifted to permanent grasses and the
farmers' livestock enterprises increased proportionately. Such a shift
in land use might be encouraged by making advances for the purchase
of grass seed, by soil-conserving payments, and by tax exemptions on
the land during the process of establishing permanent sod. The
change to permanent grasses will not only help to retard soil erosion
but it will also tend to reduce the farmers' dependence on crops and
increase the reliability of their incomes. Without some shift in land
use it is probable that soil erosion in the area will become more acute
and that another drought period will bring more distress to central
North Dakota farmers than that experienced in 1934.
CENTRAL SOUTH DAKOTA
At TypiAed by Hyde County
The decided increase in planted crop acreage in the Missouri Plateau
Area of central South Dakota during the relatively productive period
of 1918-1930, followed by the decrease during the calamitous 19311934 period, would indicate that under the present system of operation
crop acreage will be restored when climatic and economic factors are
favorable and that another adverse period will again cause the
majority of the farmers to need public assistance.
The tendency to overcapitalize land during the post World War
period, with the drastic reduction in land values since 1930, has
retarded the accumulation of capital in recent years. The high rate of
foreclosures indicates the need for adjustment of land values.
It appears that the lower limits in size for economicalfarmingunits
in the area, as typified by Hyde County, are from 480 to 640 acres,
depending on the ability of the operators, with an average unit of
approximately 640 acres.
Some increase in the present pasture acreage seems advisable.
However, the present custom of renting pasture acreage for cash
should be considered, and care should be taken not to overburden the
operators with fixed costs. The increase in pasture acreage could be
accomplished by shifting present cropland, which has proved unprofitable for crop production, to permanent grass.
Under the present organization many farmers need assistance in the
replacement of livestock. If thefarm and pasture acreages are increased, the need will be even more pronounced. Farmers on the
larger farms need assistance in restoring beef cattle but, until pasture
acreages are increased, the small farmers' needs for replacements
will
o 11i1i2Pd hy
Goog [e
110 • FARMING HAZARDS IN THE DROUGHT AREA
be largely confined to restoring poultry and swine and in some instances work stock and milk cows.
Under the present setup the smaller farms with a larger percentage
of crop acres are concentrated in the central portion of the county
where the terrain is less undulating and the soils are productive.
Consequently, farm dwellings and other improvements are more or
less concentrated in this section. In order to increase the size of
operating units and at the same time utilize the present improvements
most economically, it is suggested that additions to the present units
be made by adding pasture acreage in the rougher sections to the
present units in the better sections. This could be accomplished by
additions to individual units or by the organization of grazing districts in the rougher sections to be utilized by the operators located
in the better sections. The latter method would permit restricted
grazing and conserve the native sod.
RED RIVER VALLEY OF EASTERN NORTH DAKOTA
At Typi8ed by Traill County
Traill County was the only county in North Dakota that had no
relief agency in the early months of 1935. There were some relief
cases in the other four counties of the Red River Valley, but the
actual relief burden in this area was light. Traill County was included
in the survey because, due to its favorable agricultural situation, it
was considered an area for possible closer settlement.
Highly productive soils and a climate suitable for the production
of spring grains and potatoes have resulted in consistently high crop
yields in the Red River Valley over a long period of years. In the
period between 1931 and 1934, when crops in most midwestern farming areas were either seriously or totally damaged by the continued
drought, precipitation was very little below normal in Traill County,
and crop yields did not depart greatly from normal.
From the financial records of the 52 farmers interviewed, it is evident that 160-, 240-, and 320-acre units have offered farmers in this
area something more than a bore living, and units of this size can be
suggested for new farms in a resettlement program. A farm of 200
acres or less can be operated by one man without help and without
a tractor. However, efficient operation of larger farms requires extra
help or tractors. A somewhat higher net income may be eA-pected
from farms of 240 and 320 acres or even larger units, but the capital
investment necessary to establish a family on the larger farms may
be prohibitive.
By acquiring portions of the larger farms it is believed that resettlement of new farmers in the area would be possible. without displacing
the present farm operators and with no disturbance of the present
farm organization except a reduction in size of some of the larger
Digitized by
Goog Ie
PROSPECTS FOR REHABILITATION • 111
units. Tenantroperated land could probably be acquired more readily
than owner-operated land. It is estimated that in 1935 there were
approximately 300 farms in Traill County of over 400 acres in size
which were either tenant or partrowner operated. Portions of such
farlllS, if available, could be used in establishing new farmers in the
area.
There are very few unused farm buildings in Traill County, and
establishment of new farms in the area would, in most instances,
necessitate the construction of new buildings. Since the average estimated value in 1935 of all farm buildings on 160-acre farms was $2,684,
and of those on 320-acre farms, $3,793, new buildings of the sallle
proportions and quality might involve prohibitive capital expenditures. Many farm buildings in the county, however, are more than
adequate to meet the farmers' needs, and less expensive buildings can
be erected.
The acquiring of new land in Traill County would be facilitated by
the fact that a relatively small proportion is tax delinquent. But the
unusually high value of farms in Traill County, the second highest in
value in the State, might prove to be a deterrent in the purchase of
land.
The desirability of making actual cash advancements to new farmers would depend on whether the land was purchased or leased, the
type of buildings, and the grade of livestock provided, whether the
machinery was new or used, and the amount of capital which each
individual had to invest. The cost of moving from his present location to the Red River Valley, and the provision of operating and
living expenses until the new unit could provide such expenses, should
be carefully considered on an individual basis.
SOUTHEASTERN SOUTH DAKOTA
As Typified by Moody County
Although the drought of 1934 limited crop production and curtailed
incomes in southeastern South Dakota, both agricultural and economic
conditions were much better in this area than in any other section
of the State in the summer of 1935. Only about one-fourth of the
acreage intended for harvest in 1934 was a failure as compared with
almost total failure in some counties of South Dakota.
To the high productivity of the soils in this region, combined with
stable crop yields and precipitation, was attributed the relatively
strong financial condition of farmers in Moody County, representative of the area, throughout the drought years. Like Traill County
it was selected for study for purposes of comparison with areas seriously affected by drought.
Moody County, however, offers few opportunities for resettlement
of farmers from other areas. If all Moody County farm land was
0 gi11zed by
Goog Ie
112 • FARMING HAZARDS IN THE DROUGHT AREA
divided equally into units of 160 acres, more than 2,000 farm families,
or 665 new families, might be established in the county. Such an
equal distribution, however, is not practicable. Since there is an
unsatisfied demand for farm land within the county, it is doubtful if
much acreage could be acquired without displacing farmers already
operating there.
Rural distress in Moody County was not marked until 1934. The
immediate cause was low crop yields; and the farmers affected were
primarily tenant-operators with small farms, who were not well established in the area or who had unusually high indebtedness. Fann
owners' fixed costs, such as taxes and carrying charges on real-estate
indebtedness, were high, but owner-operators had accumulated more
financial reserves than tenant-operators.
The few requirements for rehabilitation in Moody County are little
more than needs for working capital loans. There is apparently little
need for livestock and equipment replacements.
The selected farmers reported that with livestock production as
their major enterprise both owner- and tenant-operators could maintain a desirable standard of living for themselves and their families
on a farm of 160 acres. The financial record of selected farmers
who were operating 160-acre farms appeared to substantiate these
estimates.
In general, farmers who derived a high percentage of their income
from livestock sales experienced more years in which they were able
to accumulate capital than did those who depended on crop sales for
a large proportion of their income. Normally, operators of less than
121 acres derived approximately half of their income from crop sales.
Operators of farms of this size were able to accumulate capital or
reduce debts on an average of only two-fifths of the years. Increased
dependence on livestock and livestock products probably would improve the financial status of such operators.
Farm buildings in the county were in good condition and only
minor repairs were needed. There were few buildings not in use,
however, and any program looking toward closer settlement would
require some new construction.
LOESS HILLS OF CENTRAL NEBRASKA
As TypiAed by Sherman County
Severe droughts and total loss of crops have been so infrequent in
the Loess Hills area of central Nebraska that rapid recovery of the
farmers from the recent drought period can be expected. Amounts
advanced for crop and feed loans have been high, however, reflecting
the dependence of the farmers on governmental assistance.
A large number of farms in Sherman County, which represents
conditions throughout the area, were found to be too small to pro-
Dtgilized oy
Google
PROSPECTS FOR REHA Bl LIT A TION • 113
vide more than a living for a family. The product from 160 acres,
with average use of land and no more than average yields, will not
meet carrying charges on the land and operating costs on the farm
and provide sufficient surplus for the support of a family.
The small operating unit common in the area has tended to force
land that should be in grass into cultivated crops. Tillage on the
slopes and lack of cover have subjected the land to damage from
water erosion, and the more erosive areas should be maintained
permanently in grass.
A program to conserve productivity or even to bring about a shift
in the use of land should be instituted on a number of farms. This
might take the form of advances to provide grass seed for seeding
the steeper slopes and advances to obtain cattle to use the additional
pastures. Some farmers need assistance in restoring hogs and poultry
to their normal numbers. Changes in production or the continuation
of certain classes of livestock depend to some extent on the replacement or reconditioning of buildings although the rehabilitation of
most farmers in the areas would not involve a heavy outlay for farm
improvements.
SOUTHWESTERN WHEAT AREA OF NEBRASKA
As TyplRed by Perlcin• County, Nebr.
In the spring of 1935 rural relief and rehabilitation problems were not
pressing in the southwestern wheat-producing area of Nebraska, of
which Perkins County is representative. Farmers in several different
sections of the county had had fair crop yields in 1934 and had
received good prices for their products. Most farmers had signed
both wheat and corn-hog adjustment contracts and had received
substantial payments in 1934. Few farmers were on the relief rolls.
Although cattle numbers had been reduced somewhat by the
drought, breeding herds had been maintained and few, if any, replacements were necessary. Hog numbers had been more drastically
reduced, but sufficient breeding stock had been retained to restore
numbers quickly when grain became available from farm production.
The consensus among farmers in Perkins County was that a 400acre farm, including 80 acres of native grass pasture, is necessary to
provide an adequate income for the average family even in the best
farming sections of the county. It is doubtful, however, whether
the income even from this size unit will permit the accumulation of
the surplus necessary to carry most farm families through the
frequent abnormally dry years.
Many farms in April 1935 had less than 400 acres. Readjustments
to increase the size of small farms will displace some farmers, especially
in the sandy loam areas where there are many farms of 160 and 320
acres. It seems probable that all of these farmers could be resettled
on newly improved farms in the more fertile parts of the area.
Dig111zed bv
Goog Ie
114 • FARMING HAZARDS IN THE DROUGHT AREA
In the interest of conservation some of the land in the sandy sections that is too light to withstand soil blowing should be retired
from cultivation and returned to grass.
No urgent need for readjustment or reorganization of farms is
apparent in the loam soil area. Moreover, if suitable buildings are
provided on farms now unimproved, this area possibly can absorb
the displaced farmers from other parts of the county.
SOUTHEASTERN WYOMING
As TyplRed by Goshen County
Some adjustment is needed in the present organization of dry-land
farms in southeastern Wyoming, many of which were found to be too
small to provide reserves necessary to maintain the operators' financial
independence in adverse periods. Resumption of a normal flow of
irrigation water will remove the need for assistance of most farmers
operating irrigated farms in this area.
The consensus among selected farmers in Goshen County was that
in the dry-land farming section a diversified farm of 640 acres or more
was necessary to provide an adequate income for the average family.
Financial records of farmers operating nonirrigated farms appeared
to verify this opinion; yet two-fifths of all farmers in the dry-land
farming section with corn-hog contracts were operating farms of 460
acres or less.
An increase in the acreage of Goshen County farms would lead to a
reduction in the number of farmers, but many of them could probably
be established in the irrigated sections if a more dependable supply of
irrigation water were provided. Farmers in the irrigated section
estimated that 80 to 90 acres were sufficient to provide an adequate
income for the average family.
The small operating unit has tended to force nonirrigated land that
should be in grass into cultivated crops. The return of most of the
eroded acreage to grass should be part of any rehabilitation program.
The practice of strip farming on cropland should be encouragE',d.
To utilize acreage returned to grass and to provide diversification
of sources of farm income, livestock numbers should be increased.
As a result of livestock reductions in 1934, many farmers did not
retain sufficient numbers of cows to rebuild their cattle herds. Twothirds of the selected farmers in both the dry-land and the irrigated
sections had retained no brood sows.
Since most farm buildings in the irrigated section are occupied, a
rehabilitation program involving moving many farmers from the nonirrigated to the irrigated section would require the construction of
new buildings. If farmers are to be rehabilitated on their present
units in the nonirrigated section, minor repairs should be provided
for buildings on most of the farms.
o 011,zPd hy
Goog Ie
Rt ttller11ent Ad111i11i tralio,i
(H uth x td11) .
011 cc an Excellent Farrni11g S ection .
Digitized
. . . · .........·.. .
. . . ; '"',.: :
.
ny
Goog Ie
Digitized by
Google
PROSPECTS FOR REHABILITATION • 115
HIGH PLAINS OF EASTERN COLORADO
As TypiAed by Cheyenne County
Need of rural rehabilitation is general in the High Plains of eastern
Colorado, the area represented by Cheyenne County, as a result of
11 years of generally deficient moisture. The records of annual
precipitation in the area show that recurrent dry periods with resultant low crops are to be expected. If the area continues under cultivation, some provision to meet conditions during these adverse periods
must be made. The low average yields of all crops since 1931 indicate
the high risk of wheat production and the necessity of feed reserves
to carry the livestock through unfavorable periods. Crops in this
area normally provide about 50 percent of the farmers' cash receipts;
in 1934 they provided only 11 percent of the cash receipts. Low
productivity of much of the land, frequent subnormal precipitation,
and the tendency of the soil to blow when cultivated intensely limit
the extent of profitable crop production.
The opinion of selected farmers in this area was that a system of
farming based on livestock production with only minor emphasis on
cash crops would offer the best chances for future success. Only 1
of the 56 farmers interviewed recommended cash crop production
and only 3 recommended strictly range production. The others
suggest~d some combination of feed crops and cattle production.
In spite of the small proportion of land in pasture on the farms of
less than 440 acres, livestock numbers, even after reductions made in
1934, were still near normal in 1935. Available range land with no
restrictions on grazing undoubtedly made possible the maintenance
of breeding herds up to 1935 in spite of the succession of crop failures.
Only 6 of the farmers interviewed considered a farm smaller than
640 acres large enough for profitable operation; 32 considered 640 to
1,280 acres and 18 considered more than 1,280 acres as the minimum
size of farm that would provide the average family an adequate income. For farm operations based on a herd of about 50 head of
breeding cattle, a farmer should have about 300 acres of cropland and
a minimum of 900 acres of pasture land. Recent experience indicates
that a larger acreage would be desirable to maintain a herd of that
size during a series of unfavorable years.
To provide even 960 acres for farmers in the county would require
the consolidation of some of the smaller farms or a reduction in the
acreage of a number of the larger farms in the more thickly populated
parts of the county. Rehabilitation on this basis would mean that
a large number of farmers would need to be established elsewhere.
Soil conservation is a pressing need in Cheyenne County. Successive dry seasons and lack of crop cover had resulted in some
damage by wind erosion to an area equivalent to more than four-fifths
of the cropland on the farms studied. More than one-fourth of this
D gillzed by
Google
116 • FARMING HAZARDS IN THE DROUGHT AREA
land was so badly damaged that its productivity had been greatly
reduced. Precautions to prevent further erosion on the less severely
damaged fields, therefore, and reversion of the land most severely
damaged by wind erosion to natural grass are major needs in this
area.
Immediate requirements of most farmers who could be rehabilitated in place include replacement of their worn-out machinery,
building repairs and improvements, and a supply of working capital
for living and operating expenses while their farms are being reestablished on a productive basis.
NORTH PLAINS OF TEXAS
As TypiRed by Dallam County
The recent drought served to aggravate an agricultural condition
that had been developing in some portions of the Panhandle. Because of the frequency of years of subnormal rainfall and the tendency of the sandy soils to blow when moisture is insufficient, a comprehensive program of soil conservation is urgent.
Although less than three-tenths of the farmers in Dallam County,
which is representative of the area, were on relief rolls in May 1935,
those receiving such assistance were concentrated in the sections most
severely affected by wind erosion. A scattered few were in the
heavier loam soil areas.
Successive years with low crop yields amounting to almost complete crop failures from 1932 to 1934 had exhausted reserves and
depleted livestock on farms throughout the area, but the farmers
with eroded land or soil subject to erosion had a much more difficult
problem than those on undamaged or slightly damaged land. On
farms in the grain section nearly one-half and on farms in the rowcrop section one-third of the income in 1934 came from crop reduction or relief payments. A large share of income came from livestock
sales, which represented reductions in inventory rather than produced
income. Few farmers reported capital gains since beginning farming
in the area and these were primarily on the larger farms.
As crop production has been unsatisfactory, there is an apparent
need for drastic adjustments in farm organization and land use if
farmers are to avoid a repetition of the situation existing in 1932-1936.
The difficulty of rehabilitation on the light soils is intensified by
the foct that so many of the formers are on farms containing less
than 320 acres, on which the percent of land in crops is relatively
high. If the size of the farm unit can be increased, a larger proportion of the land may be left for grass or cover crops without interfering
greatly with crop practice or income.
In estimating the size of the most economical farm units 16 farmers
in the row-crop section thought that the farm should have about
o 11i1i2Pd hy
Goog [e
PROSPECTS FOR REHABILITATION • 117
540 acres with 172 acres in pasture and the remainder about evenly
divided between wheat and row crops. Similarly the average estimate of 70 farmers in the grain section placed the most economical
unit at 866 acres with 163 acres in pasturage, 560 acres in wheat,
and 143 acres in row crops. The summaries of financial gains and
losses over a number of years substantiate the proposition that
farmers to be rehabilitated should be established on farm units of
between 480 and 800 acres.
In the area of the Amarillo sandy loam soils many farms had an
insufficient amount of native sod to arrest the shifting of the soils.
On these light soils prevention of soil blowing in cultivated fields is
extremely difficult. Much of the cropland in this area already has
been abandoned, and rehabilitation of farmers on the abandoned
sandy soils should not be attempted. Instead, efforts should be made
to restore some permanent vegetative cover. A unified community
or county-wide program of soil conservation, through the planting
of cover crops or the leaving of stubble on the land until late spring,
should be adopted. An alternative is a system of crop production
aimed to control soil erosion.
Since the process of restoring permanent cover to the land is likely
to be an expensive operation with little or no immediate returns, it
could hardly be carried out by the farmers without governmental
assistance. Some provision for sufficient grass land seems essential
to farmers to be rehabilitated since this pasture acre&.ge would lend
an element of stability by helping to carry livestock through the
usual drought period.
In addition to more pasturage per farm unit rehabilitation in the
area represented by Dallam County should include financial assistance
which would give adequate working capital, especially for building up
small herds of cattle. Most farmers had to dispose of a large percentage of their livestock prior to 1935 and may need additional
breeding stock to reestablish a cattle or hog enterprise. It has been
suggested that where pasture is available, range cattle should form
the basis of the farm enterprise with cash crops second in importance.
Working capital is needed in both grain and row-crop areas for
repairs to and replacement of worn-out farm machinery and for repairs to buildings.
SOUTH PLAINS OF THE TEXAS PANHANDLE
A1 Typified by Hale County
The drought-resistant and moisture-absorbing qualities of the productive Amarillo clay loam soil favor the cultivation of wheat and
small grains on this type of soil in the South Plains of the Texas
Panhandle. Cotton production is favored on the lighter soils. A
system of farming based on the production of these crops plus some
01g11i
ro hy
Goog Ie
118 • FARMING HAZARDS IN THE DROUGHT AREA
livestock production has proved fairly profitable for both owners and
tenants in Hale County, which is typical of the area.
The fact that only a small proportion of farmers had applied for
relief or rehabilitation loans would indicate little need for a rehabilitation program providing more than temporary financial assistance.
Some farmers lacked working capital, but most of them had equipment and livestock. The situation in Hale County was probably
better than in many counties of the South Plains. Agricultural distress in the county was occasioned primarily by the short feed and
cotton crops of 1934 and would be relieved by a return to normal
conditions.
Few fanns in the area can be divided and still leave an acreage
large enough for a satisfactory unit. Experience in the area indicates
that farmers on fanns smaller than 160 acres have less chance to
succeed than farmers on the larger acreages. Wheat fanners can
handle a larger acreage than cotton farmers, and larger acreages
probably are required.
Livestock production should form a part of the organization of
most fanns, which means that sorghums for feed are necessary and
that pasture acreage is desirable. The experience in 1934 should
warn against too heavy stocking of cattle without adequate provision
for feed reserves.
UPPER SOUTH PLAINS OF THE TEXAS PANHANDLE AND HIGH PLAINS
OF EASTERN NEW MEXICO
As TyplRed by Curry County, N. Mex.
Apparently the area represented by Curry County had been affected
less by drought than some other areas of the Great Plains in 1934,
and farmers had previously adjusted their farming systems to the
quantity and variability of precipitation.
Mortgage indebtedness and tax delinquencies were not high in
1935, but farmers had allowed feed and seed loan indebtedness to
accumulate. The proportion of nonresident operators was unduly
high, frequently resulting in inadequate attention to soil conservation.
The chief contribution of a rehabilitation program in this and
similar areas would be to advance working capital to those farmers
with exhausted credit who did have land, equipment, or livestock.
In extreme instances replacement of machinery or livestock might
be necessary. Farmers on land subject to severe wind erosion could
be aided either in restoring their land to permanent grass cover or in
adopting a system of crop production and practices which would
minimize erosion.
The interviewed farmers considered the average farm in the wheat
section to be large enough to maintain a family although more land
should be used for pasture and feed crops. They estimated that the
D1qi1tzed hy
Goog IC
PROSPECTS FOR REHABILITATION • 119
average fann in the row-crop section should have an extra 80 acres
of pasture.
A long-time program should consider the possibility of reducing
the number of small fanns. The trend has been for farms t.o increase
in size, but not all farmers have had sufficient acreage t.o make the
best use of their labor. and equipment. With a larger acreage, and
particularly with more pasture land, the normal number of livestock
per farm could be maintained with less danger of depleted feed reserves
or overgrazing pastures.
Part of the cropland in the extreme northeastern section of the
county should be retired from crop production as a preventive against
further damage from wind erosion. A definite soil conservation program is needed for the land that has already been damaged by wind
erosion.
It seems probable that all farmers on relief can be reestablished
within the county as only 9 percent of all farmers were actually
receiving relief in May 1935 and only 6 percent had applied for
rehabilitation.
0 g11iwd by
Goog Ie
Digitized by
Goog Ie
Appendixes
121
D gillzed by
Google
Digitized by
Goog Ie
Appendix A
SUPPLEMENTARY TABLES
Ta&le 7.-Normal Gross Cash Receipts, Source of Receipts and Adequacy of Income on
Selected Farms in Representative Counties in the Nort~em Great Plains, by Size of
Farm
Source or receipts (percent)
Connty and alUI or farm
Nwn•
berof
farms
rern:rt•
ng
Normal
gross
cash recelpta
Livestock Wort
off
Croll" andllv&stock
products farm
Adequacy of Income
Average Percent Percent
length or or yeers of years
Income Income
record
(years)
was snf• wusuf•
flclent flclent to
to meet I n expenses capital
--- --- - - - --- - - - --- - - DrvIDJ:
NorlA Dakota Blad;
Prairlu &ctiotl
Total farms..........
44
$1,934
74
25
1
19
58
:15
6
12
17
7
3
880
19
31
13
20
20
21
18
31
60
30
30
211
:I)
1
-
77
1,733
1,612
2,929
4,000
81
69
72
82
80
22
1,352
67
30
3
20
76
30
5
6
3
4
6
540
1,440
1,333
1,213
2,200
63
15
21
24
!IO
71
67
13
33
20
80
71
25
43
61
1,683
69
30
1
77
139
II
14
7
11
7
13
828
1,207
2,229
1,482
1,857
2,100
67
29
28
39
26
4
1
66
64
70
30
69
31
Total farms ••••.•••••
57
1,489
60
40
Leu than 240 acres ••••••••
8
12
13
771
892
1, 1(6
1,922
2,367
2,417
61
66
49
(6
34
67
33
60
63
40
47
Less than 281 acres ........
--- --- --- ---
281-400 acres...............
401-«IO acres ...•.•.........
l!Ol-3)() acres......•........
801 acres or more ••••..•••.
27
18
00
62
72
17
Scobe,-Plentrwood &dirm
Total farms •••••••••
Less than 281 acres •••....•
--- --- ---
281-400 acres .••••.••.......
401-«JO acres••••••••...••..
601-3JO acres ....••••••.•••.
801 acres or more._ ••..•.•.
85
67
61
58
- - --12
25
16
30
3
39
42
-
21
38
BJ:TTIIIOJ:B
Total farms •••••••••
Less than 280 acnlll •.. .•.•.
I
- - - - - - --- - - -
280--fo.111 acnlll••••••••• .••••.
440-M9 acres...............
660-7111 acres. ..............
m-879 acres .........•.....
880 acne or more •••.••••••
71
58
72
3
2
-
-
-
I
---
100
73
100
11
36
67
45
57
85
38
IIBliBID£N
240-31111 acres...............
400-M9 acres...............
660-7111 acres ...........•••.
m-8711 acres..........•..•.
880 acres or more ••••.•••••
See rootootes at end or table.
II
II
6
64
----
17
75
52
12
13
18
17
75
711
60
(6
23
27
84
63
117
63
42
41
63
64
123
D gillzed by
Google
124 •
FARMING HAZARDS IN THE DROUGHT AREA
To&le 7.-Normal Gross Cash Receipts Source of Receipts, and Ade5luacy of Income
on Selected Farms in Representative Counties in the Northern Great Plains, by Size of
Farm--Continued
Adequacy of Income
Source or receipts (percent)
Num•
beror
farms
County and slZP or rarm
Normal
g!'08S
cub re-
re,:i·
cetpts
Livestock Work
liveoff
Crops and
stock
products farm
Average Percent
length of ofyean
reoord
(1ean)
~t
of:,-.
Income
WUIIUf• wullllfflclent flclent to
to meet Increase
expenses capital
lnoome
--- --- --HYDE
Total farms ..........
Less than 280 acre,, ••••••.•
280-439 acres ...............
I
47
$1,686
34
65
1
16
35
83
1
11
1,411
1,782
1,715
1,243
311
86
57
56
--9
440-M9 aCl'88 .. - ·---- -- ----.
660-719 acres .. ___ . ______ ...
720 acres or more.-·-·· ....
--8
1
82
10
7
10
2,108
52
2,010
77
22
1,013
2. 100
1,917
86
75
83
311
43
43
---
177
I
80
58
40
73
73
90
43
90
till
211
80
.,
TRAILL
Total rarms __ • _______
Less than 200 acres ________
:I00-399 acres _____ . ---. -. -..
(()()-6119 acres ___________ . -- .
e00-799 acres .. _____________
800 acres or more __ • __ . ___ .
--8
19
12
8
5
2,663
2,440
78
24
17
22
89
11
1
13
77
-1
--
14
15
11
8
15
79
87
80
38
80
M
40
'¥1
'lf1
153
IIOODT
Total r=--··-----
'85
1,729
31
es
1
14
86
liO
acres._.-·_._
121-200 acres--·-----------.
4
32
UI
1,100
1,384
1,762
2,252
1,800
1,750
1,900
49
45
ti
18
13
17
14
7
83
85
82
711
39
32
91
14
93
Less than 121
201-280
281-360 ---------------·
acre,, _______________
23
4
2
4
301-440 BCl'eS-----·--------·
441-520 acres ____ -------_...
521 acre,, or more __________
30
70
20
80
M
M
75
69
34
45
25
31
----
441
47
43
86
14
47
71
1 Data not available for 2 farms.
1 Reports on adequacy or Income for Hettinger and Hyde Counties are for peroent or farmers re])Orttnc
Incomes sufficient to meet expenses and percent or farmers reporting Incomes sufficient to I n - capita£.
1 Data not available for 1 rarm.
• Data not available ror 2 farms.
Ta&fe .2.-Age of Farm Operators Receiving Relief in Repr~sentative Counties in the
Northern Great Plains and Number Unable to Work,1 April-May 1935
Hettinger
Divide
Age
Hyde
Sheridan
Moody
Num- Num• Num- Num• Num- Num- Num- Num- Num- Numher of
berof
berof
ber of
berof
her
her
her
her
her
farm unable
farm unable
farm unable
rarm ,mable
farm unable
opera• to
opera- to
opera• to
opera- to
opera• to
work
work
work
work
work
tors
tors
tors
tors
tors
- - - - - - --- --- --- - - - - - - --- - - Total ... _. ___
Under 21 years _____
21-,'l() years _________
31-40 years_·--- ____
41-50 years _________
5H!0years _________
61 years and over. __
Unknown __________
1
1
175
7
198
ti
150
I
45
1
1
4
31
15
7
5
1239
5
100
4
-2
26
2
5
1
1
1
- - --------- ---------14
-- ---51
--65
42
29
--1
40
52
44
62
31
1
55
40
26
-
6
-
22
12
2
-
2
-
2
2
-1
57
42
36
-
-
Based on disabilities report.-rl.
Reports available for only 239 or the 247 fann operators receiving relier In April 11136.
DigiltzedoyGoogle
9
-
-
SUPPLEMENT ARY TABLES •
125
Tal,le 3.-Number of Children of Different Ages and Adult Members Other Than Parents
in Farm Families Receiving Relief in Representative Counties in the Northern Great
Plains, April-May 1935
County and item
Total
families
Number of families with specified number of person,
None
2
3
4
6
6
7
8
I)
10
11
7
2
1
3
12
-- - - - - DIVIDI:
Total children _____________________
Children under 16 years ___________
Boys 16 years and over ____________
Girls 16 years and over ____________
0 thers ______ -- _-- -- ________________
175
175
175
175
175
198
1118
198
198
198
37
31
22
14
3
30
30
9
3
I
30
15
12
6
10
6
3
4
2
2
122
153
19
30
38
3ll
18
31
47
150
152
184
26
2ll
31
33
JO
32
42
II
7
2i
13
26
2'2
3
16
19
10
11
1
13
6
6
6
150
150
14
18
24
2
12
II
I
g
7
6
6
6
150
150
130
135
32
32
12
6
2
I)
113
21
2i
22
14
23
18
J.'i()
247
247
247
247
247
80
l07
19,5
207
190
24
31
16
37
26
~
12
II
10
6
8
1
36
30
26
8
I
2
16
6
26
28
II
8
I
6
6
2
26
M
!()fl
BJ:fflNGJ:B
Total childrPn _____________________
Children under 16 years ___________
Boys 16 years and over ____________
Girls 16 years and over ____________
Others_____________________________
2
4
6
4
SBJmlDAN
Tots! children _____________________
Children under 16 years ___________
Boys 16 ycers and over ____________
Girls 16 years and over ____________
Others _____________________________
II
~
4
2
HYDJ:
Total children _____________________
Children under 16 years ___________
Boys 16 years and over ____________
Girls 16 years and over ____________
Others_____________________________
53
43
22
KOODY
Total children_ ____________________
Children under 16 years. __________
Boys 16 years and over ____________
Girls 16 years and over ____________
Others .•• __________________________
100
100
100
JOO
JOO
21
27
85
S7
72
19
18
6
JO
14
7
3
7
10
12
1
6
3
D1gilized oy
G oog Ie
126 • FARMING HAZARDS IN THE DROUGHT AREA
TafJle 4.-Relative Importance of Different Causes of Crop Damage on Selected Farms in
Representative Counties in the Northern Great Plains, by Degree of Loss
Length of nicord
Total
numberof
County and cauae of
damap
.
,_ ._______
Divide:
recorda
Less
than 10
years
10-19
years
Percent of yean
20 years
or more
-,
t~i,ji,wi:ng:::::::::::
M
12
20
M
12
21
30
Rust.·-·····•·········
Frost ••••••.• ·-·-······
Sheridan:
Insects .•. _.... ---·····
'M
22
11
23
Rust.·--··············
Frost •••••. -.••••••••••
Hyde:
n-•------------···1
Insects .. --- . ----.. -...
HalL •.••• --·······-···
Soll blowing ..•.•.•.. _.
Rust.·-·-·····-·······
Frost-·-·············-·
Traill:
"-•---
-,
Insects._ .... _....••.••
Hall.----·····-········
Soll blowing...•.•.•.•.
Rust ...•••...•.....•..
Frost ••.• ---·-·········
Moody:
»-•···············
Insects·-·---·------···
Hall. •• -----·---·--····
Boll blow Ing ... _•... ...
Rust ..••..... ·-···--··
Frost •. ·-········-··-··
Total Serious Bllcht
- - ,....._
40
JO
17
2
I
I
I.
I
I
I
9
63
"-•---------------,
~Pi>iowin,:::::::::::
Desree of loss wu
------
lnaects ____ --·····-·---
Hall. ______________ ·- •.
Boll blowing __ . __ ...• _.
Rust.·----············
Fro.,t _____ . ____ ._ ·--·-·
Hettinger:
D
- L____
. .·······---·
..
-,
Insecta.
Damage
W88 reported
52
6
28
21
11
21
13
•
ll
4
25
24
13
18
•
6
ll
1
1
1
•
41
13
12
3
5
10
3
3
1
1
15
8
-
16
2
3
1
2
-
18
7
20
II
II
1
2
17
2
1
II
2
2
1
2
111
ll
15
13
3
5
4
26
12
10
3
3
10
1
1
5
4
3
1
1
I
I
1
3
1
.
1
-
. .
.
-. .
5
a
.
1
2
a
.
1
2
2
4
1
2
5
1
9
-
3
7
3
2
ll
3
6
1
1
4
•Less than 0.5 percent.
1
.a
3
4
1
14
15
1
38
15
3
4
1
2
18
5
6
1
1
1
19
87
1
1
43
11
1
4
1
55
48
12
2
Records not available for 1 farm.
D1□11,zed hy Goog Ie
[
To&le 5.-Average Annual Yield per Harvested Acre of Important Crops in Representative Counties in the Northern Great Plains, 1911-1931
Average
Average yield per harvested acre (bushels)
Crop and county
1911
1912
1913
1914
1915
1916
1917
1918
1919
1920
1921
1922
1923
192411925
1926
1927
1928
192911930
1931
20. 5
15. 5
16.9
11. 9
6.6
6.3
18. 2
12. 3
9. 3
21.0
16. 0
18. 0
7.0
4.0
6.0
7. 0
5. 0
2. 5
8. 5
8. 0
6. 6
19. 2
9. 5
18. 0
15.0
23. 0
(1)
(1)
3. 9
6. 8
7. 8
7.0
8.8
7.0
12. 1
1.9
9. 6
8. 0
8. 7
10.0
17.0
14. 7
13. 2
16. 9
13. 2
12.0
10. 9
16. 0
5. 5
2. 5
4. 4
8.0
8. 7
9.0
6. 6
5. 5
8.9
8.9
13.8
15. 1
13. 6
12. 7
13. 9
19 5
16.0
11. 6
11. 6
12. 7
9. 0
10. 6
14.0
15.9
6.9
6.9
6. 1
12. 9
9.3
12. 3
13. 3
14. 0
15. 0
10.1
16. 8
14. 1
17. 4
16. 3
5.9
11. 6
13. 0
11. 2
9. 6
8.0
7.0
10. 2
9. 6
7. 8
7. 9
10. 5
13.11
H.6
12. 7
2. 5
4. 2
4.9
2. 3
9. 2
13.8
11. 7
8. 8
9. 6
ll. 3
12. 5
12. 1
8.0
5.0
5.0
12.0
15. 0
9.0
26. 0
30.0
30.0
8.0
3. 0
8.0
25.0
16. 0
30.0
6. 0
15. 5
14. 5
21. 0
18. 5
19.0
19.0
2. 0
15.0
20.0
15. 0
19.0
21. 5
26.0
24. 0
33. 0
21. 5
21. 0
20.0
20.0
14. 5
24. 0
17. 5
21.0
23. 5
24. 5
23. 5
24. 0
24.0
33. 0
17.0
12. 6
13. 5
26.0
24. 5
31.0
17.0
12. 5
3. 0
21. 0
15. 0
24. 5
27. 6
22. 0
31.0
24. 0
33. 0
22. 5
28. 0
27.0
II. 0
21. 5
29. 0
10. 5
15. 0
11. 4
11.0
13.8
30.0
7.0
9. 6
18. 5
25. 0
19.0
33.0
2. 5
8.0
8.0
3. 2
15.0
17. 9
18. 2
16. 8
17. 2
20. 2
20. 6
25.9
13. 5
5.0
11. 5
30. 0
20. 0
31. 5
8. 0
19.0
18. 0
34. 0
28. 0
36. 0
28. 5
4.0
18. 0
20. 0
20.0
27. 5
34. 5
34. 5
29. 0
41. 5
29. 0
31.0
28. 0
27. 0
17. 0
34.0
26. 0
33.0
29.0
30. 5
30. 5
39. 0
32. 5
37. 0
19. 0
13. 0
18. 0
34. 0
30. 5
41. 0
29.0
13. 0
10.0
5. 0
27.0
13. 0
24.0
25. 0
24. 0
30. 0
16. 5
33.0
30. 5
34. 0
30. 0
14. 0
29. 0
28.0
13. 5
17. 0
12. 5
12. 5
21. 0
38.0
8. 5
15. 0
19.0
26. 0
25. 5
38. 0
3.2
8.0
9.0
1. 9
17. 0
17. 9
24.1
20. 2
20.6
25. l
26.0
31. 8
32. 0
20.0
32. 0
20. 7
16. 4
20. 7
2x.O
32. 8
35.0
14. 0
21. 6
19. 0
33. 5
r.8.o
23.5
25. 6
12. 3
2"2. 7
21.0
31. 2
35. 5
29.3
26. 5
25. 5
30.0
34. 0
33.0
23. 5
31.0
35. 7
34.0
33.8
36.0
17. 2
19.0
20 0
17.0
20.0
23.0
20.6
21. 5
18. 7
13. 0
25. 3
23.0
21. 7
20.8
23. 6
5.0
21.0
27.0
19. 6
26. 5
17. 6
26.0
23. 5
28. 0
20.2
24.0
25.9
8.0
24.9
28.0
11. 5
17. 0
11. 5
8.0
18. 0
38.0
18.0
14.0
12. 5
13. 0
17. 5
25. 0
10. 0
20. 5
22. 0
0.4
16.0
16. 3
19.4
19.8
22. 5
19. 2
25.5
29, 7
7.0
4.0
8.0
8. 5
10.0
10. 6
4. 7
2.0
2.0
9.0
7.0
6.5
6.8
0.5
4.8
5.5
8. 5
8.0
8.0
8. 3
9. 0
10.0
II. 2
11. 0
9. 7
8.8
7. 9
11. 0
7.8
10. 0
8. 2
8. 7
5. 8
8. 5
9. 2
12.0
6.0
6. 1
4.0
4. 5
6. 2
9.5
6. 5
3.4
7.8
9.9
10. 7
9. 5
7.2
11.0
6.9
9.8
8. 2
7.0
7. 8
8. 5
4. 5
4. 0
3. 7
4. 5
6.0
9.5
3.4
2.0
2. 2
3.8
o. 5
5.0
5.3
G. 7
6. 8
6. 8
7.0
7.9
9.2
-- -- --- - - - - - - --- --- --- ------ --- --- --- -- - - - - --- - - - - ---
WHEAT
Divide _______________________
11. 4
Hettinger. ___________________ 2.0
Sheridan _____________________ 10.8
Hyde ________________________ (1)
Traill _______ . ________________ II. 3
Moody ___ • __________________ (1)
BARLEY
Divide ______________________
- 28. 3
Hettinger ____________ . __ --- __ 0. 5
Sheridan ___________________ .• 12. 0
Hyd~. _________ .. · ·-·. _...... (1)
Traill .. ___________________ ._. 25. 7
Moody .. -------··---·------· (1)
yield for
years reported
(bushels)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
{I)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
3. 5
(1)
26. 2
33. 5
33. 8
23. 5
10. 8
17. 4
36. 7
111.8
18. 3
32. 7
34. 0
36. 7
16.0
25. 0
20. 0
(1)
(1)
21.8
rn. 8
(1)
24. 2
12. 0
20.0
(1)
(1)
30. 7
(1)
44. 5
38. 0
44. 7
23. 4
15. 6
20.0
37. 0
33. 4
25. 0
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
41. 9
49. 6
39. 5
30. 0
20 0
25.0
12. 0
6.0
6.0
42.0
15. 0
2/\. 0
(1)
(lj
17. 0
H.O
12.0
30. 0
30.0
40. 0
(1)
(1)
8. 6
OATS
Divide ___ . ___________________ 31.9
Hettinger ___________________ . 2.9
Sheridan ...•• ________ --- .. __ . H.5
Hyde.·-·····--···-·····-••·· (1)
Traill
..______________________
·--··------------····· 33. 0
Moody
(1)
CORN
CJ
tg.
Dlvlde .... --·-----------·---· (1)
(1)
Hettinger ...
··--·-·--···---·Sheridan.
_____________
. ______ 19. 3
Hyde ___________ •.. ·-··-··--- (1)
Traill.•······--·············- 35.3
Moody •••.• ·-·····-····-···· (1)
7. 7
2.1
8. 1
Dlvlde ... ----····-·--·-··---Hettinger ___ ··--·······-· .••.
Sheridan __________ -----· •.•..
Hyde
·----··-····--·····
Traill .•••.
____________
··------···-
C")
8.0
Moody •••••••...••..•••..• -.
(1)
;;.
.:[
0
~
~
(1)
29. 5
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
16. 4
(1)
i:i fl
25. 0
(1)
(1)
(1)
1)
(l)
(1)
23. 3
40.0
(1)
{I)
(1)
(l)
(1)
(ll
(1
15. 0
(1)
6.0
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
26.0
32. 5
26. 0
30.0
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
6. 5
4. 5
7. 4
7.8
6. 8
9.0
7.8
14. 5
II. 6
10. 0
(1)
(1)
(1)
8.8
10.0
9. 7
5. 0
7. 5
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
20.0
(1)
l'LAX
"'
o_
(l)
33.9
(1)
12. 7
9. I
7. 9
(1)
8. 5
(1)
(1)
l0.0
14. 0
(1)
4. 0
2.0
2. 5
(1)
2.
2.
4.
II.
8.
8.
5
5
1
5
2
5
6. 8
4.0
7. 9
8.0
2.4
5.0
4.4
ft. 2
10.0
• Yield not available.
Sources: Willard, Rex E. and Fuller, 0. M., Trpe-of-Farming Awu In North Dakola, Bulletin 212, North Dakota Agricultural Experiment Station, Fargo, N. Dale., July 1927,
pp. 254---259; reports of the North Dakota agricultural statistician, Fargo, N. Dal<., 1911H931; and reports of the South Dakota agricultural statistician, Brookings, 8. Dale., 192:1-11131.
;
~
m
....z
)>
"'-<
....
)>
a,
r-
el
.....•
....
N)
128 • FARMING HAZARDS IN THE DROUGHT AREA
Tol,le 6.--Pcrcent of Years Specified Crop Yield per Harvested Acre Was Obtained in
Selected Areas in the Northem Great Plains, 1911-1931
Total
reports
Crop and area
Period
Included
Yield per harvested
.,,
&en1
.
;.
a ;.a ~ ;.a .a,.,a .!l
... ~..!l ... . ...e-iQ., ..... -;;:~.
jj
o-i"' !::.?: i:I"' ~.;
-a ...,..; ,..!l
=
8 ],.,
~" ia
~
J, ~ J," J, J, I
z p.IS
c.. ,..; ~ :::; i:i ~ i:i ::;
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -.!l
c..
.,., "a
..,..: ,.,
.,.!l
.Q
;.
:9
,t:,
0
,t:,
,t:,
,t:,
,t:,
~
,0
WB&AT
Nnrth Dakota Black Pnllrlll9 Section' .
Scobey•Plentywood Section• .••••... •.
Southwest~ro North Dakota• •••• . .. ..
Central N orth !Jnkota •..•.•...•...•. ..
Central South Dakota•...•....•••.. . . .
Red River Valley• .. . ... . ......••.. . . .
Southeastern South Dakota' .•.•.... .
1911-1931
1922--1931
11111-1931
1911-1931
l ~IIH931
1911-1931
'1919-1932
105
60
IOI
126
91
105
126
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
3
6
9
29
14
-3
--
33
--5
13
34
24
7
12
23
23
10
13
35
33
Ti
30
46
4i
39
26
22
30
10
6
13
29
38
19
17
16
17
22
12
5
25
11
14
13
2
-2 ---
3
I
--
--
-1 -
--
---
BABU:Y
North Dakota Black Prairies Section 1 •
Scohey•Pkmtywood Section• ....•••...
Southwestern North I>akota• ....... . .
Central North Dakota• ..•......•..•...
Central South I>akota •--······-······ ·
Red Rl,•er Valley•- - ··-·-·········· - ··
Sou thee.stern South Dakota' ..•..... ..
1911-1931
1922-1931
1911-1931
1911-1931
1919-1931
1911-1031
1918-1931
104
58
IOI
126
91
105
126
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
-
14
16
6
12
-- -
- -
9
20
7
33
16
16
7
12
5
12
9
17
18
21
12
25
30
5
30
22
25
12
21
16
17
16
21
16
12
6
20
20
15
25
35
-
5
3
4
5
1
18
2
--I
---
OATS
North Dakota Black Prairies Section 1.
Scohey•Plenty"·,>Od Section• ..•.•••.. .
Southwestern North Dakota• ........ .
Central NortlJ Dakota• ...........•... .
Centrnl South Dakota'··-······· . • ... .
Red River Valley• ..•.•...•........ . . .
SoutheBStem South Dakota' ....•... . .
1911-1931
1922--1931
l\lll-rn31
1911-1931
1919-1\1:l!
1911-1931
1\HS-1931
105
60
IOI
126
91
105
126
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100. 0
100.0
-1
-3
9
8
19
10
13
10
10
•-
9
4
-- --
7
-1 --
9
Ti
10
9
12
13
19
17
18
II
20
II
13
7
24
26
6
25
35
28
30
20
36
15
32
19
8
7
II
12
28
20
Ii
11
II
20
2
19
8
20
12
5
18
9
28
11
2
8
8
14
g
211
CORN
North D&kot& Black PrRlries Section 1•
Scobey-Plentywood Section•-- · ···• ···
Southwestern North Dakota• .•... ... .
Central North D a kota• ....•...... .•...
Centr&I South ))nkota •-·-· · ······· ....
Red River V&lley • •... . .. . •....... ....
Southeastern South Dakota'····· - ·•· ·
1QIIH931
1922-1Q31
IYli-1031
1919-1931
1919-1931
1911-1931
1918-1931
100. 0
100. 0
1no.o
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100.0
65
60
75
78
91
95
126
--7 •51
-- •
ll
5
17
2
2
Ti
17
19
11
2
33
14
22
8
5
-- 4
3
7
15
29
--
2
2i
FLAX
North Dakota Black Prairies Section• .
Bcot,..y-Plentywooo Section•- ...•...• .
Southwest4'rn N orth Dakota•. ___ .• . . .
Central N orth Ilakota ••....••••••.. . . .
Central South Dnkota •--·-········· · . .
Red River Valle y•_ . • .....••••..... ...
Soutbeastem South Dnkota ' ......... .
1911-1931
1922-1931
1911-11131
1911-19:ll
1919-1931
19\ 1-1931
1918-1931
105
100. 0
100.0
100. 0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
60
100
126
89
1()4
112
8
10
19
3
6
-2
49
38
48
51
49
3;
20
42
52
32
44
43
60
75
1
-I --- --- --2 - - 2 - 3
3
-
-
-
-
-----
1 North Dakota Black Prairies Section includes Bottineau, Burke, Divide, Renville, and Ward Counties,
N.Dnk .
• Scobey-Plent.ywoo<l Seotion Includes McLean, Mountrail, and Williams Counties, N. Du:., and
Daniels. Hoosc,,e!r., and Sheridan Counties, Mont .
• Soutbwest.cru North Dakota Area includes Adams, Bowman, Hettinger, Slope, and Stark Countle.s,
N.Dnk.
• Central :Ofortb I>Bkota •.\rea includes Benson, Burleigh, Kidder, Pleree, Sheridan, and Wells Count~,,
N. llnk .
• Central South Dakota Area includes Buffalo, Faulk, Haod, Hughes, Hydo, Potter, and Sully Counties,
8 . Ilnk .
• Hed Rh·e r Valley Area Includes Ca..s.•, Orand Forks. Pemhina, TraiJI. and Walsh Counties, N. D&t.
'SouthNcsfern South Dakota Area includes Boo llomme, C'lny, Lako, Liucoln, Minoehaba, 2\loody,
Tumor, Union, and Yankt on Counties. ::\ . l.>nk.
• Data arniuitile for 1919--lll'J 2 rather than for 1918-1931.
8ourres: Willarcl, Rex E . and Fuller, 0. M .. 7'!1p,-<>f·1' arming Area, In N orth Dakota. Bulletin 212, North
Dakota Airril-n llurnl Experiment S tation, F argo, N . Dnk ., Julr JU27, pp. 2!>1-~.\Y; reports of the North
Dak ota ngrir ulrurnl sta tistician, F 11rKO, 'S . lJl!J;; ., 1919--IY31; and rei,urts ~! the South J..>akotaagricultural
statisticiun, Droul,;io~s, S. J..>ak ., 19:/'l - lU31.
0
Digitized by
Google
SUPPLEMENTARY TABLES • 129
Tcrllle 7.-Avera9.e Yield per Seeded Acre cl Important Crops on S.leded Farms in
Representative Counties In the Northem Great Plains and Frequency of Occurrence cl
Yields Which Were Good, Medium, Poor, or Failures
Yield
Crop and county
Number
of llnlJ)I
reported
--- -Divide:
North Dlko&a Blaclc Prairies
lleodon ....................
11111
881
==:::::::::::::::::::::::::
Moody..........................
e30
183
U4
vae
778
Percent of Jeu'IIJ1eld
wuobtaln
Average
yield per
acre
Fall- (buabell)
Fall·
Medi·
Good Medi•
um Poor UNI Good um Poor ore
1111liT
8cobe7·Plentywood 8ection.
BeHIDpr.••.......•••.•.........
Sberidan ................ -. -.. -..
f:Ulhela)
~ acre
21
18
21
18
18
2"
21
- -11
10
10
11
11
UI
17
6
7
- - ---
-a
"
" -a
6
1
1
8
10
2
8
11
8
1
6
2
2
1
6
10
17
20
17
19
16
42
31
ff
41
37
27
211
"8
21
19
18
21
111
39
111
37
60
26
26
26
26
2"
20
16
16
10
23
9
9
9
1"
16
2"
6
8
8
111
18
B.AALBT
Divide:
North Dakota Blaclt Prairies
Seetlon••...••.•••.........
8cobe7·Plentywood Section.
Bettin..-................•.......
Si.tdan .. ················· .....
~:::::::::::::::::::::::::
Moody••.•......................
400
2"1
78"
&,4
9211
SOIi
1,023
32
32
35
32
35
41
40
17
20
18
111
21
28
28
9
10
H
H
211
"°364!1
2"
M
17
28
42
20
311
21
28
27
2"
2"
20
11
19
34
20
16
22
16
16
9
6
•
18
30
18
18
22
7
8
18
19
18
19
20
30
OATS
Divide:
North Dakota Blact Pralrlell
8ectlon ....................
Scobey•Plentywood Bectlon.
Bettlnpr•••.•......•............
Sbwtdan ........... .............
==::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Moody ..........................
!123
347
6311
713
919
810
1,201
41
37
46
21
38
44
46
23
21
23
26
30
49
33
10
12
10
10
10
18
17
1
8
Ul
26
24
27
23
3
2
1
18
21
"1
ll
29
48
28
18
4
26
66
II
81
111
17
18
27
33
COB!I
Divide:
North Dakota BIDck Prairies
Section ....................
Scobey-Plentywood Section.
llt'tt1Dler.............. -....... --
Sbwtdan .. . . . ... ............... .
~~:::::::::::::::::::::::::
Mood:, ......................... .
- - -- -- - - -- -- 7
26
688
44
877
-
1,200
20
30
26
30
16
18
16
8
7
2
2
1
1
-45 - -HI 30
6
12
19
34
14
-25
28
JI
21
-63
31
23
33
88
22
32
- 14
D1 ,11zeo by
32
8
-
6
12
13
10
-30
Goog IC
130 •
FARMING HAZARDS IN THE DROUGHT AREA
Tollle 8.-Average Yield per Seeded Acre of lm1>ortant Crops on Selected Farms in
Representative Counties in the Northern Great Plains, 1930-193-4
Average yield per -ied acre
County and year
Number
Boshell
of farms
reportlngi------------------1---Wheat
Barley
Oats
Fl8lC
Corn for Corn far
grain
fodder
- - - - - - - - - - - - -- • - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 · - - - - 1 1 - - -
DIVIDE
NortA .Da.tota Blad: Pralriu
&dlon
Ul31L •••..•....•........•.•....
11131. ••...•....•••.......•......
11132.....•......•••......•......
11133.••..•......•.•.•...........
1834••..... - .. ··••··. ····•·• .•••
16
19
33
42
«
5.6
0.2
7.6
4. 2
13. l
8. 2
0.1
1'- 7
3. 6
6.8
6. 6
0.1
8.1
.. 3
10. 0
10.0
6. 0
9.0
3. 7
0.1
15.1
6. 1
3.0
1.4
9.4
2. 6
1.1
o.e
LI
1.6
0.11
0.8
0.1
&o/Jq•Pum,wood &dion
11130.••....•.........•.......•..
11131. •...•.•.•..........•.•.....
11132..•....•.•.•......••....•.•.
11133...•.....•..•....... ·•· .....
1834.••••..••••.•..•.•.•.••...•.
2
4
20
22
22
LO
LO
0.2
BETTINGER
6. 9
4.8
10.9
4. 3
0.4
7.4
3. 6
18. 7
5.8
0.2
7.3
6.6
10.2
5.8
0. 6
10.3
16.1
9.2
1.0
26. 7
16. 3
20.6
10.6
0. 3
13. 3
3. 8
20.11
13. 4
0. 3
3
16
43
46
-48
12. 2
0. 4
11.0
10.0
6. 6
13.8
0.6
21. 4
0. I
18. 6
1. I
2.1
2
10. 6
II. I
13. 5
15. 0
10.0
27.2
20. 3
20.0
10. 3
22.9
26.8
26.0
8. 6
3.8
5.0
15. I
35. 7
28. 6
42. 9
18.3
'-4
5.0
12. 2
4.11
0.8
1930••.•........................
6
1931. •..••..... ····• ......... •··
11132....••......................
11133.•..........................
1834••...•......................
13
60
57
63
5.0
o. 4
22. 6
6.3
0.6
10.0
0. 7
0. 7
0.6
26.0
l'- 7
1L2
(I. 1
0.1
LI
0.8
0.8
0.1
SHERIDAN
1930•...........•...............
1931. ••........•..•...•...•.....
1932.•••..•....••..•.•....•.....
11133.•.•••..•...•... ····· ...•...
1834-•••.••••••.••••..•...•.••..
2
8
36
62
67
10,(1
.
HYDE
1930••.............•............
1931 •••..•.•..............•.....
1932.•.•...•.............•......
1933.••.........................
1834.••••••.•..••.......••......
3. I
0.1
L7
L2
0.1
0. 1
0.2
0.1
TRAILL
1930..............•.............
1931 ........•...................
1932...•.....•..................
1933 ...•........................
1934 ...•...•.•..................
12
32
52
2.5
2.0
L7
LS
llOODY
1930...........•................
1931. .....•.....................
1932.....•......................
1933 .........•............ . .....
1934 •...........................
3
36
72
87
17. 2
7.2
0.4
16. 3
5.0
22. 7
a.. 7
21.2
6. I
•Less than 0.06 bushel.
D1011,zed hy
Goog Ie
LI
0.8
Ta&le 9.-Financial Progress of Selected Farmers in Representative Counties in the Northern Great Plains Since Beginning Farming in the Area,
by Size of Farm, 193S
Financial status at bellnning
County and size or rann
Nnmber
of farms
reporting
Assets
Llablll•
ties
Net
worth
Capital additions
Additions
to business
DeduoUons
Net additiona
FIDaDclal atat1111 In 1936
Net pot
Into bosl•
ness
Assets
Llablll•
ties
Net
worth
Average lncreui
per farm
Total
Per year
--- ------ --- ------------ --DIVIDE
Total farms ••.•••...............•..
Less than 281 acres •...........••..••.... _
$1,829
$315
$1,514
$589
$2,103
S6,548
$3,628
'3,0'JO
$917
$47
88
406
60
1,957
1,593
1,761
1,202
6,469
2,337
6,189
6,607
7,427
11,612
1,238
3,123
4, OOli
3,682
6,985
!,OW
3, 04II
2,602
8,845
6,627
-858
-65
1,463
741
2,643
es
71
87
128
3
288
438
321
113
767
301
271
30
797
6,700
a.m
3,679
2, 782
16:l
536
232
500
-
7
246
I, 143
89
143
277
629
264
-1, 143
143
357
-277
964
2,636
3,960
7,372
1,381
1,618
942
2,892
7,308
7,643
417
600
1,349
2,156
6,865
8,235
23
33
71
113
571
385
435
764
T&6
593
86
1,586
327
363
I
2, 26li
844
1,421
636
638
m
1,438
1,612
1,266
4,844
2,385
2,794
425
1,245
1,644
914
487
1,013
1,312
21
3,300
1,471
2,327
317
111
1,000
1,933
1,691
1,669
2,438
727
300
1,533
1,650
932
2,138
Total farms ..............•••••.....
63
1,064
297
Less than 280 acres ..........•........... _
280-439 acres .... __ ..... _... _._ ........ ___ ~9acres ................•.............
660--719 - - - - -- ----- --- . ---- ·-·--- ......
720-879 acres .. _.... _..........•...........
880 acres or more ..• _. _. _...•.••••....•...
II
14
7
11
7
13
525
950
971
90
6li7
1,970
Total farms ..•••...•.• __ •....•.. _..
57
Less than 240 acres. _. _.....•.......••....
241H199 acres ..•...•••.............•.••..•.
400-659 acres ......••••••...•....•.•.•.•• - 660--719 acres ... _.••. _.••••••... _•.•.• _•••.
720-879 acres ... _.••• __ • __ .•••...•••••••.••
880 acres or more •••••••••••••.•••••••••••
8
12
13
9
9
6
17
20
$287
348
649
591
3,434
11
8
281-400 acres .••..••............••••.•••.•.
401-600 acres•.•••.•.•...........•...•.....
601--1!00 acres ..•...•.•...............•••...
801 acres or more ••.••..........••••.••...
$876
66
- - - · ---· - - - - - --1,551
494
1,627
76
10
400
141
211
270
3,321
HETTINGER
1198
186
235
406
500
1,308
10,810
11,706
1,254
2,342
6,430
2, 62.'I
3,302
4,162
-3
1,418
7, 2711
2,874
4,406
2,987
171
48
-48
3211
-12
42
670
-1,982
2,086
IIGli
1,300
63
3,870
-611
4,413
2,294
3,M2
6,536
10,476
8,616
16, 26Q
1,640
2,149
2,325
5,633
3,712
2,046
764
1,363
4,211
4,943
4,904
14,224
-211
63
4,148
1,073
6,415
9,811
-18
6
1,018
-407
736
443
6,4.30
SHERIDAN
CJ
tg.
;;.
"'
o_
.:[
C")
0
~
~
300
-
-
2,717
69
430
1,982
631
235
64
427
388
~
~
;;g
-<
>
a,
~
....•
w
.....
Ta&le 9.-Financial Progress of Seleded Farmers in Representative Counties in the Northem Great Plains Since Beginning Farming in the Area, by
Size of Farm, 1935-Continued
Financial status at
County and size of !arm
Numl>E!r
olfarms
reporting
belinnlng
Capital additions to boa!_,.
~
status In 11136
Avenge lncreue
per farm
Llablll•
tlea
Net
worth
Additions Dedoctlona
Net addltlona
D11111
Aallets
Llablll•
ties
Net
worth
Total
--Less than 280 acres _____________________ •.
280-439 acres_. __ •• _______________________
440-659 acres ______________ . ______________ .
560-719 acres ___ • ______________________ ._._
720 acres or more __ -----------------------
0
~
;:;
200-399
acres ______________________________
___ •. ·----------···----------400--599 acres
600--799 acres ______________________________
800 acres or more. ________________________
O"
'<
C')
0
&('"J
Q
)>
48
$2,346
$733
$1,1112
$1,278
$151111
fTl.2
$2,324
$7,010
$8,210
10
11
10
7
10
2,430
1,602
6,940
660
8411
WO
1,440
1,247
4,380
4811
-1311
3,267
600
1,067
-22
-112
1,304
4,604
4, 4113
4114
112
6,397
II, 121
113()
11,M
2,863
2, 4311
2,313
3,010
2(K
284
3,494
713
478
11116
420
237
1,660
114
1146
13,087
62
4, 6611
1,366
8,311
291
1,061
-7110
2,661
8
19
12
8
6
6,613
11,143
1,442
11,213
2,800
838
4,775
3,883
6112
6,200
2,300
1,376
13
260
106
1,162
1,446
11211
103
1,:1()()
223
-1,432
-1119
3
-1,:1()()
4,11118
2,280
860
1,013
/JOO
2,451
-87
6,203
1,100
266
83
$8,800
$1,4711
$78
2,644
1,ZtO
-819
-3, 140
ll,424
7,488
711
-311
-1110
260
6,487
1,323
8,888
7, IIOO
II, 140
3,228
6,1112
3, 3111
280
8, 2811
8,637
8, 144
10,11112
12,DI
2,11011
2,804
2,300
6,0H
6,183
6, (!80
6,733
6,844
6,11118
7,11ir1
G82
3,282
6,931
7116
6,937
47
221
636
90
401
3,11011
a, 1186
374
-
KOODT
Total !arms __ -- -------------·-·---Less than 121 acres. ______________________
121-200 acres ____ . ___ . ___ . ___________ • ____ .
~1-280 acres _________ . __________ .. _______ .
281-360 acres ________ .• _____ .. _____________
3111--440 acres ____ . ___ .. ____ . ______________ .
441--620
______...•...
------------------621
acresacres
or more
_______________________
)>
:I:
N
iz
~
!Tl
~
§
~
)>
'1)
Q_
..,•
---
TliILL
Total farms ____ ----------···-······
Less than 200acres _______________________
1-0
fz
BTDa
Total !arms ••••• ____ • ______________
w
Per,-
Net/:/
Into
oaf.
Assets
.....
87
6,046
1,688
3,467
488
4
1,875
6,234
11,233
4,941
8,700
260
1176
476
1,617
1,317
2,122
1,720
600
800
1,400
3,1117
4,IIUI
2,8111
8, ll80
-260
-126
2,600
38
633
32
16
24
6
ll
4
ll70
--
1,673
626
11,11411
rm
40
126
890
-1,086
2,372
7,IIGS
3,291
4,707
2,336
160
;cJ
2,600
-487
-e, 113
3113
-40
-1215
-890
3, IIOO
3,130
-1, 1117
3,182
11,940
-376
-816
4,11611
11,0MI
8, 1156
11,801
2, 1184
13, 142
111, 1182
1,11114
2,11112
3,294
4, 7111
6, 7411
2,300
a, 1142
115,1101
-1,238
1114
6, 1113
2, 6114
-117
12
328
1117
-380
127
1,084
)>
2, 7116
3,440
4,066
384
11,600
4,381
-4,1140
4,017
18, 4111
m
SUPPLEMENTARY TABLES• 133
Tobie 10.-Size of Farm, Number of Livestock per Farm, and Tenure of Farm Operators
Receiving Relief in Representative Counties in the Northern Great Plains, April-May
1935
Number Average
size of
County and alle of farm offanna
farm 1
(acres)
Nl,:t·
Average number orllvestock
Cattle
Hogs
Tenure of operator
Chick- Horses Owner Tenant Unens
known
--- --- --- --- --- ---
--- - - -
D"1DJ:
Total farms•••••••
Less than 281 acree.... ..
175
373
n
- - 53- - -lflll- ---4
281~ acres •••..••••••.
401~acn,s ....•...••..
601--800 acres ............
801 acres or more••......
51
27
19
5
20
Not speclfleci. .••.......
324
484
653
1,384
-
n
6
8
10
n
2
42
3
118
1
36
32
2
3
4
5
12
7
24
3ft
26
17
5
10
26
6
78
57
31
4
22
26
13
5
3
28
18
5
4
5
-
----63
8
2
2
2
5
1
40
52
6.1
66
55
2
--- --211
15
I
2
-8
---
2
111:TTJNOJ:B
Total farms .•.•.•.
198
413
8
Less than 280 acres ••.•..
280--439 acres ....••..•...
44lhV>!lacres ••••••••••••
500-7111 acres .••.........
720-879 acres ..••........
880 8Cl'6't or more........
Not speclfled •.....•..•.
50
44
18
153
3.11
482
622
810
2,784
6
9
4
5
68
-
3
---2
10
14
16
8
17
4
5
3(1
4
4
5
I
2
n
28
28
35
14
7
8
8
12
2
II
2
31
n
55
87
26
3!!
6
26
6
7
17
28
30
22
4
I
I
113
---
SBJ:BIDA.11
Total farms •••••••
150
289
Less than 240 acres ..••..
54
47
12
7
4
1
154
241H191lacrt!S ••••••••••••
4~5511 a«n11 .••. ........
M0-719 acres .•••..•.•••.
720-ffi acres ...•....•...
880 acres or
more •...•••.
Not specified •.••..•....
298
----10
!!
-
13
15
13
21
12
8
214
4M
27
53
IM
15
25
450
ft44
751
000
2
2
2
3
38
43
31
-2
-22
5
118
n
8
n
n
2
1
---n
5
--3
I
4
-3
14
e
86
128
23
30
26
42
12
32
5
5
7
6
8
3
13
1
14
12
18
12
105
4
18
74
72
2
5
7
112
129
125
6
5
5
I
2
1
-8
HTDJ:
Total farms ••.•.•.
u.es than 280 acres ......
~
acres. -..........
440--669 acres ...••...•...
fiS0-719 acres ............
720 acres or mor11 •.•.••..
Not specifted ......•..••
J
68
---3 - - 47- -
22
44
3
7
-
28
51
8
10
2
330
26
486
23
31
13
830
1,126
n
54
63
73
7!!
II
------
~
llOODT
Total farms •.•.••.
100
199
17
23
Less than 121 acres ..••..
12
3
17
II
27
Not speclfled .•.•....•..
38
16
15
3
1
15
57
160
231
321
300
480
121-200 acres ............
201-280 acres ............
281-3(!0 acres ............
361-4.fOacres••.•••..•...
441--620 acres ............
-
23
25
54
13
24
38
37
8
9
6
10
- - - --- --- --- --114
-83
7
i
4
2
-2
33
15
13
2
1
3
---10
• Reporting acreage.
Reports available for only 214 of the 247 farm operators receiving relief In April 1935.
J
o 11i1i2Pd hy
86869°-38-11
Goog [e
134
• FARMING HAZARDS IN THE DROUGHT AREA
Tollt. 11.-Utilization of Land on Selected Farms in Representative Counties in the
Northem Great Plains, by Size of Farm, 1934
Average number of acres per farm
County and sue of farm
Number
of farms
reporting
Total
Na.tiftll?UII
Oropland
Fmmer
cropland
Fannltead
and
Hay
Puture
waste
-----------1-- ------
I
l)JVIDJ:
NarlA Dakota Black Pralrlu
&dlofl
Total farms _____________
44
4119
3G8
160
120
CIOl~ acres __________________ .
acres or more ______________ .
6
12
Ii
7
3
&obq-Plffltuwood Stctl011
Total farms ______________
Leas than 281____________________
------------28I-400acres
401-«JOacres ___________________
23
82
4
22
27
8
11
329
244
10
32
67
4116
742
20
ell
7
3
29
88
114
1,200
376
666
7M
II
26
113
22
649
~
7
184
320
493
136
6
'
43
6
6
3
4
6
20G
2119
6
92
422
4-0'1
17
8
12
1,060
12!1
216
634
Total farms _____________ .
63
606
371
7
213
2
13
than 280acrel! _____________
280-439 acres _____ . ___ -----_ - - - .
440-659 acres ___________________
560-719 acres __________________ .
720-879
880
acres=------------------or Llore _______________
II
176
114
240
'
6
6
8
6
801
Less than 281 acres_____________
281-400 acres __________________ .
401-«lO acree ___________________
601~acres------------------801 acres or more ____________ ._.
11119
2116
Q
31)
2
8
3
8
118
32
Ill
HJ:Tl'INO 11:R
Less
14
7
11
7
13
67
339
e
62
88
H
474
627
279
438
7111
7
19
6
20'l
796
318
462
Ii
1,210
647
324
21
184
1
17
6
60
90
118
184
8
16
18
32
413
173
UI
36
IIHEIIIDAN
Total farms ______________
Less
- -176
- - -101than 2408Crel! _____________ - - 8
~ a c r e s ___________________
40(H598Crel! ___________________
560-719 acres ______________ . ____
7:»-879 acree- ---------- ____ . __ .
880 acres or more _______________
12
13
II
306
465
632
19i
303
390
9
6
806
486
34
273
1,206
678
63
646
48
623
217
48
224
II
2
14
2!I
12
28
HTDII:
Total farms ______________
- -192
than 280 acres _____________ - - 10
280-439 acres ___________________
323
11
«o--5511 acres _____ ---------- ___ .
486
10
560-7111 acres ___________ --- _____
Less
720 BCl'8l! or more _______________
116
1114
211
22
12
11
II
1111
18
211
71
109
201
216
632
45
19
1
6
2
6
7
10
629
1,036
3611
20G
66
122
76
62
433
393
7
8
19
12
8
6
181
306
473
136
277
430
648
1116
689
848
24
30
12
16
16
87
~
211
g
31
II
4
60
161
61
138
192
TRAILL
Total farms ______________
Lese than 200 acres _____________
200--SWBCrel! ___________________
400--6911 acres ___________________
600-7119
800
acresBCrel!------------------or more _______________
13
11
13
16
18
82
18
12
II
JIOODT
Total farms ______________
than 121 acres _____________
121-200 acresacres- ____
-------------201-280
__________________
Less
281-360 acres_-------------- ____
361-440 BCrel!. -- -- • -· ___ --·- ____
441-.~20
521 acresacres_-----------------or more _______________
32
16
24
6
2
4
238
323
400
480
tl40
14
4
ti
32
10
6
3
'
266
338
13
33
376
432
12
46
80
M
130
D gillzed by
Google
11
ltl
12
14
SUPPLEMENTARY TABLES• 135
Tol:,/e 72.-Use of Farm Land on Seleded Farms in Representative Counties In the
Northem Great Plains, 1934
Average number or acree per farm
Divide
'l'se or farm land
North
Scobey- Hettln• Sheridan Hyde
Traill
Moody
Dakota Plenty~ (57 farms) (48 farms) (52 farms) (87 farms)
Black
wood
Prairies Section
Section (22 farms)
(44 farms)
----------- ---- ---- ---- - - - - ---- ---- ---Total land operated •.....
Total cropland ..••••.....
WbeaL ...........••...........
Wheat on fallow •.•............
Barley .•.......................
Oats •..•.•....•................
Rye ........................... .
Com for grain ................. .
Corn for fodder .....•...•.......
Flax ......................... .
Tame bay..................... .
Feed crops .................... .
Other crops .....•..•••...•.....
Annual pasture .....••••.......
Fallow ....•..•.•.•.............
Idle cropland••••••.............
400
MO
606
M7
523
368
287
371
324
217
155
14
36
15
20
8
20
3
7
3
6
136
8
23
23
16
3
34
27
6
------
- - 98- ---103
36
Jg
23
14
8
1
I
4
7
3
27
129
10
- - -4 =
Former cropland.•••...........
Native bay ....•••••••.•........
Native pasture................ .
Farmstead and waste ......... .
5
11
36
1
1
23
82
22
3
2
4
2
26
82
4
7
208
43
2
12
66
3
4
22
46
2
7
213
13
I
21
184
17
HI
32
12
4
18
433
2M
393
211
JOO
22
68
41
7
35
61
--- --2
2
-~2
%3
3
13
7
1
13
1
81
28
12
20
2
7
17
47
22
22
48
224
I
7
II
19
31
12
13
II
3
22
4
g
--- ------------
o a,,,,pd by
Goog Ie
136 • FARMING HAZARDS IN THE DROUGHT AREA
uops
Tolile u.-A'lfflJgc Acreage of Important
on Selected Farms I in Repmenlalive
Counties in the Northem Great Plains, 1930-1934
County and year
Numhlr
of farms
Av811118 numb41r of llllrel per farm
----r----,----.----.---~--reportmc
1
Wheat
Barley
Oats
Com for COl"D tr
grain
!odds
Flu
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - 1 - - - - 1 1 - - -
Nortlo Daloia ~ Pralrlu
&dlon
1930.... ··• · ••••. .•.............
11131. ........••• . ... . ... .. .. .. ..
11112. ......• .. . . ........... . . .. .
11133 ........•. .. ......... •· ... . .
11134 . • ...... . .••.. . ... .........
&o6eJ-PlffltJ1Dood &ctknt
1930 . ...... . . . ......... ........ .
1931. ....... .. .• . .. •.•.. ...... . •
1932 ..... ..•• •... . ...• ...• ..•. ..
1933 .....•.•••.....•............
1934 .....• ••.. • •.. ........ .. .. ..
Ill
19
83
42
'"
2
4
20
lllO
183
180
170
134
257
23
16
20
16
11
u
15
8
21
2:lO
120
18
138
108
23
Ill
13
Ml
67
227
168
179
196
24
26
83
1611
32
36
2
160
113
177
168
143
13
20
18
27
23
61
47
86
113
34
62
45
M
61
22
22
6
12
28
28
30
36
6
6
•
12
H
1
8
14
6
17
H
23
36
l
29
2
8
10
JRfl'INOD
11130......... •.. ••.•......... . ..
1931. ..•.... • •.• .• .......•......
1932. ..... ••••••.. ....• ..... . ...
1933 . .... .. .••............ ... .. .
1934 .....•. •••• ... . . ... ....•....
IIHUIDAM
1930 .... .•. •.•... •. .............
1931. ... . . ••• • ••.... . ...........
1932 ........••....... . . .........
1933 . ..• • . . . •• ••.....•.•........
1934 .... ...•••••.. ............ ..
6
8
38
62
67
26
BTI>S
1930.....•.•.• . ••.. . ..... .......
1931 .....••..•.•• . ..... .... •. . ..
1932 . ·· ·•·· ·•·• · · • ·•·· · ··· ·· ···
1933 . . ......•. .. .. .. ... ..... ....
1934 .....•.•••.•• . ... . ... .. . ... .
3
!Al
a
46
411
13
10
12
13
16
38
17
Ill
23
23
27
12
24
Ill
32
12
16
30
8
12
7
3
7
18
15
16
8
15
6
!:l
1)
1)
r:i
(1)
4
II
12
20
3
3
4
13
20
8
2i
36
63
39
36
18
11
8
6
TJIAILL
1930 . .. , ...• .. ••.... .... .. .... . .
1931. . . ....••• .•... .. .... . . . • .. .
11132 .. .. ...•••............ .... . .
1933 .... .. .• . •... . ..... ... . .....
1934 .. .•... •• ••• .•.. .•.. .... •.. .
60
13
105
30
127
122
41
68
3
38
I
72
8i
2
2
34
34
2
12
32
62
36
41
8
12
7
12
12
22
28
lfOODT
1930 . . .....•.. .. ....... . . ...... .
1931. ..... . .. . .... . .... ... . ... . •
1932 . . . ... ·· • ·•· · ········ ···· · ·
1933 ..... . . .. . ... . .......... ... .
1934 ... .. • .. •....... . ..•. .......
1
•
1
14
35
36
61
7
2
86
'"51
4
82
62
3
82
Reporting acreage.
Not calowated.
Digitized
byGoogle
l
23
SUPPLEMENTARY TABLES • 1 3 7
Tohl• 14.-Percent of Owned and Rented Land in Croi:,s and Grass on Seleded Farms
in Representative Counties in the Northern Great Plains, 1934
Divide
Item
North
Dakota
Black
Prairies
Section
Bettin•
ger
Sheridan
Hyde
Traill
Moody
SPcolbety•
(63
farms) (67 !arms) (48 farms) (52 farms) (87 !arms)
e~•
S~tion
r
)
(44 !arms) (22 arms
----------------------------------- ---Total operated land•··•--
100.0
100.0
UJO.O
Cropland_ -·--···- ..
Hay and pesture __ - .
Other •••••••..• -----.
73.6
21.1
5.4
52. 3
39.1
8.6
61.2
36.2
2.fl
40. 2
11. 2
2.8
27.4
~-3
3. 6
Total owned land.·-··•- · _____ _
Cropland ••.. •··-····-- ____ _
Hay and puture.---·-----·
Other •.. •-·--····-- -- - --- -Total abare-nmted land._-·--.
Cropland •.. ·-·---··---•· .. _
Hay and puture.... ______ _
Other ••.••• -·--·--·-- -- . -·
Total cub-rented land_ .. -- ___ .
100.0
100. 0
100.0
59.3
VO. 9
37.4
3.3
41.5
62.0
6.6
100.0
28. 5
13.8
1. 4
32. 1
11.5
18.0
17.1
I. 2
30.4
2. 8
1.5
29.8
1. 2
41. 2
44.5
44. 7
38.1
65.3
SO.ft
:ll.8
16. 3
5.1
31.9
11.3
1.3
26.3
16. 4
2.0
:ll.1
H.2
3.8
no. 5
50.0
8.4
2. 2
---- ---- - - - - - -
81.2
15. 2
3.8
6.1
3.0
---=
= 51.2 = 43. 7 - -44.= 37.1
54.2
8
36. 3
M. 7
----------1----1--- - - - - - -
=
43.6
32.6
8.3
2. 7
---------=
- -2.-9 - -7.-6 - -13.-I =
10. 8
---=
3. 3
1.5
- -25.6- - - - =
6. 2
1. 3
4.2
---•l----1--- - - - - - - - - - - - 2. o
11.1
1.0
9. 7
0.1
0. 7
1. 3
0.3
LV
0.6
1. 2
0.1
1.9
0.1
0.1
Cropland.. ·--·····-·-·-._
Hay and puture.. ·-----···
Other ••.••••••••. ----·---·
I. 3
1.6
Land rented ont •••.•. •-·-----Cropland.-·-·----·----·--· ·
Hay and pesture.-----·---Other ••. - -···-··-····- ··- __
4.1
3.6
3. 4
:ll. 7
1. 6
o. 2
3.5
0.6
0.1
• Total operated land la the sum or owned and rented land less land rented out.
D gillZPrl hy
Goos Ie
Ta&le 75.-Number of Livestock on Hand April 1, 193S, and Normal Number on Selected Farms in Representative Counties in the Northern Great
Plains, by Size of Fann
Average number of II vestock
County and size of farm
I
All cattle
Milk cows
Beef cows
Other cattle
I
Brood sows
All bogs
,.,)>
Other bogs
Poultry
Sheep
Work stock
Aprll Nor• April Nor• April Nor• April Nor• Apr!I Nor. April Nor• April Nor• Aprll Nor• April Nor• April Nor•
1, 1935 ma! 1, 1935 ma! 1, 1935 ma! 1, 1935 mal 1, 1935 ma! 1, 1935 ma! 1, 1935 ma! 1, 1935 mal 1, 1936 mal 1,1936 ma!
-- -- -- -- ------ -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
-- -DIVIDJ:
North Dakota Black Prairiea Section
1
4
---- ---------2
3
4
6
9
Less than 281 acres .•....•..••...•••••.....•••••
2
16
6
7
281-400 acres .••••••••.•.•...••.•.••••.....•••..
7
6
11
24
6
8
401-000 acres •.•••••••.............•.•...•.....•
-- Total farms ••.•••••••••.•.•••••.•••••••••
601-800 acres •...•••••.•.............•••••.•••..
801 acres or more ..•••.•.•.•.........•...•...•..
g
10
18
20
16
39
5
4
6
7
12
4
8
5
9
16
10
21
2
2
2
10
4
10
3
-1
3
1
6
3
2
2
7
4
-
1
1
2
-1 -1
-- -2
2
1
- -1 61
-
2
2
1
6
3
-
•
-3
-5
27
-4
-3
67
47
48
62
53
29
31
62
6
6
70
65
40
63
6
6
6
7
6
8
- 63- - -5 --6
5
9
5
i5·
i
-'i
0
0
0
-n
(),0
801 acres or more ..•.......... ----········ •.•••.
12
20
2
4
15
27
1
5
17
21
7
8
3
4
6
6
7
10
11
16
2
3
7
12
1
1
3
1
4
14
11
49
65
7
7
.
3
Less than 280 acres .••. •-···-··-_ ... __ .. -·······
280-439 acres ••.••••.. _... _... - _............••..
440-559 acres ••.•••• - . -· ......... - ..........•••.
560--719 acres ..•.•.... _........... _..... -.......
7ID-879 acres .......••.•...........•.. -.....•.•.
880 acres or more •••••.•....•....•........••.•..
J:
)>
N
,.,)>
z
--1
,,.,J:
,.,
C
2
3
- -6 - II- - -3 - -6 -- -8
15
20
28
26
18
30
26
26
23
3
7
8
11
12
5
8
11
13
10
-
1
3
2
3
2
3
8
2
3
2
8
3
4
5
10
14
12
10
6
10
14
13
10
11
3
2
1
5
2
2
8
13
6
12
25
8
14
17
52
90
6
6
30
49
73
132
3
4
5
7
7
8
4
---- -- -- ---- - -- -- - - -- --- -1
2
2
11
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
2
3
2
4
4
1
6
10
4
22
6
6
10
13
5
9
6
6
3
12
C:
Q
J:
--1
,.,,,.,
)>
)>
HETTINGER
Total farms •••••......•••.•.......•...••.
zQ
0
----- 3
- - - - - - -- -- - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - 45
- 11- - -2
1
1
-2 56 -18 -10 65 9149 37 -2
5
6
7
2
3
2
Less than 281 acres •••••.•.....• _......•.•••••••
9
11
6
6
11
2
6
5
11
17
281--400 acres •.•.•••..•..• -..... _.........••.•••
-4 6 3 3 10 13 1 3 1 3 - - - - 42 74 3 106
22
401-600 acres .••••••......... _.•.. _.......•••••.
17
5
1
2
1
2
-45 - 4647 6448 87
12
3
1
6
7
3
9
15
601-800 acres ...••......... _.•.. _•.....•..•••.•.
26
7
8
9
2
Total farms ..••••••••.........•..••••••••
?:
C
II)
11
&ober•Plentvwood Stction
0
Ii.,,•
50
46
50
64
70
104
130
95
5
7
7
5
8
IIHll&ID.Uf
Total farm!L •.••••••••••••••• ______ .•.••
.I
Less than '.MO acres ......•.•.....•.•.....•.•.•..
240---399 acres ..•••.•.•.•.....•••...•••.•.•..••..
100-559 acres ....•.•...•.•...•...•.•••••••.•....
560-719 acres ....•••••••.•.•.•. ___ ...•••••••....
f:»-879 acres._ ......•••...•.•.•.....•••••••.•..
880 acres or more .•.•••.••.•.•.•.•.••..•••••.•..
Total farms
-- ---IIYDII
-------------- --
21
28
8
10
2
3
11
16
3
16
16
18
25
25
26
22
21
22
28
46
36
5
7
8
9
11
15
2
1
1
4
3
2
2
1
l
2
7
4
9
8
9
13
13
13
13
12
12
15
24
18
2
2
4
3
4
6
7
8
8
9
11
14
280---439 acres •.........•••••.•.•.•..............
H0-559 acres ............•.•.•••••.•............
560-i19 acres ......•......•..•.•••.•.....•......
720 acres or more._ ..........•...•...•..........
Less than 200 acres ..•.....•...•.•.•...•........
200--399 acre6 ........•....•••..•.•.•...........•
400-59<J acres •.........•...••..•.•.•............
600-799 acres. _.................•..•...•.••.....
BOO acres or more ..•••.....•....••••••..........
II
6
8
6
8
8
10
12
9
II
10
3
7
5
II
15
I
19
7
7
19
10
II
10
13
27
2
2
2
2
6
Les, than 121 acres ......•.....•••.•.•.•.•.....•
121-200 acres ......•.•.•.•.......•.•.•.•........
201-280 acres .••...•...............•.•...•.•....
281-360 acres •••..•....•.•.........•.....•.•.. - 361-440 acres •.•..•......•.•.•........•.••.•....
441-520acres .....
621 acres or more.
~
~
~
C')
0
~
-n
4
12
11
9
30
9
25
2'1
28
43
3
2
4
2
6
2
1
1
2
3
4
ll
1
1
3
1
3
4
3
5
5
4
4
6
13
21
9
8
-10
12
7
68
--
13
4
168
43 I 105
6
22
36
45
46
51
4
4
6
8
7
58
129
74
106
113
120
93
8
6
5
6
10
7
8
2
10
10
2
2
2
6
6
11
8
16
12
6
12
9
14
10
.
17
18
4
67
38
32
32
50
6
72
6
8
53
80
6
3
6
71
62
105
6
6
12
•
-
4
-
3
52
70
51
67
152
8
3
. . .
2
611
11
2
7
21
16
3
1
4
6
6
7
10
24
59
46
5
73
58
32
27
27
43
9
6
5
5
7
79
137
239
65
177
6
5
23
16
ll
1
2
l
4
1
1
2
1
2
-
6
8
8
7
10
,--,--,--,--,--,--,--,--,--,--,--,--,--,--,--,--,--,--,--,-12
20
16
29
25
12
21
18
29
20
4
7
6
7
11
4
7
7
9
10
28
29
7
7
2
-
MOODY
Total farms ••.•.•••.••••••.••••••••.•••••
• Less than 0.6.
2
1
1
2
144
29
48
41
52
80
TRAILL
Total farms ••.•.•.....•.•.•••••.•••••••••
£
1
1
1
47
7
8
38
9
II
l
7
1
2
45
13
26
14
10
8
7
28
50
- ---- - ,--,--,--,--,--,--,--,--,--,--,--,--,--,--,--,--,--,--,--
Less than 280 acres ............................ .
0
4
6
7
7
8
8
4
4
6
4
4
2
18
-
12
4
7
1
l
3
3
1
4
5
3
1
39
24
29
21
II
37
4
86
12
18
1.~
15
64
4
100
2
2
2
2
- -
48
5
II
13
- -1 - -2 ------ -2 - -3 - - - ---- -5 - ---2
9
2
4
2
2
4
3
18
34
35
26
58
46
20
32
39
28
55
4l
6
8
9
8
10
8
5
7
9
8
10
6
-
2
6
4
3
6
5
-11
-II
6
6
II
20
22
18
37
32
12
19
25
20
34
29
10
17
16
II
140
70
38
37
45
70
172
127
3
5
6
3
22
13
6
7
12
10
22
16
7
12
32
30
10
33
60
3
118
67
4
19
13
1
3
3
22
22
6
9
3
150
lll
6
5
12
4
130
84
-115- ---62
-2
44
77
91
78
136
88
108
116
123
148
174
88
138
4
4
4
6
6
II
3
6
6
6
7
8
~
~
~
ITI
~
~
>
a,
~
.....•
w
,0
140 • FARMING HAZARDS IN THE DROUGHT AREA
Tobie 76.-Number of Selected Farms With Livestock in Representative Counties in the
Northem Great Plains, April 1, 1935
Number or farms reportfnc
Divide
Number of llvt11tock
~=
North
Scobey- Hetilnpr Sheridan
Hyde
Traill
Moody
Ple.:r (113 farms) (67 farms) (48 farms) (152 fanm) (ST fanm)
Prairies
~on
2
211
16
13
3
6
16
16
32
42
II
7
60
Section ( farms)
(44 farms) 22
lllLl:COWS
None _________ .... -··········-· l-6 ___________ . ____ ···----·-·•·-
6 or more----------·-·----·-··-
4
40
II
28
13
33
e
22
18
41
46
2
8
2
28
42
Ml
7
6
1
3
23
211
2
8
30
6
3
UI
l
2
12
:io
7
7
21
88
4
21
38
'/3
2
22
18
3
3
46
12
6
r,
10
10
16
2
2
3
nu
13
11
BJ:11:roowa
NOile
··-------1-6
___________
- - ----------·--- _.. _____ -- - _--..6--16- _---· - -- -- _- - __ -- _-- _.. ___ .
16 or more..·------------------··
2
e
e
8
e
2
e
2
OTBIIB CJ/l"l'LII
None_··- ________ ·--· _______ .-·
1-10_ -- ··--- ·- ·--- -- _____ • _____ .
11-26_________________ ------ .. - ·
2&-ffO_ -- ·-------- ··- --- - -- . - - - ..
61 or more·-··---------------·-·
No11e ,.BBOOD80Wa
_____________________ _
1--3 ____________________________ _
2
211
16
I
22
22
2
4
16
13
II
4 or more..-----------------· __ -·
OTBIIB HOGS
None ______
- __ -- _____________ . _
1-6 _________________ ------- .. -·.
6 or more.---------------------·
30
8
8
SHJ:IIP
None ____ --------------------- -
1-10------------------- --.---.IJ-6() __ --- - - ----- - - - -- -- -- - . . - - .
61 or more..-------------·--·---·
39
2
2
I
1
14
28
13
2
11
:ii
3
a
11
36
28
10
26
21
6
'6
33
10
6
36
7
10
UI
'Z1
42
411
1
36
38
2
4
111
6
3
2
II
3
3
6
2
38
18
7
4
41
33
7
4
211
12
6
37
21
3
31
23
6
22
8
32
21
48
•
:n
12
CHJCl[J:118
None __________ - -- -- -- -- -- -- . --.
2
1-60- - -------- --- ---- --- - - - - - - - 61-100___ ----- ---- -- _----- _-- _..
101 or more _____________ .. _.. ·--
31
7
4
16
6
I
4
18
7
WOBll: IITO('I[
None ___________ .... -· -----· ·- · ·
3
3
1-6.----------------··-···----··
7 or more.. _____ .. _-· .. _. __ . - . ·- _
211
15
11
8
Oqit1zed by
21
17
Google
4
•
14
Ta&le 77.-Utilization of Labor and Tradors on Seleded Farms in Representative Counties in the Northern Great Plains, by Sii.e of Farm, 1935
Farms operated by specified number of men
Number ol farms reporting
1
3
2
4
County and size of farm
Total
With
tractor
Without
tractor
Total
With Without
tractor tractor
Total
With Without
tractor tractor
Total
With Without
tractor tractor
Total
With
trll<'tor
Without
tractor
- - - --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --DIVIDE
Total fBl'DIB-·-------·-------IA'ss than 401 acres·-----·--··----·401-600 seres_ •. ·-··-- ___ -·---·- ___ .
601 acras or more·-··---·-----------
66
38
28
41
21
20
13
10
3
10
6
4
'IT
11
21
13
7
8
8
5
13
5
2
3
2
8
2
1
7
1
1
1
2
5
3
1
3
2
1
2
1
35
19
12
20
15
12
1
22
17
5
-1
-1
11
'
2
2
2
3
10
1
4
4
17
14
g
8
5
2
13
1
6
2
3
2
1
3
6
7
2
1
6
2
2
4
2
14
g
'
5
3
1
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- --- - - - --- --- --19
12
15
16
8
4
fl3
43
20
11
14
3
20
2
1
1
-1
1
---1 --- ---1
-
HJ:Tl'INGl:ll
Total larms •••••• ·-·-··-·-·-.
Less than 440acm1..- •. --·--------·
440--719 seres ________ --·-····--·- ___ .
720 acres or more .• _·--·-----···---·
2.~
18
20
15
17
3
4
7
11
2
6
5
5
5
I
-- ---1
-
1
--1
-
--
8811:RIDAN
Total larms-·--···--·--·----·
Less than 400sere-'---····---------·
400-719 acres __ • __ ·--··--- _______ .•
720 acres or more ••.•• ·-·-·-·-·-----
,'i7
20
22
13
g
28
7
11
10
211
13
11
5
211
13
3
4
3
2
'IT
21
13
6
23
11
12
11
3
5
8
2
4
10
g ---3
7
1
4
4
-1
3
1
3
-1
2
-
-1
BYDI:
Total !arms __ ---·--···-····-·
IA'M than 440 acres_. ________ .•.. ___
440--719 ll<'reS .. _______ ··- _ -· _. ··--- _
720 acres or more ___________________
CJ
tg.
;;.
"'
o_
.:[
C")
0
~
~
48
21
17
10
8
11
8
TRAILL
Total !arms ••.••• ___ ...•. __ ._
Less than 200acres .••. ·--··-··•·--200--399 acres_._-·······-·-····-- ___
400 acres or more.·-··-·----·-------
8
-
52
38
14
------2
8
8
28
5
13
10
3
3
1
23
---g
8
8
5
5
2
1
1
-
-
2
1
1
--
- --- ------
18
10
16
12
4
6
6
2
2
------------------ --5
3
2 --1
- --II
4
4
2
2
2
2
1
9
II
8
1
4
4
2
2
19
13
25
23
6
2
87
52
35
{l
46
55
23
32
17
24
35
39
16
12
11
27
5
-
JIOODY
Total farms •••.. ---·------···
Less than 281 scres----·------··-···
281 acres or more •• ·------·-----····
11
211
10
16
14
4
10
12
6
6
6
3
3
4
1
3
2
2
-
- ----
--
~
!
~
rn
z
►,.,-<
-I
)>
CCI
r-
UI
.....•
~
_.
-•
,.,>
Ta&le 18.-Aaeage Operated by Specified Number of Men, With or Without Tractors, on Selected Farms In Sheridan and Traill Counties,
N. Dak., by Size of Farm, 1935
,1:a.
1-0
Average acreage ID farms operated by specllled number of men
Number or farms reporting
Total
Wltb Without
tnctor tractor
Total
3
2
1
County and size or Cann
With Without
tractor tractor
Total
With Without
tractor tractor
Total
~
4
With
Without
traotor tractor
Total
z
With Wlthou\
tractor tractor
Q
:::c
)>
All farms:
0
;:;
'1)
Q_
O"
'<
C')
0
&('"J
BIURIDAN
Total farms ••.•••••••••••••.••.
Total acres operared ........•..
Crop acres opera red .•.•.•.•.•••
Less than 400 acres:
Total farms .•.•...•.••..•...•.•
Total acres opera red ....•...•••
Crop acres opera red .•.........•
400-719 acres:
Total farms ••••••••••••••••••••
Total acres operared .•........•
Crop acres operared .•.........•
720 acres or more:
Total farms •..•.....•.....•.•.•
Total acres opera red ......•...•
Crop acres operared .•...•....•.
~
All farms:
N
57
647
324
28
811
431
29
484
221
:Ill
429
215
II
483
312
17
401
184
14
M9
369
II
MIi
889
305
20
264
159
7
274
219
13
242
126
13
241
150
4
200
242
II
2lll
109
3
313
2)()
1
240
236
2
350
182
22
11
537
11
517
287
10
484
289
3
SIS
378
7
470
251
8
Ml
384
2
566
370
8
840
330
s
527
5
MO
13
836
8IICI
4
BJ
lM
'1
11118
4118
'173
2
240
146
--
I
480
2
1
3
1,014
896
--1
1
840
405
----
3
533
376
388
560
810
840
2
1,040
328
3
1,081
876
2
1,202
1,112
840
2
720
885
2
720
885
---
----
--
---
-
1186
390
15
1166
522
10
927
1123
1,040
320
3
1,067
247
2
820
350
1
1,560
40
3
787
487
2
820
480
llOO
8
946
501
4
8911
587
52
433
393
38
497
4511
14
259
227
28
376
345
18
4.'16
425
10
234
:IOI
16
441
392
12
481
425
4
320
294
8
584
5:111
8
584
5:111
8
161
136
2
160
152
8
162
131
5
163
131
s
-
163
131
3
180
145
2
180
152
1
180
130
--
---
111
306
277
13
318
292
8
282
245
13
298
273
9
314
296
4
:1112
223
4
320
2118
2
320
m
390
2
320
270
2
320
25
617
5M
ZI
829
673
2
480
10
1588
647
II
1
480
482
0
S88
517
1
480
466
4
6116
11118
853
4
718
1
281
4
1171
2
2IIO
166
338
720
8
818
466
840
466
1
405
TB.lILL
Total farms ..•...••.•.•.•......
Total acres operared ......•....
Crop acres operared ............
Less than 200 acres:
Total farms .....•.•.•.........•
Total acres opera red ...........
Crop acres operared .......•...•
:I00-399 acres:
Total farms ••••••••••.•••••••••
Total acres operared ..•.•...•..
Crop acres operated ••...•.•.•.•
400 IICre9 or more:
Total farms .•.•...•••...•••....
Total acres operated ••....•.•.•
Orop acree operated ............
484
--
302
8
802
628
2
718
270
058
---
--
2
720
--2
720
886
-
---
,.,)>
~
z
:trn
,.,C
0
§
J:
-I
,.,
)>
""
)>
SUPPLEMENT ARY TABLES •
143
Tol»le 79.-Average Value of Farm Buildings and Estimated Cost of Needed R~irs per
Farm on Selected Farms in Representative Counties in the Northern Great Plains, by
Size of Farm, 1935
Number of farms
reporting
Cost of needed repairs
Value of buildings
County and size of farm
Owned
Total
Dwelling
Other
Total
Dwelling
31
$3,084
$1, 1116
$1,889
$374
$143
$231
12
17
7
3
9
II
6
3
1,693
2,846
3,4119
2,949
4,317
IIOO
I, 167
1,247
1,243
1,400
7113
1,6711
2,262
168
331
472
I, 706
2,917
364
383
29
106
221
139
liO
2311
261
2211
313
22
17
1,204
662
552
232
140
92
6
3
4
6
6
2
3
5
1,805
1,076
1,231
1,232
900
1533
650
800
645
543
581
632
li08
185
110
395
38
263
58
127
113
147
52
136
63
46
2,321
990
1, 331
348
118
230
14
7
10
6
7
13
1,941
1,875
2,237
2,694
3,940
782
1,021
1,045
1,343
1,462
I, 159
854
I, 192
1,351
2,478
94
7
5
10
1113
169
242
370
Total
Other
--- - - - - - - --- --- - - - - - -
nrvm•
NonA Dakota Black Prairlu
&di<na
Total farms •....••.....
44
Less than 281 acres ..........
281~aores •••••••. ....••...
401-«XI acres ......... ..... _. _
801-SOO ---·····-··· -·- ··801 acres or more ••••....•.•.
- - -5 --a
139
&obq-Plffltp1ood Stdion
Total farms ..•......•••
------- - -6 - - -2 - -831- - -470- --51
26
361
25
Less than 281 acres .. _...... .
281~acres .................
401-«>0IIO'eO! ••••••••••••...•.
801-SOO acres ... ....... _......
801 acres or more ... • ···--··BHTDIO ■B
Total rarms •.••••• • •••.
Le!a than 280 acres . . ... __ ...
380-439 acres...•.•.• - ...•. -..
440-Mllacres .•.•••••.•.•.•.•.
lll!0-719 acres ........... ..... _
m-879 acres ............. _...
880 acres or more•• __ •• _•.•...
- - - - - - - - - --- - - - - - -----92
180
272
8
1,022
400
622
11
II
287
298
413
444
399
139
171
74
133
266
8Bll:llIDAII'
Total farms __ ._ ... __ ...
Less than 240 acres ..•. ____ ._
240-31111 - · .••..••••••.•• _.
57
--Jj
2,200
I, 397
241
169
002
37
- - - ---- - - - --- - - - - - ---168
77
826
Ill
346
82
4
480
6
8
6
8
5
6
1,392
I, 894
2,770
3,644
4,228
48
23
2,699
I, 153
1,546
10
7
10
4
5
4
3
7
2,378
3,133
2,516
2,340
2, 1175
I, 195
1,173
I, 185
1,071
I, 113
I, 183
1,000
1,331
1,269
1,862
Total farm~ ............
52
27
3,lln
1,665
2,312
Less than 200 acres ..•.••• _••
m-399acres .................
400-&119 acres... ........... -. 800-799 acres .................
800 acres or more ....•• .. ··--
8
Ill
12
8
2,684
3, 7113
4,728
4,426
4,228
1,038
I, 5115
1,875
2,075
I, 780
1,646
2, lll8
585
5
7
8
6
4
3
87
44
3,880
1, 395
400-659 acres ............. __ ..
M0-719 acres .................
m-879acres .......•.• ...... .
880 acres or more ....•.. _____ .
12
13
ll
9
6/i8
6n
I, 211
I, 350
1,300
80
230
154
362
356
194
106
114
78
150
104
257
242
116
336
100
236
346
311
318
gg
88
223
137
82
304
301
94
207
138
70
2,853
326
1116
242
2,351
2,448
344
168
00
187
126
187
417
2,485
380
00
104
30
734
I, 217
1, 559
2,294
2,928
50
BTDII:
Total farms ••••• __ •••.
Less than 280 acres ..........
280--439 acres .•.•...•..•....• _
440-559 acres ..•..•.••..•.... _
660-719 acres ...• ............ _
720 acres or more ••• ·-·-····-
--JO
II
--- ----311
105
386
~
247
181
TllAILL
KOODT
Total rarms •.••.•••••••
I.ma than 121 acres ... _....••
121-200 acres .•...• . •...•.••••
301-280 acres ..• --··· •.• -··- ..
281-360 acres ... _·--·---··-- ..
361-440 acres ..••.•... _.......
441-520 acres .. ·-···---·······
621 acres or more ..... ___ .....
- - - - - - --- --- - - - - - -
- - - - - --- - -4 - - -4 -1,587
675
1112
32
16
24
6
2
4
15
9
13
-
I
2
3,362
3,406
4,753
4,376
7,385
4,612
I, 241
1,428
I, 575
I, 140
3,500
1,400
2, 121
1,978
3,178
3,236
3,885
3,212
55
254
200
74
306
86
362
452
220
00
102
li6
150
126
272
350
282
840
515
338
990
6-10
D;:i111zed by
Google
144 •
FARMING HAZARDS IN THE DROUGHT AREA
Tat.le JO.--Percent of Acreage With Mortgages of Record Held by Different Types of
Lending Agencies In Representative Counties in the Northern Great Plains, 1935
Percent of mortgaged acres
Type of lendln1 agency
Divide
Hettinger Sheridan
Hyde
Tram
Moody
A I.L ltORTOAGEff
Total •........................•.•..
100
100
100
100
100
100
It
1
II
~5
29
13
33
15
6
9
41
24
27
II
35
38
14
5
6
28
31
10
10
JR
Total •..............................
100
100
100
100
100
100
Private •................... . ..............
Corporate ...........•....................
Commercial banks ..............•..... -• · .
Federal Land Bank ....................•..
Federal Land Bank Commissioner....•...
State lending agencies .................... .
12
3
8
48
18
17
2
3
49
17
12
1ft
6
6
38
12
34
19
8
31
Private ................... . . . ............ .
Corporate..... . ....•.. . . ____ ..... ______ .
Commercial h,mks ........ __ . ___ .... __ ... .
Federal Land Bank ...................... .
Federal Land Bank Commissioner ...... .
State lending agenclea ..•.................
Other •••.•.................•..............
-----I
3
4
12
9
15
II
16
21
14
27
2
5
nR!lT MOBTOAGltS
11
Other .................................... .
4
12
9
12
12
17
22
27
II
115
8
25
3
6
4
3
Source: County records.
Tat.le JJ.-Federal Emergency Loans to Farmers in Representative Counties in the
Northern Great Plains and Loans Outstanding, December 31, 1934
I
Number of Joens per 100 farms
Crop and feed
Joans
County
Average amount per 10811
Crop and feed l0811S
Drought
Joans Total
Total
1931
or be- 1932
fore
orbe- 1932 1933 1934
fore
-- -- -
-
-
Drought
loans
11134
1931
1934
----
1933
11134
- - - - --- - - · - - ---
TOTAL LOANS MADlt
Divide .•.................
Hettlnl(t'r............•...
Sheridan ..•....•.........
Hyde ....••........•...•.
Traill ..•.••........•.....
Moody •.•.•.....•.••....
544
199
153
168
1111
56
ZiO
M
20
-
90
55
48
35
18
II
7
84
27
II
25
-
62
16
14
189
17
85
47
3.1
15
84
27
11
38
II
--
60
II
20
14
1
1
65
35
63
74
8
40
Sl!l6
153
112
165
141
96
$163
160
RS
177
137
148
178
119
126
-
213
152
251
153
1811
$116
137
81
108
142
78
$1411
128
113
151
130
110
$218
75
264
178
120
I 212
117
I 139
117
128
78
1106
108
I i5
1411
128
113
I 150
104
I 110
218
76
83
101
135
$294
112
100
135
61
LOANA OUTRTASPJNO
OKCEMBEK 31. I\J34
Dlvlrle ...................
Hettlnl(llr................
Sheridan. ••..............
Hyde ...............•••..
Traill .....•.........•....
Moody ••••...........•..
456
141
132
166
34
52
-
9
11
7
7
I
25
JO
1
35
63
74
99
149
R
116
:19
78
--
Outstanding January 15, 1936.
Source: Compiled from data supplied by the Fann Credit Administration.
1
o gi112Pd tiy
Goog Ie
GO
To&le .2.2.-Average Indebtedness of Farm Operators Receiving Relief 1 in Representative Counties in the Northern Great Plains, by Tenure, April-May
1935
Tenants
Owners
County and size of farm
Number or
lnrms
reporting
Average
size of
farm'
(acres)
Kind or Indebtedness {percent)
Average l n • 1 - - - - - - - -- , -- - - debtedness
Other
Real-il.'ltBte j Chatt.ii
debts
mortgages mortgages
Numberol
farms
reporting
Average
size or
rarm•
(acres)
Kind of Indebtedness
{percent)
Average ln•l---- -- - debtedness
Cbeltel
Other
debts
mortgages
DIVTDE
Total rarms .. . ........... --.•··
Less than 281 acres _._...
___ . ...
281--IOOacres ... ----· . . . ------··--·
401-600acres ._. _____ --- • -·- .
60 HlOO acres . . . . . . . . . . _...... . .. _
801 acres or more_ .... _._._..... _... .
Not specified .. ....... _...... .. .... _..
118
24
36
26
17
5
JO
422
167
326
486
654
l , 38-1
$2, 99,
l,7~
3, 141
3,151
3,453
7,217
2,366
n
6
22
1----·1- -- - 1
64
75
70
TT
86
ro
0
6
7
7
1
o
30
19
23
16
65
29
15
I
2
245
171
320
480
640
14
n
$988
759
1, 237
750
622
1, 470
47
53
37
56
63
44
63
37
DETTINGER
Total larms ... •-•-Less than 280 acres .. __ .. _
280---439 acres ......... - -.. .
•.. _
440-559 acres ...... _... __ .. _..
560---719acres . ... -····• • ··• •·· · ·-
720-879 acres .•... _.. __ .......... . .. .
880 acres or more _.. _. . ·- _.. __ . -·.
Not specilled . . _.. __ ··-·· ·····0
to"
N.
""
(D
Q_
~
0
0
-
~
( \)
78
502
3,940
80
11
22
26
]3
144
335
480
624
813
3,240
2, OS4
3,634
5, 776
83
77
S4
14
JO
6,314
gs
3
13
9
5,525
6,531
3. 530
59
22
33
19
9
2, 700
71
23
I, 789
2,606
6,0W
8,360
650
65
66
78
90
28
27
17
IO
100
1,2-41
75
24
5
3
4
5
58
7
2
57
299
1,004
74
26
28
161
324
488
620
800
960
536
1,098
1,4M
l 254
39
30
2, 050
61
70
91
88
82
64
310
863
87
13
156
301
457
661
747
960
689
884
I, 336
I, 983
I, 061
20
83
84
92
88
95
-
17
16
8
12
5
100
779
92
8
18
5
4
1
l
11'.653
9
12
18
36
7
93
s1-1ER10AN
Total rarms ..
Less than 240 acres .. _.. __ ... _. . . . • ..
240-3Wacres .......... ---·--· -·-•··•
400-659 acres .. . ... -·· ___ .... __ ._ ..... _.
560---719 acres .. ... . .. _•.. . . _._ ... __ . __ .
720-879 acres •. ... ..... _..... . ... _. • ..
880 acres or more _....... _..........•....
Not speci6ed ... .. ...•... .. ......•. --....
Bee footnotes at end of table.
~
~
IT'I
~
IT'I
z
►
,0
65
201
20
17
152
293
443
600
6
2
I
76'1
- - - - 1 - -- - 1
-
~11
7
5
:,
30
6
5
3
1
14
-<
-I
►
a:,
'Cl
•
.....
~
UI
Ta&le .2.2.-Average Indebtedness of Farm Operators Receiving Relief I in Repraentative Counties in the Northern Great Plains, by Tenure, April-May
1935-Continued
~
...,•
Tenants
Owners
....
)>
:,g
County a nd site ot !arm
Number of
farms
Mporting
Average
site of
farm•
(acres)
Kind o! indebtedness (percent)
Average In•
debtedness
Cbattel
Real-estate
mortgages mortgages
Number of
farms
reporting
Other
debts
Average
site ot
farm•
(acres)
Kind or indebtedness
(percent)
Average In•
debtedness
Chatt.el
mortgages
Other
debts
J:
)>
~
IJYD E
:,g
02
485
$4, 313
73
20
7
147
448
$917
76
24
Le.ss than 280 acres ......................
23
174
331
486
586
1, 227
66
5
9
10
8
5
157
329
486
6.16
1,053
566
73
86
29
15
21
13
22
30
-
3,008
4, O(W
5, 867
4,41 5
7,562
678
-
1,039
1,233
661
2,217
292
81
70
76
70
73
70
19
21
24
30
27
16
143
7,225
90
5
53
157
240
316
370
1,872
6,674
l0,015
18,648
10,300
OJ
87
26
12
II
13
7
76
69
70
42
14
14
12
18
31
4
6
74
197
1,323
62
38
2
0
7
7
12
4
2
7
33
15
13
2
1
3
60
160
230
621
1,264
9-tO
1,657
2,528
450
4,005
84
52
76
16
48
24
23
40
22
100
-
30
0
to"
N.
""
(D
Q_
~
0
0
-
~
( \)
Le.ss tha n 121 acres ......................
121-200 acres ...•............. . . ... . . ....
201-280 acres .. _...... _.•••...... .. ......
281-360 acres ..................... . ......
361-440 acres ._ .................. . .......
441-620 acres._ .............••....•......
Not specified .........................•..
• For whom reports were available.
I Reporting
acre&l8,
~
...z
J:
m
C
()
MOODY
Total farms ................• . .....
z
G')
T otal farms .........•...••.••..•..
280-439 acres ........•• .. ..•.•. . ....•....
440-650 acres _...... . ..••........•••. -...
560-719 acres ............................
720 acres or more._ ......... . ... . ........
Not specified .. ........... _. . . . . . . . . . . . ..
~
5
l
2
-
I
2
-
3,228
85
05
03
-77
3
1
5
-14
-9
322
400
480
-
77
60
78
-
8J:
...
)>
:,g
>
Tot.le 23.-Average Value of Fann Assets, Amount of Liabilities, and Net Worth of 5:?lected Farmers in Representative Counties in the Northern Great
Plains, by Tenure, 1935
Owners
Tenants
Item
(-IS farms)
Hettlo~er
(~farms)
RherldoD
(3i lllrlllS)
(23 IIU"DlS)
('rl llU"IUS)
Moody
(4-t lartu3)
Divide
(18 farms)
Hetllnirer
(17 larms)
ShcrhlBD
(20fiu-ms)
Hyde
(25 f•rlllS)
TrsUI
(Ularma)
s1.n5
$1,550
SI, 537
Sl,631
$3. 378
718
805
654
534
1,547
6118
3
44
880
I, 132
IO
WO
16
93
41
1, 121
985
I, 126
Divide
Hyde
Trnlll
Total assets •. • ••••.• .
ss. 339
SS,604
$10,629
$12. 007
$If, 477
$13, 624
Real estate .•••••••••••.• . • .
Machinery ••••••..••.• .....
J,i,·estock .. • ..•• ... . ..•....
Form products .•••.• ..•• ...
Other •••• ••••••••••.•....•.
6,IH
9;3
7i6
40
376
6,290
1, 024
956
73
261
7,6112
OOi
1, 2.57
71
652
7,S3I
753
10,369
812
1,649
52
2. 165
9, 1162
I. 3f,5
I, G.'>S
127
I, 465
765
716
5
336
Total llabllilles ..•••..
f, 395
3, 861
3,076
6, rn1
6,658
6,731
1,218
2,8.W
I, 198
2,839
8 13
124
200
3, SSS
l, IJS
108
252
f, 747
4,899
163
2,511
894
9i
3.~9
6i6
30
305
2114
20
528
3,9H
', 743
6,653
7,491
8,819
M ortgn~es:
Real ~.state . . . ......... .
C hattel. .•.• •. .•.• ..• •.
Dclloqueot taus .•• ..•.• ·. •.
Other debts •..•••. . . .. •. . • .
175
Net wortb . . •••••••••.
1
2,
l(j(\
29
7,8931
-
-
-
I, 116
JI
71
954
39
128
849
65i
~
-
858
19
27
117
241
6521
fO.S
Moody
(43 larma)
S2. 757
-
102
595
892
I, 356
13
496
626
I
800
13
~u
n
2,n2j
205
1,139
~
~
~
'"
0
~-
=
>
-<
:ID
~
~
>
,...
0
~
N
0
~
~
a,
•
......
....
.....
148 • FARMING HAZARDS IN THE DROUGHT AREA
Tal,#e .H.-Normal Gross Cash Receipts Source of Receipts, and Adequacy of Income
on S.leded Farms in Representative Counties In the Central Great Plains, by Size of
Farm
Somoeofrecelpta (percent)
County and she of farm
Numberof
farms
re,:.rt·
DI
Normal
=
reoPlpts
-
Livestock
Crops and liveStoot
products
Adequacy of lncom"
Number Numb,,r
farms
offarma ofwith
Wort Number
with
lnrom..
of farms lncom~
off
farm report(D1[ sufflelfont oufflctent
to In•
to meet
ff'Nl.'IP
e ~ .....
pttal
--- - - - - - - - --- - --
--- ---
!IBS&JIAM
Total farms ___ . _- .. __
15,i;
$1,534
31
ffl)
30
10
25
43
29
76
M
71
6
I, 148
1,415
1,833
3,217
38
82
Total farms ..... .....
36
4, 538
77
22
401--880 - - - - -- ••.... .•..
881 acres or more .• ..•..•..
20
II
3,8116
7,722
76
78
2-'I
20
37
3,047
Less thsn :nl acres •••. ... .
m-m acres•••••••••••• ••.
2!IO--&llacres•.••••••• ••• ••.
380 acres or more ___ • .. _.. .
-
62
48
32
'IT
10
20
g
6
211
II
8
5
I
36
36
:,,g
I
2
20
II
Ill
II
15
3
36
36
25
6
4
10
II
9
10
JI
II
10
--- - - - - - - - ---- - - - - - - - - - - - g
-1
--
6
3
3
PS&KIMS
Loam 1tdl0tl
- - - - - - - - - --- - - - - - - - - - - -Less than 281 IM!ffll ........
-7
-20
-7 2,368
- 8011
7
281....fOO acres ••.••••.•.••••.
-8
8G"4r l11111111,a/Oft
Total farms ..•...•...
Less than 281 IICrftl ••••••.•
281....fOO acres.•.••....... ...
40Hl80 acres............. . .
1181 acres or more ..........
7li
----6 - -1,375
--
2,010
4,641
5, 7811
71
10
12
II
75
78
65
-
25
-- -
19
19
26
35
--11 - - -11 - - -11 - -- 2
-
6
7
OOIIBSM
Irrl,atttl 1tdlon
Total farms ..... . ....
acres ..... . ..
101-280 acrea .... _......... _
Less than 101
:.?111-400 acres . •. __ ...... ....
461---840 acres .... ...........
641 acres or more. _. ... ....
1
22
77
211
29
29
- - - - - - - - --- - - - - - - -----3,433
22
78
11
8
4,972
23
5
6
79
19
62
90
38
I
4. 914
11, 187
5,900
6,000
100
43
2,534
70
26
58
-42
14
11
2
10
-
2
--
14
6
14
II
6
6
2
I
2
1
2
I
NOA/rr/,ot,4 Hdlon
Total farms ......... .
Less than 101 acres ........
101-280 acros ••...•... ...••.
2Rl-460 acres .... _.•... •....
461-640 acr~s... _... ___ .....
641-960 ll<'l'CI ••. --····-·-·-1161 arros or more ..........
4
43
41
36
-2
-
-I
JI
7
10
8
g
6
II
14
14
5
8
14
66
53
48
12
II
II
10
14
18
II
II
14
18
- - - - - - --- ---- - -·-- ·- -- - - - - - -
-
900
2
II
7
11
14
1,104
1,771
3,200
3, 7116
68
76
72
68
26
21
21
31
1,55
1, 7118
49
51
-ft
3
7
1
2
CBSTJ:MMS
Total farms .. _..•. ...
--
- - -4R- - - -·
---.. --54
1,383
12
Less than 400 a.ere. ........
400-659 acres ••• __ ...... .. ..
32
ft8
1,362
II
-3.~
1, 8211
05
51111-7111 acres ••....... ... ...
14
~
acres or more.----- · -- .
18
2,317
51
4U
-
-- - - - - - 14
18
nata not available for 2 farm• .
• Data not available for 1 farm .
1
D1g111zed oy
Google
SUPPLEMENTARY TABLES • 149
Tat.le 25.-Age of Farm Operators Receivin,_ Relief 1 in Representative Counties in the
Central Great Plains and Number Unable to Work} April-May 1935
Sherman
.\ge
Perkins
Goshen
Cheyenne
Number Number Number Number Number Number Number Number
of farm
unable
of farm
unable
offarm
unable
of farm
unable
operaton to work operaton to work operaton to work operators to work
TotaJ.. _________
Under21 yean ______
21-215 yean __________
:l&-30yean __________
3I-35ysrs. _________
3&-40 yean. - - ----- -41--46 yean. __ • -----46--6Qyean •• -------61--611 yean, ___ ----- -116-«1 yeat11. - - - ------
--272
---
t}n\':9~~~-~~~~::::
16
38
49
46
41
28
1ft
20
1ft
4
---
9
-
1
-
---1
3
9
-1
-I
-
152
11
7
7
6
6
2
4
4
1
20
193
3
-2
3
23
26
29
32
21
31
16
6
7
1
23
26
30
33
21
28
16
6
7
-
1
-
193
-1
4
-9
3
-1
-
2
4
--
2
-2
---
For whom reports were available.
1
• Bued on disabilities reported.
Tat.le 26.-Number of Children of Different Ars and Adult Members Other Than
Parents in Farm Families Receiving Relief in
Great Plains, April-May 1935
County and Item
Total
famIlles
epresentative Counties in the Central
Number of families with speclfted number of persons
Nono
2
3
4
311
3ft
4
3
6
6
7
8
9
22
22
16
9
6
4
2
3
3
18
3
4
3
2
7
2
2
15
11
3
6
5
2
3
3
10
11
8JD:JI.IU.N
Total
cbildren
--·-··------------Children
under•••
lftyean
______________
Boys 1ft yean and over ______ . ________
Olrll 1ft yean and over _______________
Others.---- -- ---·----- -- -- - ---- --- ---
272
272
272
272
272
35
68
49
6()
6()
60
213
262
42
34
8
14
21
1
:QI
39
4
1
27
16
1
PIIRJ[.(N8
Total
cbildren
-----______________
------ ------Children
under.•••.
16yean
Boys Iftyean andover _______________
Girls 1ft yean and over _______________
Othen _______________________________
144
44
44
3
9
10
33
II
44
H
3ft
41
7
193
193
193
193
41
64
145
31
30
17
177
11
10
2
7
8
6
24
28
26
30
15
15
II
10
2
1
1
11
OoelBN
Total cbildren .••••. _____ ---- --- --- -Children under 1ft yean .. ___ .. _____ ..
Children 1ft yean and over ___________
Othen. ____ ------------ -- -----------
16
3
8
3
2
21
16
4
CHKTJ:NNJ:
Total
cbildren
- -- --- --______________
-- -- -- --- -- -Children
under••16yean
Bon lftyean and over _______________
Girls 1ft years and over _______________
Others. - -- ----------------- -------- -1
218
218
218
218
218
36
72
145
173
187
40
39
46
29
26
48
40
17
12
4
29
25
6
3
2
26
23
3
1
14
12
2
1
1
Reports were available for only 44 of the 52 farm families receiving relier In April 1936-
D gillZPrl hy
86869°--38--12
Goos Ie
1 50 • FARMING HAZARDS IN THE DROUGHT AREA
To&le 27.-Relative Importance of Different Causes of Crop Damage on Seleded Farms
in Representative Counties in the Central Great Plains, by Degree of Lon
Percent of:,-.
Lena:th of record
Total
County aod came or
nnmbel'or
damage
.->rd!
SBIIBIIAN
Drou ght . ............. . .. ·
Hall . . •. •.. •.•.. . . . •..•... .
Soll blowing . •.. .... ... . .. .
yean
i
Rust . .. : .. •..... .. .... . ...
ln9ect5 ••••• •• ... . . ... .... .
Frost •.••••.... . . . . .... . . . .
Excessive preclplta tlon . .. .
Leas
than 10
10-111
yean
Desreeofloll-
D
: in':! ~;" 1 - - - - , - - - - , - - - ..... ~
~
II
57
13
6
6
2
2
21
Total Serious Sllcht
8
a
2
16
3
2
1
21
a
2
4
2
2
PIIRIIINS
47
21
12
6
Drought... ... ... ... ....... ]
Hall ..•••..... •. . . . . .. .....
Soll blowing . .. ...• ... •....
RWlt •••••.•• .... .. .. . •....
311
Ins«ta .. •. . . . . .. . . .. ..• . . .
Frost .••••...... . . . . .. . ....
Ezcealve precipitation . .. .
JO
24
17
6
ll
14
16
3
4
3
6
.a
1
18
12
6
3
1
3
1
2
14
1
2
1
II
15
4
3
1
4
2
8
&"'1 loam ,ectlon
Drought... . . •• •. ... . • .... . ]
38
Rust . • ••.... ... . . . . .. .... .
10
4
Hllll. . ...••. .• .. . . . . . . .. . . .
Soll blowfnc .. . •. • . . . •• .. . .
16
13
lmects •••••. . .. . . . . . . ... . .
Ill
Frost..•••••......... ... .. .
Excessive precipitation . . . .
12
6
4
3
g
8
2
3
14
l
4
.s
GOSBIIN
Jm,ated ,ectlon
Drought.••••.•.. •. .. . . ... . ]
Hall . ...••••.•.... •.. . . ....
16
8
2
20
Soll blowing .... ... . . •.... .
Rust •.. .•.••. .. .... .......
ln.aects •••.•. ... ... . . • • ... .
29
7
14
Frost .. •.••. ... . . .. . .. ... . .
ll
2
Exceaslve precipitation ...
Non~n,ottd 1tdlon
Drought .•.. ... . ..... . ... . ·
Ii
Hall. ..••. . . . . . .•. . • ..... . . ,
Soll blowing . . •••... ..... .
Rmt •.... . •••• ••... .•.....
43
6
Insects ........••.•. .•. ... .
Frost..........•••• ....... .
ExceSPlve precipitation .. ••
21
27
II
8
15
6
4
6
4
1
4
l
l
l
8
6
3
5
5
5
2
7
13
2
1
1
12
4
6
2
2
2
e
7
3
5
3
2
1
1
CBlillNNI:
Drought . •••••. . . . . .... .. ..
Hall ....•.•.•.. •... ...•. . ..
Soll blowing •.•. •. .. .......
·l1
Rust ••..••.•... ••. ... . ... .
52
14
21
7
7
24
II
lru!ecta .••••••• •. •·••• . . ...
Frol!t .. ••••• • •. •• •..•.. ..•.
Excessive precipitation ..•.
3
6
1
20
4
2
18
14
6
12
3
l
1
3
1
2
2
5
4
2
4
.
2
"Less than 0.5 perl't'nt .
D1gi11Zed oy
Google
Tahle 28.-Average Annual Yield per Harvested Acre of Important Crops in Representative Counties in the Central Great Plains, 1910-1932
Average yield per harvested acre (bushels)
Wheat
Year
Sherman
1910_. ____________________
IOIJ. _____________ •• _. ____
1912_______________________
---------------·----1913
1914
__ --------·----------1915 ______________________
}UJ6 ______________________
w11 •.. ·-··----··---·--·-1918 •• -···---·-···-···---1919_. ___ • _____ ._._ •••• _••
1920 _______________
------·--·--····--··
192J.
._. ___ ._
1P22_··-----------------·l!l2.1. - - -·· ---····--· -- --·1924_ ·-···-- ·--·---·-·-·-·
rn2,s_ - - ·-. ·- - - - - ..... - ·- ·rn211_
... _..... __ .... _._ ...
Hl27 •••• -·-·····-··-······
IU28_ -·--·-·---·····-····Jll'Xl_ ••• _-····-···-·-·····
lll30_ ••• _••••••••• _•••••••
1931 _. -···············-···
1932 •••••••••••••••••• _•••
0
<e
~·
6.
~
0
0
~
rS"'
Average yield for
years reported .. __
13
JO
16
15
18
16
18
15
II
10
9
10
12
10
20
15
Perkins Goshen
Cheyenne
Sherman
Corn
Oats
Perkins Goshen
Cheyenne
Sherman
Perkins Ga.hen
Cheyenne
Sherman
Perkins Goshen
Cheyenne
--- - - - --- --- --- - - - --- --- - - - - - - --- --- --- --- - - JO
26
8
26
JO
8
----JO
-4
5
IS
13
21
8
-18
12
19
18
9
20
30
Ii
II
22
7
20
8
8
---24
13
24
25
34
25
26
-------15
22
35
34
31
2-~
27
21
25
20
31
27
23
19
---II
---14
13
34
24
36
25
20
20
20
II
21
22
24
21
20
28
12
---35
--8
16
28
13
33
30
29
24
16
24
32
16
12
21
29
18
33
24
20
30
20
----10
13
23
20
25
14
17
16
28
20
23
11
5
18
16
10
11
21
16
20
20
12
21
19
18
19
10
8
14. 3
13. 0
II
BBrley
I
- - - --- =
JO
16
13
Ii
16
15
14
14
13
10
-
13.8
13
6
13
6
5
4
15
24
23
18
15
33
27
25
8
32
32
22
21
20
30
31
15
33
26
25
32
30
26
34
II
26
28
38
11
28
26
32
33
6
15
6
29
31
31
28
19
29
21
15
29
33
27
7
10
21
II
31
33
26
28
27
11
14
14
17
21
9
7
ul==::
=
22.0
10
21
20
16
=
-
2'1.3
=
13
8
7
12. 7
28
14
=
14
26. 7
:no
13
18
II
17
I
:in. 7
9
=
4
15. 7
20
32
17
21
28
4
24
15
13
-
18
29
24
14
16
28
35
12
20
14
23
=
JO
32
13
21
23'
20
22
28
27
14
14
17
21
22. 4
=
20.3
24
18
28
27
13
6
15
3
25
22
20
18
13
21
10
JO
10
II
19
JO
3
--- - - 19. 4
13. 1
Sources: Annual &port•, Nehra.ska State Board or Agriculture, L!ncoln, Nebr., 1913-1922; Nebra"11a Agricultural Statutiu, Department or Agriculture, Lincoln, Nehr., 1923-1932;
Wroming Agricultural Slalutiu, State Department of Agriculture, Cheyenne, Wyo., 1923-1932; and Yearboou of tJu Stale of Colorado, State Board of Immigration, Denver, Colo.,
1\118-1933.
~
~
m
t
zm
-4
)>
::0
-<
>
r0J
rn
....•
....
VI
152 •
FARMING HAZARDS IN THE DROUGHT AREA
Tol,le 29.-Percent of Years Specified Crop Yield per Harvested Acre Was Obtained in
S.leded Areas in the Central Great Plains, 1905-1934
Total
Yield per harvlll!ted acre
l'lll)Orts
Crop and area
Period
Included
.,_ ,!l .!5 ,!l
,!l .l!l E
,!I
,!I
_a.! • .! .,! -.:_g --:j ~~ e,~.!!9 ~i
i:l;g !. !9
.H
.. !9 ·! ~Hl !::!9
~!9
:i; .... J,"" J,.., J,.., ;,.., i . . J,.., ~~
..
,!l
;:}.,
iz -!"- f'- -
,-.:
C.
~
~
gj
~
I:;
~
- -
WHJ:AT
Central Nebraska• ....................
Bouthwe.,tern Nebraska• ....••••......
Southeastern Wyoming'·····----······
Western Kansas•-······-···········-··
--6
17 - 25 11 -8 -1 -- --
2
8
6
33
38
32
36
31
43
1
- 3
-- -
8
6
8
21
12
14
12
24
30
18
224
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
1910-1932
1910-1932
1922-1931
1905-1932
183
115
50
222
100.0
100. 0
100.0
100.0
-
2
6
4
16
12
12
20
18
14
20
12
18
11110-1932
1910-1932
1922-1931
100.S-IY3"
184
115
50
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
--
4
13
16
13
14
24
23
27
24
34
16
1910-1932
1910-1932
192'2-1031
19ll-1932
184
115
60
176
100. 0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Ulll-1932
191CH932
1922-1931
1905-1932
1119
24
68
21
---
BABLJ:T
Central Nebraska 1 •• ____ ••••••••••••••
Southwestern Nebraska• ...•.•.•......
Soutb!IBStern Wyoming•--·-·-·········
We.stern Kansas'····-···-·-····-·····-
116
60
4
10
22
21
30
26
24
12
15
19
26
6
-4
4
10
8
1
-
1
OAT!!
Central Nebraska'······-·············
Southwestern Nebraska•-·----·---·-··
Southeastern Wyoming•-···--·---·-·-We.stem Kansas• ......................
15
1
--
6
24
15
11
4
17
29
21
34
8
35
29
18
4
13
II
6
4
-
24
15
3
15
2
I
1
CORN
Central Nebraska 1 ••••••••••••••••••••
Southwestern Nebra.ska •--····-·-----Southeastern Wyoming• ...............
Western Kansas• .....................
224
-JO
1
3
2
16
25
II
5
-
2
1
1
I
Oentral Nebraska Area Includes Custer, Dawson, Garfield, Greeley, Loup, Sherman, Valley, and
Wheeler Counties.
• Southwestern Nebraska Area Include., Chase, Cheyenne, Deuel, Keith, and Perkins Counties.
• Southeastern Wyoming Area Includes Converse, Goshen, Laramie, Niobrara, and Platte Counties.
• Western Kansas Ares includes Finney, Greeley, Hamilton, Kearny, Logan, Scott, Wallace, and
Wichita Counties. This area Is adjacent to Cheyenne County, Colo., 1 of the sample counties.
Sources: .A.,mual &pom, Nebraska State Board of Agriculture, Lincoln, Nebr., 1913-19'.!2; Ntbra•ka
Agricultural ,StatWic,, Department of Agriculture, Lincoln, Nebr., 1923-1932; Wvoming AgriroUural .sta•
tWico, State Department or Agriculture, Cheyenne, Wyo., 1923-1932; and Bi,nnial Rtpor~. Kansas State
BOBl'd of Agriculture, Topeka, Kans., IOOf>-1006 aod 1933-1934.
1
Dtgilized oy
Google
SUPPLEMENTARY TABLES• 153
Tat.le 30.-Average Yield per Seeded Acre of Important Crops on Selected Farms in
Representative Counties in the Central Great Plains and Frequency of Occurrence of
Yields Which Were Good, Medium, Poor, or Failures
Yield
Crop and rounty
Number
or crops
n,ported
,:;-ded
acre
bushelll)
Percent or years yield
was o btalned
Average
yield
~racre
usbels)
MeFail•
MeFall•
Good dlum Poor 111'8 Good dlum Poor Un!
- - - --
- - - - - - ---
WlB.lT
Sherman ••••••••••••••••........
Perkins:
Loam section •••.•••.•.•.....
Sandy loam section ..••.•....
Oosben:
Irrigated aectlon .......•.....
Nonlrripted aectlon •.••.•...
Cheyenne •••.•••.....•••..••.•..
MIi
26
17
8
2
15
63
20
12
16
4:ll
3:ll
26
24
15
14
g
8
4
3
23
20
311
21
40
IV
20
21
14
13
34
429
138
34
24
IV
23
14
g
13
8
6
6
4
2
16
18
14
63
42
26
17
20
16
16
20
46
20
13
7
BilLJ:T
Sherman ••••••.•••••...•........
Perl<l.n,9:
Loam aectlon ................
Sandy loam aectlon ..•.•...
Goshen:
Irrigated aectlon .............
Nonlrrlgated section .........
Cheyenne.... ••..•..••...•........
,'18()
36
26
11
2
18
63
14
15
22
292
163
35
11
14
6
24
15
32
40
19
25
33
19
21
IV
26
18
17
:ll7
45
17
14
25
9
9
24
16
16
62
45
34
24
22.1
406
118
31
25
24
-15
18
32
767
42
27
13
3
18
51
Jg
12
24
273
24
23
12
12
5
6
23
28
37
35
19
18
21
186
42
38
22
22
126
296
16
72
33
68
20
13
35
14
6
4
44
25
28
21
-
56
IV
3
32
20
13
40
26
808
38
24
II
2
22
48
111
11
22
417
384
31
21
21
11
4
6
24
24
311
45
21
15
16
16
18
20
4
5
25
17
44
52
22
28
31
18
Jg
4
-4
6
4G
15
12
Od'II
Sherman ••••••...•.........•••..
Perkins:
Loamaectlon ................
Sandy loam aectlon ..........
Ooshen:
Irrigated HeCtlon .............
Nonlrrigated aectlon .........
Cheyenne ••••••..•••.•....••....
-
6
Jg
16
66
8
CORK
Sh.-nnan ••••••••.•.........•...•
Perkin&:
Loam HeCtlon ................
Sandy loam aectlon ..........
Goshen:
Irrigated aectlon ......•......
Non!rrlgated section.........
Cheyenne .•.•......•............
57
489
798
34
48
211
24
40
17
13
12
10
g
8
-
-13
31
01g,ti~ed ny
33
15
12
Google
154
• FARMING
HAZARDS IN THE DROUGHT AREA
Tot.le 31.-Average Yieldc':r Seeded Acre of Important Crops on Seleded Farms in
Representative ounties in the Central Great Plains, 1930-1934
Average yield
County and year
Numberor
farms
per seeded acre
Tona
BllShels
report1111
Wheat Barley
Corn
Oats
Potatoes
Alfalla
Sugar
beets
Cane
- - - - - - - - - - - - --8BEJUIAll
1930........... ...........•..•.
1931. ..•........ ......... .. .•..
11132.......•.............. . ..••
1933......•..•.......... • .• • .••
11134••.....••....•......• ••·•• •
10
26
49
M
57
18. 6
13.2
15. 2
9. 7
14.8
19.9
8.2
25. 4
.
21.2
17. 4
18. 1
18. 4
0.2
22.9
9.4
9.1
6.6
3.9
30.3
13. 2
11.2
3.9
2. 0
24. 7
24.6
8. 7
5. 1
3. 0
111.3
11. 7
3.8
2.1
.
(1)
i:l
l)
1.9
2. 1
1. 6
1. 2
0.2
26. 6
18. 3
15. 8
13. 4
0.4
!ii
0. II
0.11
0.8
0. 7
0. 1
211. 3
1-lll
18.6
6.6
3. 7
29.6
21.3
18. 7
1-l 4
0. 8
i
~-9
19. 2
10. 7
PERKISS
rr
1)
1)
l)
1)
l)
')
I)
Loam atel ion
1930•......................• • ••
1931. ...... ; ..... ·,· .....••..• •
1932..............•.. . .....•.••
1933...........• .•• .. ...•.•.•• .
11134.•.....•..•.• .... .. .. ••••••
24
'¥1
31
36
36
Sandt, loam 1tction
1930•.•.... : ... .......... . •••• •
11131. ......•............. . •.. ••
11132 ..•....••.......... .. . •••• .
1933•.....•..••....... . . • . • ••••
1934.•••...•••••••...... •••••••
26
29
32
36
37
16. 6
7.4
6.6
-l.8,
-l 2
Ill.I
l)
l)
(1)
fl1)
c:l
fl
1. 2
0.8
0.6
0. 3
i
p
2. G
2. 4
2.1
2.0
l. 7
13. l
13. 4
12. l
12. 2
9.6
.
GOSHEN
1)
(l)
(')
(')
')
(l)
(')
lrrigaud .,clion
11130...•........... ....• . .• ••.•
1931. ......•....... .....• .•• • ••
1932....•..........•.•..•..••••
1933.....•................ . . , • .
1934....•..••••... ........•.•• •
23
24
28
29
29
1.8
6.4
7.3
26.0
6.9
48.8
60.6
4-l 8
3G. 7
26.6
311. 7
66.3
64.3
61.0
21. 6
33.8
30
19. 8
6.3
8. 7
6. 7
2. I
23. 0
16.6
10. 6
7.9
0.2
19. 0
15. 9
15. 6
'7. 1
0. 7
19. 0
13. 4
8.8
9. 5
0.6
3.9
6. 7
6. 8
4. 6
2. 7
16.1
11.7
8.6
-l 9
0.6
H. 8
30. 3
2-l 3
6. 4
311
346
~
213
811
Nonlnlgattd atclion
193(L ........ •..........•• ..••
1931. .• .... ...... . ..... ..•. •• ••
1932.....................••••• •
1933...................••••••••
11134. ...•..•..... . .....••••.•••
39
42
43
'3
260
134
183
111
63
2. l
1. 9
1. 6
I. 4
1.3
CHEYENNE
1930....•................•••.••
1931. ........•... ... • •...• •• •••
1932 ..........•.. .... ..... .•.•.
1933.•........•.•.....•..•••• •.
1934.••.......•.....•••••••••••
39
61
64
66
116
15. 6
lL 1
6.0
11. 6
0.2
(1)
i:i
(l)
(1)
(l)
t:i
(I)
I!
r
(1)
(l)
~•)
')
(l)
0. 8
0.6
0. 5
1.4
0.4
•Less than 0.05 bushel or ton.
I Not calculated.
o,
r
l)
1)
')
l)
,trzeobyGoogle
:i
1)
')
Ta&le 3.2.-Financial Progress of Selected Farmers in Representative Counties in the Central Great Plains Since Beginning Farming in the Area, by
Size of Farm, 1935
Flnandal status at beginning
County and size of farm
Number
of farms
reporting
Assets
LlabUI·
ties
Net
worth
Financial status In 1935
Capital additions to buslnC$S
Addi·
tlons
Deduc•
tlons
Net
additions
Net put
lntobusl•
neas
Assets
LlabUI·
ties
Net
worth
Average Increase
per !arm
Total
Per yt'8r
---
------ ------ --SHJ:RIU.N
Total lanns................... _____
Less than 200 acres. ____ -·-- ____________ ..
200-279 acres.. __ .•..... ______ . ___ -.. ___ - . 280·359 acres........ ___ ... __ . ___________ .
360 acres or more. __ ·---·--- __ . ______ , __ _
57
$1,824
$831
$993
$1,461
$764
$697
$1,600
$4,316
$2. 735
$1,581
-$109
-$7
1,256
102
2,886
4,015
-661
-1, II09
-1, 126
6,830
-41
3,955
288
1,09i
2,192
2,050
9'17
379
364
1,862
457
1,828
188
l, 181
1,445
2,316
1,650
361
291
132
4,653
820
1,154
2, 184
-3,003
1,917
1,611
4,012
-2,815
3,123
2. 164
6,269
11,499
1,867
2,062
3,383
7,484
36
8,613
1,647
6,006
1,011
2,516
-1, l506
5,461
H, 783
5,367
9,416
-7
10,714
1,28&
9,428
4,250
-4,250
5,178
5,723
2,357
3,366
840
3,722
5,340
8, ll67
-52
-2,601
5,288
6,066
12,943
383
1,699
2,984
25,920
•• 750
9,078
8, 193
16,842
-1,812
2,005
10, 776
-136
6,180
12, 3811
-1,647
614
C
6116
3,771
850
1,122
-272
3,499
10,618
5,001
5,617
2,118
156
188
508
1,755
1,672
2, 742
8,867
755
1,016
1,178
623
687
899
2,233
-4-IO
68
117
-1,055
I, 240
1,740
2,859
7,812
3,524
5,114
8,901
23,752
1,958
2, 778
2, 724
12,535
1,566
2,336
6,177
11,217
326
596
3,318
3,405
19
50
265
236
,.,
,.,'~
31
11
9
6
2,024
Total farms _______________________ .
Less than 281 acres_ ... __________ . . -·----.
281---(()() acres ........ _____ . _________ . ___ . __
401~ acres __ ... _______________ . _________
881 acres or more. ________________________
:a)
836
-92
-80
293
PERKINS
Loom a,ction
Sandi loam atclion
Total !arms. ________________________
0
Less than 281 acres __________________ . ____
281---(()() acres·-·-··-·---- _____ -·- _________ .
401~ acres _____________ . ________________
881 ncres or more ___________ ----·--------
;::.
GOSHIIN
"'
I"lgaltd 1trlion
:.g.
o_
~
C"')
0
0
-
00
( i)
Total !arms ____ ·----------·--------Leas than 101 acres_. ____ • _____ . ____ . ____ .
101-280 acres.-··-- ______________ . ___ . _____
2!11400 acres·-··--- ___ -------·-------- ____
461-640 acres .... __________________________
641 acres or more. __ -·--·----·---·--··----
9
37
4,467
6
2,013
1,800
3,250
10,622
10
12
9
- -333- - - - -1831,680
-
-
-
238
V,
~
z
-I
)>
,0
-<
-I
)>
a:,
29
2,324
6
14
2. 537
6
2
1
2, 3tll
2,269
2,250
1,000
73
-2
3M
-
-
2,251
-2,537
2,359
1,919
2,250
1,000
1,005
1,385
-380
1,871
8,816
3,091
5, 725
3,854
244
417
1,321
517
1,485
2,362
1,050
-100
-164
-1,504
2,437
2, 195
415
2,450
1 l!OO
5,865
9,054
9,084
17,109
5 010
1,557
2,777
•• 849
5,395
1 530
4,308
1,871
4,082
3,820
9,264
1 980
290
189
713
248
858
1,250
l!OO
-
200
l!OO
6,277
4,235
11, 714
3 480
105
',.,
•
_.
V,
u,
u,
Tobie 32.-Financial Progress of Selected Farmen in Representative Counties In the Central Great Plaim Since Be9innin9 Fannln9 in the Area, by
Si:r.e of Fann, 1935-Continued
ll'lmnclal status at beglnntnc
County and site of farm
Oapltal addltlons to
~
Number
of farms
-
A '""8ge iDtTeue
per farm
J'IDanclal status ID 11136
Net put
Alll!leta
Llabfil•
ties
Net
wonh
Addi·
dons
Deduclions
Net
addltionA
A.Debi
Llabfil•
ties
Net
worth
Total
Perysr
---
oomDlf-«>Dtin-1
Total farms •••••••••••••.•••........
43
$1,Me
am
Lea than 101 acres .......................
101-280 acres.....••••..••••..••••.........
281--4«1 acres ..........•••....•••..........
481-640 acres ...........•.•...•••••.....•..
841-lll!O acres .......•...•....•..•.•••.•....
881 or more ...........••.••••.•...•.
-2
426
-
--113
-8447
11
7
II
14
1, 30II
I.OM
2. 8.'111
l,211'l
an:nm
0
'E
~
&
~
0
0
~
-n
,_,
z
Cl
J:
)>
Lea than 400-.......................
400-66II acne. .............................
2
1
2
I
-r,o
1,141
1,~
84e
1,179
Sl,2U
$7,057
6,'80
-7118
6,876
430
819
2,498
628
-
I.MIi
-
-no
-Ml
-'100
-
a,aes
6,006
t.11811
11,861
'2,417
-
6211
1,423
1,11&4
1,773
4, 110
"-MO
-
2. 724
1,1146
1,841
4,313
7,741
*3,428
-
-3,161
1,615
2,822
1,816
7,213
$11111
-
-1117
811
186
1:18
ffl
)>
;o
~
z
:I
""
5
C
Cl
6,0UII
1,8411
3,447
-1,842
-103
I. 115
11,IIIIO
7,683
2,005
448
aao
I. 100
6,224
6,710
I. 118
1, r,oo
1,232
1,8311
2,105
3,llll'J
~
4,071
4,013
-2,031
-6, 103
-2.864
2.487
-1118
-325
-141
1112
)>
3M
-4116
-1168
-6411
8,831
11,0DII
S.925
1,Me
1,800
800
616
1,'68
1133
11&
2,487
601
60
813
392
1,105
85
1,020
eoo
m
1711
1,11111
6, 181
l,SIII
3,642
2.343
117
1,160
200
1160
200
1.000
2.000
--M2
2.000
2,960
-
4,1112
2,.,
11,710
4,081
8,830
1,200
2.664
1,002
1, (Ml()
7,lM
a,612
-1,868
3,000
-22
-182
43
1811
168
-LOIS
II.MO
8, 3116
10
-
6, r,oo
3116
1,200
I06
8711
-$282
6,089
11
Total farms. .••••••••••.••••••••••.•
1,2111
1,039
2.8.'111
1,228
St, 100
-41.11
Lea than 400 acres ......••••..•..........
10
12
13
-
426
1827
836
6, 9411
«»-6611 acres..............................
aeo-n11 acres ..............................
mllCNISormore ••••••••••........•......
·~
St, 491
428
48
aeo-n11-•.•••••••.••••••••.•••••......
mllCNISormore ..........•...•••.•••••..
;o
6,488
Total farms...••••••••••••••••••....
n,,.,_,,_ ,..,,
...,•
)>
N
N°""""1Ud _,_
~
U'I
0-
~
lntobual·
reporting
.....
200
1,075
480
-71
IIO
~
~
400
-
-442
200
"811
8IIO
4,lM
3, 1114
;o
>
SUPPLEMENTARY TABLES•
157
Tol,#e 33.-Size of Farm, Number of Livestock per Farm, and Tenure of Farm Operators
Receiving Relief I in Representative Counties in the Central Great Plains, April-May
1935
County and slse
of farm
Number Avenp
offlll'IDI sbe of
farm
rer:f
(acru)
Avenp number of llVlllltock
Cattle
Bop
Tenure of operator
Chick· Boraa Owner Tenant Un•
em
mown
- - - --- - - - - - IDBIU.N
80
4
8
116
10
M
---
Total farms •••••••
m
200
II
10
97
6
48
172
lMs than 91 - · · · · · · ·
91-100 ICl'N ••••••••.•••.
101-140 --···········
141-18DICl'N .••••••••••.
181 ICl'N or more ••••••••
II
7
18
4
4
4
8
2
4
3
6
9
8
8
2
II
711
II
II
12
12
67
411
OIi
101
101
II
74
122
U!O
806
Total farmL •.•.••
61
212
4
1
33
1
II
41
1
1 - than Ill acre11••••.•.
10
12
a
1
-1
80
-7
1
8
6
1
2
30
39
--
5
126
6
-
PEBllDI
-2
91-100-••••••••••.•.
101-140-••••••••••••
141-180-•.•••••••.••
181 or man•••••.••
-
-4
-1
-2
2
2
a
--
1
22
--
9
1
19
23
1111
lGI
3411
1111
411
9
1
80
3
46
70
4
16
28
43
7
H
12
92
157
328
486
657
I, 410
2
19
22
87
27
1
2
2
8
19
41
a
:sr
6
4
8
9
10
18
27
8
9
6
2
1
6
10
15
8
1
2
1
1
1
I
Total farms.. •••••.
:m
403
2e
2
58
5
72
1211
1
lMs than 400 acna......
133
JG
276
11
IM!0-7111-••••••••••..
720 aeres or more•.••••..
34
-I
a
18
OOIIJBK
Total farms •••••••
lMs than 81 - · · · · · ••
81-280 aenll ....•••......
2111-400 aenll ••..........
401-a!O aeres ••••••••••••
1181-800 aeres ••••.•.•..•.
801 aeres or more ........
-·
•
II
II
-1
--
CBIITUXB
41l0-1169aeres •••••••••.•.
Unknown. •••••••.......
18
I
.118
839
857
-
-- -6 - - -2 ------23
56
60
81
27
33
41
28
3
3
4
-
46
67
77
36
6
6
7
I
a
JO
8
1
23
-JO
--
• For whom reporta were available.
D gillzed by
Google
158 • FARMING HAZARDS IN THE DROUGHT AREA
To'1le 34.-Utili:r:ation of Land on Farms Having Com-Hog Contrads in Representative
Counties in the Central Great Plains, by Size of Fann, 1934
A vera11e number of B<Tee per rarm
County and size of farm
Number Number
of farms
owned
NatlveJr&ss
Tota!
Cropland 1 - - - - , - - - - - 1
Hay
Other
Pasture
----------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - SB&RIUN
Total farms .••••••••...•.
1,097
433
248
Less than 200 acres .............
200-279 acres .•............•....
280-3511 acres ...................
360 acres or more ...............
540
167
233
157
212
60
89
72
147
231
317
512
798
305
577
144
16
HI
183
260
13
23
44
38
65
115
183
8
12
16
25
428
g
107
33
Ill
13
16
33
75
13
--- -------95
6
PJ:RIONS
Total farms ..............
- - - - - - - ---- -174- - - 63
158
126
Less than 281 acres .............
190
293
141
M
112
86
337
618
1,330
908
175
103
:JI)!
1:lll
84
111
40
102
22
9
2
21
61
15
4
2
70
176
3,~I
583
740
51
114
190
307
221
11
43
144
243
614
8
18
17
31
6
395
288
724
2811
430
17
2
'¥1
131
95
I
16
88
65
52
58
121
190
253
'¥10
4811
2
75
3
190
343
581
846
1,680
1
11
16
14
19
211
Total farms .....•........
397
258
548
291
2411
8
Less than 281 acres .............
47
169
121
60
23
115
71
411
1711
323
634
1,303
125
179
340
635
48
II
II
12
12
281-HO acres ...................
441-880 acres ...................
881 acres or more ...............
268
480
3
11
23
50
94
3:lll
711
OOSH&N
lrriQtlltd ltdlon
Total farms ..••••••••....
LPs.• than 101 acres ...•...••....
101-280 acres ....•.•............
281-460 acres .•....•.....•......
461-640 acres .....•.••.•......•.
841 acres or more ..•.•.•........
- - - ---- - - -
2
Nonlrrifaud atdion
Total farms ........•.....
Less than 101 acres .............
101-280 acres ...................
281-460 acres ............•......
461-640 acres ......•.......•.•..
641--960 acres ......••.......••..
961 acres or more.........•..••.
- - - ---73
8
58
138
5
9
'¥1
300
548
1,138
CBJ:Tlll:NNIC
281-440 acres •...............•..
441-880 acres ...................
881 acres or more...•.......•...
138
282
6511
•Less than 0.5 acre.
Source: Corn•hog production control contracts of the Agricultural Adjustment Administration.
o gll1 7 Pd by
Goog Ie
SUPPLEMENT ARY TABLES•
159
Tol,/e 35.-Utilitation of Land on Seleded Farms in Representative Counties in the
Central Great Plains, by Siz:e of Farm, 1934
Average number or acres per Cann
County and s!le or farm
Number
or farms
reporting
Total
Crop.
land
Native grass
Fonner
crop.
Hay
Pasture
land
Fannstead
and
waste
------ --SHSRM..t.N
Total farms ....•.•...•...
5i
241
H4
15
74
31
11
9
6
161
321
532
108
151
191
239
6
10
21
71
41
74
212
8
UI
10
36
714
588
1
94
31
7
20
9
320
1,216
260
656
913
1
1
1
47
45
2311
62
Total farms_-···-···-·---
37
619
486
3
lZ
Less than 281 acres __ . ___ ... ___ .
281-400 acres.······-·. __ .......
401-880 acres.·····--·- _______ ·881 acres or more_ ... _.. ____ .. _.
6
149
2611
491
873
3
58
12
9
219
323
630
1,199
4
2
4
lll
276
9
29
1ft
17
17
29
276
122
3
l.ll)
7
24
58
1
9
28
167
2114
1,518
8
9
22
26
63
62
605
17
z
1
10
46
26
Less than :oo acree ........... _.
~2711 acres ..•..•............ _
280-359 acres ... _. _. _.......... 3GO acres or more_ ..............
-----243
8
ft
93
PERKINS
Loom aection
Total farms ..••..........
Less than
acre,; ....• _...... _
281-400
acres _________ . ______ ...
401-880 acre,;.····--·----·-----881 acres or more ___ . ___________
2!!1
626
12
24
Safld• loam uction
to
48
10
15
----9
---
GOSHEN
Irri9altd atction
Total farms __ -··········Less than 101 acres _____________
- - -6 - - 83
11
500
1,820
115
163
178
250
43
959
410
1
2
II
174
3-IO
634
200
101-280 -·····-------------281---400 acres ..... _. __ . ________ .
481---MO acres .... __________ . ____
14
6
Ml acres or more_----·---·-··--
1
2
173
311()
15
20
Nonirri{laltd uction
Total r11rms __ . -·-·-- -·--Lees than 101 acres ___________ ._
101-280 acres .. _____ -·_----· ____
281---460 acres. ______ -· __ -·-- . . __
461---MO acres. _______ --·-·---···
Ml-lMIO acres. __ --·_ .. ---·- -· _-961 acres or more __ ------------
115
3
19
g
811,,
14
1,780
6'il
M
121
313
420
1,023
56
666
327
310
7
22
13
307
454
641
1,071
184
256
296
495
109
174
299
544
ft
18
6
2S
211
295
414
3
18
40
CBSYENSE
Total farms._--·-········
Less than 400 acres _______ -· __ ..
400-559 acrt!8. - •••• - - • - - - - - - - - - l60---719 acres •••.. ________ ·- __ ._
720 acres or more ______ --···----
11
14
18
D gillzed by
14
18
Google
160 •
FARMING HAZARDS IN THE DROUGHT AREA
Taf>le 36.-Percent of Owned and Rented Land in Crops and Grass on Selected Farms in
Representative Counties in the Central Great Plains, 1934
Sherman
Item
(67 farms)
=
Band Y Irrigated
Loam
NOD•
Becond• Third•
11ectlon
~n
11eetfon
36
( farms) (37 farms) (2II farms) (43 farms) (43 farms) (10 farma)
~~:1 f.:iJ'
Total operated land I ••••.
Cropland •. __________
Hay and pastuf9. -·-Other.-·· •. __________
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
59
82
13
79
43
60
53
4
45
44
11
411
4
4g
43
5
Total owned land ••.•• _•••• _. _.
24
43
64
59
42
41
Cropland
.•. ···-········-._
Hay
and pastuf9_
•••• ______
Other ..••••.•••.•••• -------
111
7
1
34
211
'¥1
22
7
28
2l
17
2
8
4
18
2
37
4
=
---=
Total aban-nnted land. __ ..• __
6
42
35
6
2
17
---=
=
64
- - - -----38
Cropland_._···-···---····61
49
=
28
Hay and pastuf9 ___ •••• _. __
Other ••.••••••.•• __________
14
2
2
2
2
17
8
2
3
Totalcuh•nnted land ••••. ----
24
11
10
Cropland
.• _···-····-·-·-·Hay and pastuf9
__ • ________
Other.··········-···-- -- -- Free land ••••••••••••••••••••••
7
6
Ill
1
6
l
47
46
.
4
------=
=
21
=
. ---
14
7
-----~
3
l
7
19
62
21
=
'¥1
23
~
7
. .
l
18
II
62
27
22
3
2
3
IQ
2
8
.
2
6
----,---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Hay and pasture ...... _. __ _
Land nnted oat.•...••.•. ____ _
Cropland
__ ····-···-·-···-·
Hay and pasture
_______ ••••
Other_ •••••••••••••••••••••
2
6
3
2
2
6
3
2
- - - - - - - - - ----1-----1----1----
•Leas t.han 0.6 percent.
Total operated land la the IIUJD of owned, nnted, and free land less land nnted out.
1
01g,ti~ed by
Goog Ie
SUPPLEMENTARY TABLES• 161
TafJ/e 37.-Use of Fann Land on Seleded Fanns in Representative Counties in the Central
Great Plains, 1934
Ave1111!1l numher of acres per fann
PerkinB
Goshen
U11e of farm land
Sherman
(57 fanns)
Loam
section
(36 farms)
Bandy
loam
section
(37 farms)
SPrtion
(29 farms)
Irrigated
Nonirrl•
gated
section
(43 farms)
Cheyenne
(56farms)
Total land operated .....
241
714
619
276
959
116G
Total cropland ..........
I«
588
465
122
1410
327
Wheat ........................
Wheat on fallow ...••..••..•..
Barley
•.•••••••••• -- ··-·-----Oats
__________________________
Rye •• _______________ . -- . _. ____
Com
·-···-------------Tame_______
hay ____________________
Feed crops _____ • ______________
Other crops _______ • __ ••• ____ ._
Annual pasture _______________
Fallow ________________________
Idle cropland. ____ . ___________
12
228
148
3
74
Former cropland _______ . _____ .
Native hey ___________________
Native pasture ____________ ... _
Farmstead and waste _________
8
2ll
I
63
17
5
2
II
15
26
34
16
2
131
2
26
I
8
89
25
I
;.,
94
8
31
5
14
9
4
187
8
24
2
7
36
39
13
77
16
14
9
15
5
3
49
2
31
10
'49
2
I
8
2ll
133
I
1111
31
8
105
45
4
49
10
7
17
7
3
3
120
1
50.~
310
24
26
22
12R
15
•Le.. than 0.5 acre.
Total cro~acreage exceeds cropland by 15 acres because of reseeded whoat.
• Includes 8'res of s1111ar beets and 9 acres or potatoes.
1
o 11i1i2Pd hy
Goog [e
162
• FARMING
HAZARDS IN THE DROUGHT AREA
Ta&le 38.-Average Acreage of Important Crops on Selected Farms 1 in Representative
Counties in the Central Great Plains, 1930-1934
Average number of acree per farm
County and year
Number
of farms
reporting Wheat Barley
Oats
Corn
Pot&toes
- - - - - - - - - --- --SHERMAN
11130••............. ········
1931. •.•...................
1932••.....................
11133•......................
1934•......................
IO
II
25
12
13
9
9
17
23
21
II
7
22
57
12
8
25
79
63
24
'II
31
35
36
350
337
246
255
254
:13
33
45
47
34
2'l
29
34
39
16
125
201
175
131
26
29
32
35
37
190
171
145
146
153
17
26
14
23
24
28
29
29
49
55
1
59
80
78
Alfalfa
Loam otttion
93
beets
c-
--- --- ---
i:i
11
I)
IO
14
14
15
1)
1)
1)
(1)
r
3
2
2
2
2
11J
1)
(I)
6
3
3
I)
3
t
1)
PERJ[JNS
1930.......................
1931. ......................
1932.......................
11133.......... ·• ...........
1934.......................
Bupr
r !i
1)
1)
:i
(1)
(1)
(1!
(1
(1
!i
&lndr lnam uction
1930.•.•...................
1931. .•....................
1932.•.....................
11133.•.....................
1934.......................
20
IO
12
12
15
144
176
231
212
167
16
9
2
4
3
I
3
14
12
13
15
14
7
8
7
7
9
3
7
6
7
30
115
39
179
160
150
151
18
19
33
32
H
13
9
44
50
70
73
r>
4
(1)
(1)
11)
1)
(I)
GOSHIIN
I
lrriqattd .,,lion
1930..................
1931. ...•..................
11132............. --- .......
11133 .......................
1934.....•...............
8
34
33
32
32
31
8
9
8
9
5
28
31
32
3G
34
!i
Nonirriqattd ,eclion
1930.•...................••
1931. ..•....... --- .........
11132................. -- _...
11133...... ·- .......
1934 .................
42
43
43
8
19
15
9
9
4
3
3
3
2
8
8
8
49
CUIIYIINNII
1930..................
1931. .................
1932.......................
11133 ............... ····· ...
1934.......................
I
39
4
51
54
56
.56
2
38
35
4
4
13
34
53
25
118
169
155
163
133
(')
t t
1)
')
I)
1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
r !i
(1)
:i
1)
(1)
r>
r>
10
10
1)
21
Report!~acreage.
cal
ted.
1 Not
o ri,1,zP.d by
•
•
1)
Goog Ie
Ta&le 39.-Number of Livestock on Hand April 1, 1935, and Normal Number on Selected Farms in Representative Counties in the Central Great
Plains, by Size of Farm
Average number or llvestoclc
County and size of fanu
I
.rn cattle
Milk cows
Beef cows
Other cattle
All hogs
Brood
IIOWS
Other hogs
Poultry
Sheep
Work stock
.\prill Nor- .\prill Nor• Aprill Nor• Aprill Nor• Aprill !',or• .\prill Nor• Aprill Nor• .\prill Nor• Aprill Nor• Aprill Nor·
I, lll35 mai l,lll35 mai I, 1935 mal I, 1035 mal I, 1935 mal I, 1935 mal I, 1935 mal I, lll35 mnl I, 1035 mal 1,ly;j5 mal
, . , , , . , .I~ - . ,~ . .
------------------1--1--1--1--l--1--1--I--I--I--I--I--I--I--I--I--I--I--I--I-SHERJIAN
Total !arms .•.•..•.......•...•.••••••.•••
Le.ss than 200 acres ............... ----·--·······
200---279 acres .....••.•......•................. __
2&}---350 acres. __ ...••••.................•.......
300 acres or more•.•.•••.••..•.••...........•...
15
22
7
10
12
13
21
26
rn
6
s
23
26
8
12
8
9
37
11
16
20
21
6
6
--------
-
---------------6
26
2
8
5
5
12
12
10
15
18
7
6
8
23
46
113
5
6
6
1
3
I
2
3
4
6
8
14
2
2
12
13
10
20
3
9
2
3
5
0
5
3
20
-
2
2
2
17
-
38
-
00
- -- - 83- -120- - - -5
5
-
rn3
186
201
74
113
11 I
6
7
6
6
8
7
PERRINS
Loom
.,ction
Total !arms...........•..••••••••••....•. I
Less than 281 acres ....•........................
281---400 arres •............ -- ................... .
401---&iO
acres. __ ......•.........................
881 acres or more ........•.......•..............
16
18
31
14
19
32
6
6
7
20
5
5
I
I
148
5
JOI
88
224
1:rn
100
6
4
7
I 100
5
z
-I
::0
102
V,
1271
I
6
15
8
9
24
16
5
28
ss
9
II
18
631
51
10
I
4
18
13
i3
1
9
7
3
1
7
11
17
11
18
II
14
11
3:1
31
8
38
3
10
1
14
18
28
91
I
3
5
4
20
16
I
C
~
Sand, loam ,er/ion
0
ie
~·
6.
~
0
0
~
rS'"'
=8
r
rn
rn
Total farms .......... _..•................
23
31
7
7
12
19
Less than 281 acres ............... _• _.•...•... __
281·400 acres .....•..............•••..•.••......
401---880 acres .................•••.••••••••.••...
881 acres or more.......•...•••..•••••••••••••.•
9
12
18
46
12
5
6
5
6
4
6
6
6
6
8
3
2
10
12
11
10
12
16
25
4(1
H
20
72
4
5
6
18
2
6
7
71
165
)>
131
67
5
3
5
3
93
149
4
10
4
-<
01
-I
)>
CD
r
rn
V,
....•
0,.
w
Table 39,-Number of livestock on Hand April 1, 1935, and Normal Number on Selected Farms In Representative Counties in the Central Great
Plains, by Size of Farm-Continued
......
i
..,•
Average number or livestock
)>
:ii,
County ancl si1.e or rarm
All cattle
I
Milk cows
I
Beer cows
I
I Other cattle I
I Brood aows I Other bogs
All bogs
I
Sheep
Poultry
I Work stock
I
April\ Nor• Aprill Nor• 1Apri1\ Nor• Aprill Nor• !Aprill Nor• April\ Nor• 1Aprlll Nor• \April\ Nor• \Aprill Nor•\ Aprill Nor•
I, 193:, ma! I. iv:1., ma! 1, 11135 ma! 1, 1935 ma! 1, 1935 ma! 1, 1935 ma! 1, 1935 ma! 1, IY3S m><l 1, 193.i ma! I. 193.i ma!
------------------1--1--1--1--1--1--1--1--1--1--1--1--1--1--1--1--1--1--1--,-GOSHEN
/rrigaltd aection
Total !arms····-·--·-·-- · ·
Less than 101 acre.< .. ··-·-·-·-·-- ·•--l0l-280acres ............. ·-·-·-·-·---·
2'11--411(1 acres ....... -·-·-._ ....... __ ....
4~1-640 am,s __ ..•.... ··-···-·-· ........ _.. _
641 acres or more._ ...•................• _. _.
2H
20
8
4
I
8
II
5
8
1
7
3
4
4
16
11
77
11!1
6
5
-- ----6 - -3 --4 - - - - --2 - -2 - -- --4 -- - - - - - - - - - 74- -130- --4 - -4
-- -4 6 4 5 6 -2 23 -3 23 -- -80
91
4
5
12
6
u
6
82
7
7
1
:11
II
12
21
11
1
1
1
2\1
2
6
-23 -65 -40 8040 100
2')
11
12
fi.'.:i
2:1
6.i
2~
311
29
29
6
G
36
- -
To..,•- .. .. .... ..... .. ........ .. .
tg.
N
6.
C"
'<
C")
0
a--(v
Less than IOI acres ... ___ ..•.... _..• _... _... _.. .
IOl-280arres...............................
2!il-460acrffi ..•.•.................. ·-···-4fil--1140acres....................... .......
611-IH'.iacres....................... ..... ..
001 acres or more ................. . ..... _
>'
"
•
,
, - -, --- --- --• - -- ,- --- --, - - -- • - -- ,- --tt- ---< 1--=•
--W
8
8
II
4,J
6
16
21
17
3tl
4
5
3
4
11
4
S
-
-
11
-
-
ff
2
15
3
20
19
2
7
13
8
10
42
48
7
8
II
15
24
7
8
11
II
18
IO
26
15
22
27
'l:1
6
I
6
3
.;
I!
I
1
2
7
2
18
12
7
II
25
3
24
32
21
3
1
4
21
13
-
I
1
1
1
2
6
2
5
6
13
1
6
1
-
1
6
12
10
2
8
3
2
10
2
2
6
3
1
2
1
3
7
3
19
10
-
-
70
116
4
5
48
42
78
53
75
107
203
72
145
3
3
5
lll
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
CIIKYKSSE
Total furms ..•......... __ ..... . . .. _. __
I..es.s than 400 B<TeS •••.•.• ____ .• ___ •.••• ____
4(J0-5-59 acres ..•••...••• _..•.. ___ ._. __ . . _._.
bt:0-7Hl acr~- ----··-- ____ . _. .. ___ -- ----- --
;20 acres or more _________ . ________________
J:
)>
~
~
z
x
'"
i
Nonirrigat,d a,aion
0
~
z
Q
- 2'J- - 34- --5 - - 18- - -2 - - -1
- -6 - -II -18
7
9
r,o
41
5
fl/j
5
47
50
10
3'l
10
-1
- 81 120- - -7
--II7
119
6
-- - --- - 826t--120
5
II
13
1
71
l11
11
53
II
- - 101 141 8
13
0
8
:5
)>
:ii,
►
SUPPLEMENT ARY TABLES • 165
Tollle 40.-Number of Selected Farms With Livestock in Representative Counties In the
Central Great Plains, April 1 , 1935
Number or farms reporting
Goshen
Number or livestock
Sherman
(57 farms)
Perkins
{73 farms)
lrri~ated
section
{211 farms)
Cheyenne
Nonirri•
gated
(56 farms)
Rertion
{43 farm.s)
MILK COWA
None ..••.••.•.............................
l-5 ....................................... .
6 or more .•.......•...•.•..................
2
19
36
39
4
2
13
14
58
5
5
5
20
3
3
3
1
211
23
13
7
11
7
7
15
6
6
21
12
4
4
16
30
8
16
13
16
19
27
31
28
3
9
BEICF COWS
None _____________________________________ _
l-5 ..•.....•••.••..........................
6-15 ........••.............................
16 or more .•..•..•.........................
4
2
6
111
OTHER CATTLE
None ..................................... .
1-10. ·•••·••·••••····•··•···•·•·····••·•···
11-25 .•••.•.•.•......... •····· ..•....••.•..
26·.',0 ... ··••••••·• •.•.•..•.••.....•••..••.•
51 or more ..........•......................
22
2.'i
10
I
3
15
BROOD SOWS
None .................................... .
1-3 .•........•..•...... ·······-· ········-·
4 or more ...•..............................
12
18
211
26
37
13
16
18
19
7
3
26
27
4
3
22
26
36
13
13
10
27
41
12
g
9
24
6
4
6
57
69
2
1
1
28
41
55
3
I
H
21
32
19
1
13
OTHER HOOS
None .................................... . .
1-~ .... ····•············ ·····-············ •
6 or more ...•.............................
SHEEP
None •..•.•............................... .
1-10 .• ··--· ··-··--··· .•.•.................
11-50 ... ···--·····-· ...•.•...... -· . ....... .
51 or more ................................ .
2
CHICKENS
None .•.............................. . ...
1-50 .••••••..••••...•.•................ · ·
51-100 •••••••••••.......•.... ········ ..... .
IOI or more ....•..•.......•................
21
16
9
6
2
18
1.5
8
2:1
21
13
WORK RTOCK
None ..••••.••••.........................
1-6.... ··········-·-·· ................... .
7 or more ••••••••••............•...........
1
39
Ii
6
54
13
21
8
7
27
4
91
D1gilized oy
31
21
G oog Ie
166 • FARMING HAZARDS IN
THE
DROUGHT AREA
To&le 41.-Utiliz.ation of Labor on S.leded Farms in Representative Counties in the
Central Great Plains, by Size of Farm, 1934
County and size of !arm
Number
or farms
re,::-
Labor employed regularly (months)
Extra
hired
Total
Operator
Family
Hired
labor
(days)
--- --- --- --- --SHERMAN
s
Total !arms ....•...•..••.•..••...••.
57
17.0
11.8
-l.7
Less than 200 acres ...•....•..••••...•.....
~279 8(Tl. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
280---359 acres .•••.•••••••...•••••••••.• - - • ·
31
II
II
6
14. G
15. 0
18. 3
30.2
12.0
12. 0
12. 0
10.0
2. G
111. 2
4.0
3
II
II
IS
360 acres or more ...•.•.•.•........•....•..
2. 7
0.5
0.3
II. 3
PSRIUN9
Loamaullon
36
21.G
10.9
8. 4
2.3
33
Less than 281 acres .........•.........•....
281-400 acres •••.•••..••••.•.•••••••.•••...
7
881 acres or more ........•....•............
20
II
13. 1
20.5
30.3
11.0
10.9
10. 9
2. 1
11.2
11.3
0.4
8. 1
211
51
TotsI farms ..•.•.•..••.......•...•..
401--880 acres ............................. .
23
Sand, loam uction
Total farms ........•.•••••••..•.....
37
lfl. 4
10.8
.. 1
1.5
38
Less than 281 acres ....................... .
281-400 acres .•....•..••............•.•....
401-880 acres ...........•..••.....•........
881 acres or more ........•.•...............
6
JO
12
9
10. 7
15. I
14. 7
23. 7
10. 7
10. 5
10.8
II.I
4.6
2.6
8. 1
1.3
"-5
21
~
2ll
23. 3
11. 3
4.1
7.11
100
3.0
3,6
8. 3
4. 5
8.6
7. 5
6.0
24.0
144
77
110
80
4.1
0.4
25
3.0
2.0
6. 5
5. 0
1.3
10. 2
11.6
0.6
5
24
4
eo
1.0
16
2. 2
9
17
18
18
008UEl'I
lrrigattd atdlon
Total farms .••..•......•••••.••.••..
[.Rss than 101 acres ....••••.....•••.•••....
IOl-280 8<'res ...................•.•........
281-4/iO 8<'res ............•....•............
461---MO acres .....•..••••••••••••••.••..•..
Ml
acres or more ............•••.•.......
- - -G - -19.-5 - -12.0
I
27. 3
18.0
36.0
10.9
II. 5
12. 0
12.0
43
15. 2
10. 7
2
12.0
12. 6
12. 0
9. 6
14
G
2
23. I
Ill
Nonirrigattd 1tclion
Total farms .........••.............
l..A'ss than 101 acres ............•....•....
101-280 ocre.s .•..................••.......
281---41\0 nrres ..•............•....••........
acres .............••.....••........
641-000 acres ........•............•.•......
961 acres or more ...•.•••.....•............
461---&I0
--------11
7
9
14
14. 4
16. 7
17. 2
II. I
CHEYENNE
Total farms ..................•......
J,<>s.< than 400 acres ...................... .
400-5.19 acrPs ............ . •...............
t,H(l-719 acrr.s. ______ . ____ . _______ ... ------720 acres or more. _______________ . ________ _
1
M,
19. 4
II. 7
6. 7
13
11
16.0
1., 9
II.I
II. S
4. 9
23. 2
10.9
I 12. 6
14
18
:no
2. 2
9. 6
10.0
I. 5
5
0.6
2U
I farm operated by 2 brothers.
D gillzed by
Google
SUPPLEMENT ARY TABLES •
167
Ta&,. .f!.-Avera9e Value of Farm Buildin9_1 and Estimated Cost of Needed Repairs per
Farm on Selected Farms in Representative Counties in the Central Great Plains, by Size
of Farm, 1935
Number of farms
reportln1
Value of bulldlnp
Coet of needed repair.,
County and ,lie of farm
Total
Owned
Total
Dwelling Other
Total
Dwelling Other
- - - - - - - - - --- - - - - - - - - IIB&IIKAK
Total farms ...........
X-tban300ICNIII ..........
200-2711 - - · · ........... -•.
280--lllill - - • - ••••••••••••••
3GOIICNl8 or more ••........••
57
12
S2, 1192
Sl,314
$1,278
$270
11
I
3
3
2,737
2,437
4,488
1,528
I, 214
1,381
2,271
843
1110
2,217
1116
181
581
283
2118
4,142
I, 843
2, 41111
ag
3ft
128
63
31
42
311
172
102
163
33
4ft
78
1111
110
1117
$153
- - 81- - - -5 ---- --- -102
- ----2,218
1,140
1,078
217
115
9
6
!,OM
1g1
38
P&llll:IWS
Loa•«etloa
Total farms_ .....•••.••
38
22
X- than 281 acres ........•.
-7
-
281-«l011Cre8 .••.•..•.....••..
401-ll8011Cre8 ..•....•...••.•..
881 acrt111 or more __ ••.•.... __
20
9
-
1,28g
-
63
--- - -- ---
8
12
7
3,241
3,762
5, 1184
2, 1113
2, OO'l
2,DI
3, 4g1
21
3,070
1,305
I, 765
3
5
6
Ilg:!
I, 112
875
1,313
2,047
1,827
2,915
124
241
176
I, 53ft
8ft
97
'4
37
Sandr loam uctloft
Total farms .••.•..•••••
37
Less than 281 IICNIII •....•....
6
10
12
g
7
2,004
I, 1121
3,140
4, ll62
29
20
2,583
I, 199
1,384
51
14
6
2
I
10
4
2
1,523
I, 150
M
31
38
l, 200
I, 187
1,922
2,842
1,775
38
-
2,710
3,072
3,642
2,975
13
100
13
100
43
40
1,604
655
949
141
11
7
9
14
JO
6
996
1,023
8
I, 825
2,370
486
361
6114
!!fl.I
510
662
1161
1,506
73
45
213
200
36
752
1,291
UM
52
52
~
·,:,,...~
I, 050
I, 3.12
I, 283
1,441
88
40
11
fll
77
48
281-400 - - · - ...........•••
40!-ll80 --···············881 acres or more .... -•-·····
-
-·-
l,ote
70
--- - ,2··---I~
78
OO!H&N
lrrl,aud «aloft
Total farms •.• _.••.•. _
Leas than 101 acrea __ ... _.. __
101-280 IICNIII ••••....•..••....
281--460 acres ........... _.....
461--MO --·-··-···-···-- ••
641 8CNIII or more ...•.. ____ ..
37
14
- - -6 - - -4 --- - - --- -625
- - -755- - I, 380
63
50
13
800
23
--
NOfllrrl,attd ,u-tlon
Total farms ...........
Less than 101 acres .•........
101-280 acres .................
281--460 acres ...... __ ._._ ... _.
96
45
- - - - - - - - - - - - - --- --- - - ---2
-2 1,520
106
I, JOO
4:a!
70
36
481--MO acres ......... _.......
641-960 acres ... __ .••..•......
!Mil
BCnlS
or more._ ... _....•.
14
65
21
Jft()
120
8
24
/i3
80
Cll&YICNN&
Total farms. __ ... _. __ .
---
56
-- ·-
Les.s than 400 ocres _....... __
~MD acres ....•.....••.....
II
.56()-719 acres ....... --·----···
720 acres or more •..... _.... _
18
1:1
14
I
I
2,043
-- -----
8
g
1J
1,6.181
2,337
2.070
2,131
----- - - - - - - - - - -
1,005
787
690
21
104
1611
Dig111zed bv
JO
43
89
Goog Ie
168 • FARMING HAZARDS IN THE DROUGHT AREA
Tol,/e .f3.-Percent of Acreage With Mortgages of Record Held by Different Types of
Lending Agencies in Representative Counties in the Central Great Plains, 1935
Percent of mortgaged acres
Type of lending 8118ncy
Sherman
Perkins
Goshen
Cheyenne
ALL MORTGAGES
Total---------------------------·----·--····--·--
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Private .......... -· .... __ ..... ·- ... __ ..... _.. --· •.... __
Corporate .. -·-· ____ -··· ..... -·· ........ ____ ·- ___ •.•.. __
Commercrnl hanks __ -··--·-·--···-····--·-·········_-·Federal Lnnrl Bank _________________ -··- --··---· _·-·-Federal Land Bank Commissioner_------·····-···-···f;1ate lending lll!'lncles ______ -·- ____ -··--- ____ ··-·-· -· __
Other .. •·······---·-·········----········---······-··-·
37. 5
28. 7
3. 5
2.>. 8
22.;
16. /j
26.S
15. 2
4. 5
29. 7
13.8
21.0
30. 4
17.11
4. 7
3.1.R
10. 5
2.8
13. 4
29.1
6. 0
3.0
2.7
nRST MORTGAGES
Total_·-·············-·-··--· - -- -.......... -····Private .......•. __ .•.... __ .··- .. _·- ..... _._-·_._ ... _. __
Corporate.-··-·--·--·---··--·---··· ___ ----·---· . . _--·-_
Cornmerclnl
___ -··-----·-·-·-__
Federal Landhanks_-·······--·-··---·
Bank ___________________________________
Federal Lnnd Bank Commlssioner __ ··-··-····--·-··--State lending agencies . _________ - ______ --·- _____ ---·-- _
Other.·-········-----------------------··--------------
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
40. 4
32.11
2.8
19. 3
32.2
18. 1
5. 6
37. 4
3.2
26.9
26.9
15. 9
21.6
31. 5
18. 8
4.11
37. 2
4. 6
6. 7
4.8
2.0
3. 5
3.0
Source: County records.
Tol,/e .....-Federal Emergency Loans to Farmers in Representative Counties in the Central
Great Plains, 1934-1935
All Federal emergency
Joans
1934 crop nnd feed
loans
1934-19.15 feed I08nS
1
I
County
Total
l,herman ____ --·-·- _-·-·-···-- _
Perk ins ________ .. _--· ___ ·- ____
Cheyenne_. __ • __ ·-_-·_ .. ____ ._
Total
A\"ernge
per farm
$206
39
69
$7, 2RO
10,594
$5
l()f), i74
57,623
35.609
53
6,790
37
10
$'.lll7, 408
Gos.hen _______________________
A..-ern~e
per farm
:1;. 0-10
11
Total
$ZOO. 128
2r, 446
49. 1.,1
28,819
I Outstanding December 31. 1934.
• Outstanding February 28, lv:15.
Source: Complied from rlata su1>plied by the Farm Crerllt Administration.
o ri,1,zP.d by
Goog Ie
AverRIII!
per farm
$".'01
28
32
43
SUPPLEMENT ARY TABLES • 169
To&le 45,-Average Indebtedness of Farm Operaton Receiving Relief 1 in Representative
Counties in the Central Great Plains, by Tenure, April-May 1935
Tenants
Owners
Connty and size of
farm
Numberof
farms
re,::1grt-
Kind of Indebtedness
(percent)
Nomberof
Aver-
age Indebtedness
Real-
estate
mortgages
Chattel Other
mort- debts
gages
farms
re~-
Kind of lndebtedness (percent)
Averagelndebted- Chattel
ll88S
mort- Other
debts
gages
--- --- --- --- -- --- --- --- -SBl:RJU.N
Total farms .....
Lees than Ill acres .....
61-100 acres._ ••.......
101-140 acres ..........
141-180 acres ..........
181 acres or more ..•••.
58
$4, 6118
85
7
8
192
$802
67
33
3
3
72
II
8
5
116
63
425
46
795
926
83
46
100
67
17
54
6
4
3
2711
91
87
86
85
3
9
7
II
10
2li
40
10
1,434
2,8'¥1
3,461
4,362
7,656
-43
83
17
6
1,477
70
21!
2
29
116
64
38
45
I, lill5
62
26
12
ti]
487
47
53
9
868
9
14
25
2
6
4
32
62
112
582
65
25
22
41
25
26
413
651
732
6
1,245
2,135
2, 797
2,297
42
69
55
33
16
3
885
74
34
48
38
26
641
/Iii
I, 1184
M
29
13
100
660
66
34
- - - --- - - - - - - - 2
.
PERKINS
Total farms .... _
- - -3 - -871- - - 83- - - 11- - -6 - - -8 - -141- - - 711- - 21
111-160 acres._._ .......
2,387
ti!
2
63
37
10
26
75
-161-240 acres ..........
I
347
100
-12
241~ac.-res .........•
8
154
88
321 acres or more ......
2
517
66
34
Less than 61 acres ....•
GOSBl:N
Total farms .....
I.as than 81 ac.-res .....
81-260 acres ...........
2111-400 acres .•........
401-580 acres._ ....... .
581-800 acres ..........
801 acres or more ......
- - - - - - - - - --- - 3
55
- 100
8
113
9
4
12
------ ---10
161
16
84
68
CBETl:NNB
Total farms .. _..
- - - - - - - - - --- - - - - - - - - - - - - 2
377
66
15
J!I
-16
-52
1,453
8
42
34
24
324
48
I
1,148
97
3
4
801
3
97
301-400 acres ..........
41
1,848
13
60
65
705
'J:l
62
38
401 acres or more ......
a ], 101
73
19
8
15
It!
787
84
Less than 101 acres ....
101-200 acres ..........
201-300 acres. __ .......
"Lesa than 0.5 percent.
1 For whom reports were available.
01g11i
ro hy
Goog Ie
170 • FARMING HAZARDS IN THE DROUGHT AREA
Tall,. .fd.--Percent of Farm Land Held by Resident and Nonresident Owne11 and Tenure
of Operators in Representative Counties in the Central Great Plains, 1935
Tenure or operator
County anrl owner
Total
Owner
Tenant
8HERVAN
Total. •.•••••................•...•......................••••.•••.•..
100
38
112
Re,,id~nt. _...•.........................•....................•••••.•...•...
Nonre.sident ...•.....................•........•....•...•••..•••.••....•...
71
38
33
2U
29
PERIIS.S
Total. ...................•.•..••..........•.....•.•••••...........••
100
30
70
Resident_ . . ........•.............•.•.•.....•........................•...
Nonresident .•...........•.....•••••••.••••...••.....................•....
tlO
30
30
40
40
GOSHES
lrri(l<lltd 1tctlon
Total ...••••.••••..•..••.•....•.•••.......•..........•....•••••...•.
100
M
46
68
23
35
JOO
79
21
22
17
6
Total ....•................•.....................................•••.
100
60
40
Re.sldent .....................•.....................•.....•.....••.........
Nonresident ........................................••.......•..........••
68
511
1
31
Resident .................................................•.••...•..•......
Nonresident .......................•.................•...•...•.•..........
l\..,.onirrigaltd atrlion
Total. .......................•.•.....•.••••...••..•...•...•.........
Resident. ....•.......••.•...•.•.............••.•..•.....................•.
N onre.slden t. ............................................................ .
--- ----'2
31
II
--- - 78- - - 1ft
112
CHEYESSE
32
Source: Production control contracts of the .o\grlcultural Adjustment Administration.
Dig111zed bv
Goog Ie
II
Tcr&le .f7.-Average Value of Farm Asseh, Amount of Liabilities, and Net Worth of Selected Farmers in Representative Counties in the Central Great
Plains, by Tenure, 19]5
Tenanta
Owners
Perldna
Sherman
(15 farms)
Sandy
SecondIrrlg!\ted Nonlrrlgrade
gated
loam
section
land (29
~ection
section
(23 farms)
(al farms) (20 !arms) (40 lanns) farms)
Loam
soction
--- ------
Perkins
Cheyenne
Goshen
Item
Third•
RT'llde
land (7
farms)
---
Sherman
(42 larms)
--- - - - --$2,157
$21,920
$18, 199
Sil, 431
$7,529
S7,3:.ll
$8. 619
$1,3114
Real estate . • ••••••••••••.•....
Machinery ..•.•.••• • ••••• • • •. .
Livestock . ..•...••••••••• • . .• .
17,996
1, 815
1,0i9
180
8.'>0
14. 187
1, 29-1
173
I. 141
8, 3-16
1, 0.0
1, 315
95
605
4,776
4, 558
6-11
1,480
180
461
3,593
578
2,097
!JS
116
336
9711
22
68
1,200
6V7
96
164
732
810
46
Other .•..•••• • .•• • ••••••••• • . .
10,39-1
590
1,0,;2
ll'l
373
Total liabilities .. . .......
7,213
7,860
8,302
4,085
I, 136
955
1, 117
Moi~~late ..••.••• • ••• • •..
Chattel. ••. ..•••••• • ••••.•
5,891
698
48
576
6,884
724
7, 3S2
68
9
259
3,615
252
133
85
Delinquent taxes.•• . ••• • ......
Other debts .••••••••••• •• •••. .
184
682
91'.S
J, 276
2-IO
=
272
2,540
2. 000
426
58
56
=
2, 136
1,618
397
43
78
=
2,172
1, T.15
233
35
169
-
=
---- =
----- = 14,060 - ---9,897
6, 184
4,989
7,346
Net worth ...... •.. .....
6,288
4,347 I
-
650
16
470
258
-
-
111
1, :.ll2
582
-
Sl.301
-
-
882
776
819
-
540
249
4118
15
IM
308
-====-
-
676
36
=
Seoond·
grade
land (17
farms)
306
9:.ll
69
16
1, 59:1
1, 000
-
837
18
262
S762
-
-
751
29
175
---=
sa. 006
'1,6W
Sl2, 501
I. 404
Cheyenne
Sandy Irrlgated Nonlrrl•
Loam
gated
loam
!18Ction
eection
section
(13 farms) (17 farms) (9farms) (3section
fanns)
Total asset! ..... •..• ....
Fann product! .. . ..•. • ••... • ..
0
Goshen
270
2,124
=
95
141
-14
-
603
Third•
grade
land (3
farms)
$2, M9
-
724
889
104
342
=-===
395
-
370
-25
- - -1,684
- -482
7
:.ll9
;
~
~
:ID
;::;
~
~
0
C
~
n
-<
>
I:!:!
~
--...,
•
172 • FARMING HAZARDS IN THE DROUGHT AREA
Tol,le .f8.-Normal Gross Cash Receipts, Source of Receipts, and Adequacy of Income
on Selected Farms in Representative Counties in the Southern Great Plains, by Size of
Farm
Source of rerelpts(percent)
Num,
berof
farms
County and size of farm
refi::rtng
Normal
gross
cash
receipts
Livestock Work
and
off
Crops livestock
products farm
Adequacy of lnoome
Average Percen&
length of otyean
Income
record
{yean) wullUffl.clent to
meet
Peraent
ol,-a
lneome
WIIIIIIWIIclent to
lnCft&M
expemes capital
- - - --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - DALLAK
Rotr-crop lfflion
Total farms __________
=---________ .___
43
S2, 896
M
33
1
II
es
3
I, 200
1, !OIi
2,:rJG
2,772
9,700
73
1111
10
31
37
17
8
8
t
Les, than 281 llffl!5_ -------
281--440
441-1!80 acres ____ . __________
881-1,600 acres _____________
1,001 acres or more_._. _____
Grain a,~lon
Total farms _________
II
17
9
6
83
M
6V
34
31
13
11
11
-
t
1111
55
64
,53
74
54
82
M
52
38
---I - -IWl- - -116- - - -5 - ---- - - -7 - - --135
3,800
84
16
441-1!80 BCl'\'L _____________
13
10
1,996
2, I~
86
881-1,600 8<.'l'ell_ -----------1,001 acres or more _________
5
4,880
76
94
6
10,000
83
14
24
6
17
las than 281 acres. _______
281--440 acres _______________
--
lWI
13
--
t
11
46
12
20
14
53
118
67
t
31
45
47
31
BAU:
79
--- - - --- - - --:u;
acres _______________
Total farm.•---------Less than 121 acres. ___ . ___
121-200
1155
2,611
12
40
8
39
17
I, 096
I,~
1,661'
2, 116
2, i89
3,842
81
17
4, 11-15
79
I ff()
1,784
71
II
17
13
10
6
6
847
1,654
1, 1166
1,835
2,250
2,780
83
74
67
78
60
33
20
:u
-2
46
2, 2119
77
22
4
9
8
8
825
1,689
1,431
2.375
3,350
3,418
73
21
89
II
211
211
II
211
201-280
-----------281-400 acres.
acre,. __
______________
401-MO - -...
- -----------Ml-'ral
acres
____________
721 acres or more _________ .
22
13
86
54
-I
--
16
11
9
13
16
13
17
62
71
52
28
I
14
80
45
37
-2
14
16
13
13
16
17
89
38
33
86
1
18
82
1511
6
20
71
75
t()
21
I
74
77
77
82
86
23
Ill
22
18
15
21
-
118
61
66
61
,53
73
ffO
66
!Ill
61
66
CUBllY
Jro,r-aop 1tdlon
Total farms_ .. __ . _...
Less than 280 acres ____ . ___
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -----
280-3711 acres. ___________ .. _
Bll}-5511 BCl'\'S .. __ . _. _. _.. ___
660-7111 am,s ____ • -----. -- _.
720-879 acres .... _. ___ .. ____
880 acres or more _____ . _. _.
73
:u;
:u;
l
-
77
74
81
711
M
M
44
64
Grain ,«t1on
Total farms_ ........ _
Less than 280 acres. _____ ..
280-37II acres .. __ . __________
I
---- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
31l>-650 acres ____ . _______ . __
660-7111 BCl'\'S___ -- -- _. -- ---~711acres _______________
880 &ere11 or more __________
6
11
j)
71
Sil
68
--
18
18
20
14
3
19
87
85
94
80
t Percent not computed on a bue of less than 60 years.
Data not available for 2 farms.
• Data not available for I farm.
Data not available for 3 Carma.
1
1
D1011,zed hy
Goog Ie
33
72
00
71
42
SUPPLEMENTARY TABLES • 17 3
Tol,le 49.-Age of Form Operators Receiving Relief I in Representative Counties in the
Southern Great Plains and Number Unable to Work,3 April-May 1935
Dallam
Age
Number of
farm operators
Total. .•..•...•••.......
Hale
Number
unahle to
work
Number of
farm operators a
139
Curry
Number
unahle to
work
Numherof
farm operators
46
Numher
unah1l' to
work
220
l-----1·----·1-----11----
Un<'ter ZI years•.•......•......
21-25 yelll'S ................... .
26--30 year!' ................... .
31-35 years........•...........
36-40 yenrs ....•..•............
4 I -45 years ................... .
46---50 years................... .
51-55 years .•..................
5IHIO years_ ...•...............
61 years and over .....•.......
Unknown ••.•.................
3
26
31
29
32
21
16
28
13
18
3
6
5
JO
24
'rT
18
11
21
11
6
JO
2
7
3
6
2
11
I
4
3
1 For whom reports wero arnilable.
t Based on disnhilities reported.
• Approved for rehabilitation.
Tol,le 50.-Number of Children of Different Ages and Adult Members Other Than
Parents in Farm Families Receiving Relief
Great Plains, April-May 1935
County and Item
Totnl
fomi•
lies
1
in Representative Counties in the Southern
Number of families with specified number of persons
Xone
l_i_
2
3
I4 I5
6
7
8
---
I9
~1_1_1
DALLAM
TotBl children ........... ·······- .•••.
Children under 16 years ......•.......
Boys 16 years and over ...•...........
Girls 16 years and over.•.•...........
Others .•••••••••••••••...............
HAL&
Total children •••.....•........•...•..
Children under 12 years .......•••....
Children 12 yea.rs and over...........
Others •••••••••••••••••........•.....
36
44
21
25
18
12
31
23
6
6
31
13
4
23
2
6
9
5
6
7
4
13
6
fl
6
I
4
2
3
I
2
16
6
4
2
3
10
23
34
13
8
4
1
6
2
139
139
139
139
139
100
123
127
146
46
46
46
220
220
220
56
86
159
34
32
37
23
JO
5
2
2
4
2
2
2
7
5
8
6
2
2
CURRY
Tot Bl children.••••..•..........•...••
Children under 16 yeBrs ..•.•...•••.••
Boys 16 YNII"S and over ...•...•.•.•...
Girls 16 yea.rs and over..•......•.....
Others ...••.••••••.•.••..••••........
:no
220
IM
ms
46
41
16
5
10
25
22
19
11
6
5
I
2
I
1
14
16
I
_I_
11
=1
I
- -I
-1-1
For whom reports were BVBllable.
• Approved for rehabilitation.
1
oiglli ro hy
Goog Ie
174 • FARMING HAZARDS IN THE DROUGHT AREA
Tol,le 51.-Relative Importance of Different Causes of Crop Dama_,• on Selected Fanm
in Representative Counties in the Southern Great Plains, by Degree of Loss
Percent of years
IADatth or record
Countyandcauae
ofdamap
Total
number
of
records
Lees
than 10
years
10-111
years
20years
ormon
DIIDlall
Degree of loal WU
wureported
Total
Serloua Sll&ht
- - - - - - - - - - - - --- --- --DAI.LAIi
llmD-<:rOP ltdlon
33
·-· -------1
Hall. ••••.••...••.....•....
Boll blowing.••••••••••••..
Smut and rust ...••....• _..
lnaeots .•.••.•••••.•••. -•• Frost .•••••••••••••••••...•
Excessive precipitation .•••
43
21
17
6
(
18
1
1
7
12
1
6
6
2
-1
-
22
14
12
5
2
4
-2
ti
2
-
1
6
2
!I
GrahaNdlOfl
·-•-------------------1
Hall. .•......•.••.•........
Boll blowing ...•••.••••....
Smut and rust .....•...•...
Imects .. ................. Frost •..•••••••.•••••••••..
Excessive precipitation ••..
ti
37
22
7
8
(
H
4
4
1
11
2
a
6
2
a
3
6
8
--3
-1
-1
11
21
17
8
1
ti
UI
1
s
3
1
7
lliLJ:
--•-------------------1
Hall. ......••••..•...•.•.. Boll blowing ....••...••. -. _
Smut and rust •.•••••••••• _
Imects ....................
Frost ..••••••.•.•.•••.•••..
Excessive precipitation ... _
1154
77
G7
10
(
411
33
8
1
4
4
2
1
--1
-
-1
12
3
2
18
3
1
1
1
1
1
s
2
1
CURIIT
&lr-CTOf' ••dlon
--•----1
Hall.. ..•....•...••.•••....
Boll blowing .......•••••...
Smut and rust ...••••••....
Imects ..•......•.•.•..••..
Frost_ .•..........•...•....
Excessive precipitation .•.•
40
14
63
23
20
20
(
7
1
12
G
4
10
8
4
--2
-1
11
17
UI
3
11
3
2
1
1
1
11
5
1
Grain ...:lion
·-•----------------1
Hall. ....••.••.•••.••...... ,
Soll blowing ..•.•••......•• '
Smut and rust .•.••.... ____ ,
I meets ..••••••...•........ :
~~':..i..;,- i,recii,iiaiiiiri:::: I
44
17
47
ti
16
22
(
G
-
2
1
1
a
2
-
• Data not available lor 2 larms.
o 11i1i2Pd hy
Goog [e
1
--
1
I
-
SUPPLEMENTARY TABLES• 175
Taf>le SJ.--Crop Yield per Harvested Acre in Selected Areas in the Southern Great
Plains, 1905-1933
'i
..,
Area and crop
'g
i
l
E--
:,
cl
.s
·c
Y leld per harvested acre
.
.,
~
§~
,c~
+>:,
.,
,!I
i
i
~
,c
.I>
.,
.!'l
.!'l
,c
1
a . 1 i.
. ii
,c
~
--:
f .j;
~
- - - - -- - - - :i:
:i;
~
,.;
,!I
.
"'f
la
i;.-
"'
!::i
<
0
"'
;
~
..,
-a
11
I>
l!OUTHWKSTllN l[ANSAS l
Winter wheat. ___________________ 1911-1932
Com _____________________________
100fH932
Barley ___ -----------------------_ 100~1932
Kallr for grain ____________________ 1111~1932
Milo for r.::in ____________________ 191~1932
Feterlta or grain _________________ 1111~1932
611
84
84
64
64
53
4
3
1
-
--
18
13
15
3
1
4
17
2D
21
10
7
12
17
23
14
24
19
22
5
9
4
3
2
2
5
I
4
4
3
-2
4
-1
8
16
22
13
2
11
8
4
-3
-
13
-2
--
--1
--
----
----
27
10. 11
13. 7
H. 4
16. 6
16. 8
H. 7
l!OUTHIIASTERN COLORADO I
Winter "·heat.- __________________
Spring wheat _____________________
Com _____________________________
Oats ______________________________
Darley __ . ________________________
Grain sorghums __________________
1923-1933
1923-1933
1923-1933
1923-19-33
1929-1933
lll"l9-1933
11
11
11
11
5
5
-1
---
2
1
-
7. 11
6. 5
10. I
10.4
8. 2
9. 6
Southwelltem Kansas Area Includes Morton Seward, and Stevens Counties.
• Soul.heastern Colorado AreB includee Baca County, yields of Irrigated crops being excluded.
BourOO!I: Biennial &parta, Kanses State Board of AgrlculturebTopeka, KBDI!., 1905-1906 to 1933-1934; and
Ytarbook• o/tM State of Colorado, State Board of Immigration, enver, Colo., 1923-1933,
1
01g11i
ro hy
Goog Ie
176 • FARMING HAZARDS IN THE DROUGHT AREA
Tallie 53.-Average Yield per Seeded Acre of Important Crops on Selected Farms in
Representative Counties in the Southern Great Plains, 1930-1934
Average yield per seeded acre
County and crop
1930
1931
1932
1934
1933
-------------------1---- - - - - - - - - - - - D.l.LI.ill
Row-crop •tdkm
Number of farms reporting ••..•.........•••••••.....
33
39
Wheat (bushels) •..•••..........•.•..•..••••.•.......
Corn (bushels) •••.••..•.....•••.•........•........•.
Milo (bushels) .•••••.•.•...•.•....•.......••.........
Hegari (tons) ......•.•.........••.........•.•..•.....
3
23
23
25
0.11
o. 7
Number of farms reporting ...•.•••...•....•.........
Wheat (bushels) ..•..•••.............................
Com (bushels) •.....................................
Milo (bushels) •..................•... _.............. .
Hegarl (tons) ....................•..•.......•........
Feed crops (tons) ......•.•.....•.••.....••••..•......
~2
43
43
28
1.6
o. 7
8
1
0.9
0.4
2
2
0.5
0.4
0. 2
24
34
35
35
II
17
19
0.4
I.I
17
18
14
0.5
o. 7
2
II
5
0.2
0.2
1
3
0.2
0.2
Number of farms reporting .......•..................
82
121
144
153
156
Wheat (hushels) .................•................•..
Milo (bushels) ...•..........•..•.......•.............
Grain sorghums (bushels) ........•.....•............
Grain sorghums (tons) .............................. .
Kaflr (tons) .............................•...........
Cotton (pounds) ..........................•.........
8
6
6
6
13
0.8
0.6
174
13
14
17
0.9
0. 7
231
14
14
0.8
0. 7
141
10
21
0.9
o. 7
176
I
0.2
0.1
47
Number of farms reporting ••••......................
33
53
59
llO
83
Wheat (bushels) ......•.......•....••.....•••..•.....
Corn (bushels) ...........................••......•..
Milo, cane, and kaflr (hushels) •....••...............
Milo (tonsJ •.••••..•..............•........•.........
Hegarl (tons) ....................................... .
Cane and sorghums (tons) ......•..•••...............
6
20
16
18
23
22
1.0
1.8
1.0
4
9
7
0.3
0.5
0.3
0. 7
3
I
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
Feed crops (tons) •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.•••••.
20
Grain atdion
.
37
HALii
10
6
CCRRY
Row-crop ,edion
1.0
0. 7
1.0
1.5
5
14
14
0.5
0.8
0.5
0. 7
Number of farms reporting ...•.•.•.....••.......•...
25
4,,
45
46
47
Wheat (hushels) ........••..•......••................
Com (bushels) ...................•....•......•......
Milo, cane1 and kaflr (bushels) ..........•...........
Milo (tonsJ ••..••.•••••.••••.........................
Hegnri (tons) ....................................... .
Cane and sorghums (tons) ................. _•........
Kaflr (tons) •••••••.•........•••••...••............. .
4
18
10
0.4
24
28
22
I. 8
0.2
1.0
2
3
7
9
0.2
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.1
0.1
Kaflr (tons) ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.•••••...
Grain atdion
0. 1
0.4
I. 4
10
6
0.4
0.5
0. 2
0.4
•Less than 0.5 bushel.
D1qi1tzed hy
Goog IC
SUPPLEMENT ARY TABLES • 1 77
Tol,le 54.-Average Yield per Seeded Acre of Important Crops on Selected Farms in
Representative Counties in the Southern Great Plains and Frequency of Occurrence of
Yields Which Were Good, Medium, Poor, or Failures
Crop and county
Number
or crops
reported
Percent of years yield
was obtained
Yield per seeded acre
-
I~~I~·
Average
yield per
Me•
Good dium
Poor
I~~~·
2
3
4
11
20
21
8
20
34
4
16
21
77
5
44
24
10
2
2
15
19
19
21
29
27
37
33
8
10
.
17
20
43
42
14
23
24
15
15
20
18
30
31
2~
35
24
16
13
8
9
7
26
25
14
43
33
42
1:1
211
23
18
22
21
21
20
14
5
6
28
30
20
30
29
23
23
16
17
18
1.5
35
33
a2
17
20
24
33
2~
Ill
0. 7
I. 1
1.0
21
18
I. 2
18
1g2
Me- Poor
Good dium
acre
- -I- - ----
WHJ:.lT
(lnuhtl.,)
Dallam:
Row-crop section ______ •• __
Grain section. _______ .. ·- ••
Hale ....••••.•..•••............
Curry:
Row-crop sedlon ..•••.•.••
Grain section ..••••.••.•. __
48
219
1,438
22
20
19
14
13
ll
7
7
217
630
21
25
13
13
5
376
228
30
26
18
18
9
8
342
357
25
31
16
17
7
7
1 73
174
136
33
33
26
22
22
16
13
105
244
28
32
18
11
19
9
M
1,13
5!14
I. 5
I. 8
1. i
1.0
). 4
1.l
0. 5
0.8
0. 7
o. 2
0. 3
0.4
25
183
197
2.0
I. 9
1.5
1. 4
0. 8
0.9
0.4
0.3
23
34
36
16
23
182
2113
191
123
88
251
34
23
7
7
II
CORN
(bu&htla)
Dallam:
Row•crop section ..........
Grain section....•...•....•
Curry:
Row-crop section ......••••
Grain section ..•.........•.
.
5
2
17
12
GRAIN SORGHt'.MS
(buahtla)
Dallam:
Row-crop soc-tion __________
Orain section ______________
Hale .....••....•••••.•.....•••.
Curry:
Ro~•crop ~ection ....•.....
Gra,10 section ______________
11
II
FEED SORGUl'MS
(Iona)
Dallam:
Row-crop section ......•...
Grain section ______________
ITale ....•••••••••••..•••.......
Curry:
Row-crop section _____ . ____
Grain section ______________
19
29
1.3
COTTON
(pound,)
Hale .................... ----~·
I
•1,ess than 0.5 bushel.
DigiltzedoyGoogle
Ta&/e 55.-Financial Progress of Selected Farmers in Representative Counties in the Southem Great Plains Since Beginning Farming in the Area, by
Size of Farm, 1935
County and size or le.rm
~umber
or re.rms
reportmg
Financial ststus at beginning
Capital additions to buaineaa
Assets
Net
worth
Addi&ions
Deduclions
Net ad·
ditlons
bosineaa
A.9ets
LlablUtiel
)>
per farm
Net put
Into
Liahlll•
ties
Net
worth
,0
~
Total
Peryear
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - - - - - - - - - - - - -----DAU.AK
Total fe.rms _... • •.. . . .• .... ...• .....
281-440 acres ...... _. _.. . .... _.............
44Hl80 acre.s _. __._ -· .....• . ...............
881-1,llOO acres_ . ......... . . . . .. ... ...... ..
1,601 acres or more ... .•• • • . .............. _
Les.s than 21!1 acreo ... ......... . .... . . _·-.
9
;;;
iS.
~
0
C
~
-n
~3
$5,391
3
1,083
9
17
9
5
3,869
-----4,299
1, 5i2
21,300
'610
$4,781
'294
$1,070
433
6G7
753
1,000
3, :102
3,648
1,550
Ul,900
GOO
111
1,038
1,113
G78
2,277
---83
2'2
1,400
:.1:111
533
-ma
842
-1,036
-904
-146
-1,G77
$4,005
Sl0,407
91!,0lG
$4, 3111
S,188
113
1,842
2, 16G
2,842
1,406
18, 2'l3
2, 118G
-625
-1,11117
8, 9'll
7,834
3G, 565
3,611
2,:Ha
6,5.13
6,860
JG, Zle
1, 4112
3,388
1,978
:ID, 3111
-874
748
673
-238
-67
118
61
187
3,736
2,098
512
1,407
-8116
3,71111
12,MII
II, 143
a.we
-2113
-28
1, :ioo
218
300
1139
900
4,:Me
3,279
-370
3,07G
-ffl
2,800
3, 1187
-1,448
708
-3,8411
-421
2,400
4,828
-MIi
-371
2,267
1, 5()()
6, 2«
3,448
4,844
6,11811
703
4,372
18
3,278
4,281
1, 7211
6,084
2,887
2,477
8, &47
37
5,:m
eoa
4,6114
- - - - - - - - - - ---1
13
5
7
Total !e.rms . .. .•.. . •.•........ . .•• ..
156
6,075
Less than 121 acres ... ... • . .. ... ...•......
121-200 acres ........ ••. •. • ..• . ............
201-280 acres .. .. ·· -·· ·· ·· · .......... .•.•..
281-IOO acres ..... __ • . .••.. ... . .....•......
40l~acres....••••...•...... . ...........
681-7:IO acres.......•• •••••.•. . - .•....•....
12
40
8
40
17
3,296
11
HALE
721 acres or more ..•.•.•. • .•......•....•.•
J:
N
I, 500
5,352
3, 1110
4,844
8,243
281-140 acres_····· ··· ·· ····· ····-··· · ·····
441-880 acres .... ...... .. -··· - -··_ ..... _...
881-1,600 acres .....•.• .. •. .. .. ... _..... ...
1,601 acres or more .••.• •• .•••....••..•...
G)
)>
Grain •ection
Total farms . ...•.. .•. . ... . ......••..
z
)>
Row-crop 1t<lion
Less than 281 acres _._ ····--··········•-·-
co
..,•
AVlll'lll'llncra.
Financial 9'atUI In 111135
....
...J
22
17
108
4M
.
-
4, 7M
1,779
6,389
483
60
286
3,069
3,G82
11,444
172
1, ll06
2,797
G,888
G,231
480
-4, 116
-2,GIG
-223
8,9111
211,421
3, 1911
14,UG
8,967
196
G,498
12, UIII
all,837
7,928
ll8t
3,358
11,022
2,888
G,334
2,978
3,043
4,332
6,708
3,6811
821
1,371
1,183
2,170
2,1188
3,086
7,881
3,611
4,317
2,
6,887
7,308
7,7M
12, 746
256
4llO
G26
G,Dl
1,280
779
rm
6G6
1, 1181
146
400
..
-1,0lG
380
1182
-482
8,71111
746
-1, 134
-1,4111
2,474
1,4211
1181
478
1144
1, 11111
1,816
1,1166
1,747
4,146
-6,IIOG
-236
-803
-8,0ID
3, INIO
1,(08
1,874
6,008
8,037
11,111111
11, 3Gl
20,400
uo
1138
-M
1, 1117
6,900
G,002
7,137
,0
~
z
:t
""
0
~~
)>
~
1911
'Z1
4G
-6
130
3G3
383
3!'5
)>
CURBY
Rol.c-<Top atdion
Total farms _______ ______ _______ ____ _
6.1
3, 156
193
- --9 - -588- - - 67Less than 280 acres. __ .•.•••.......•...• •.
2,306
17
-~370 acres .. ---- ·---·· ·-·· ·-·····- ····- ·
4,973
15
380-559 acres ..• ··-·-·--·· •... ···-- .. ..••..
710
4,720
JO
. --- - ..
- -. . ...
560--719 acres . ... ---··--- - .··......
. ___ ··- . .
72!Hli9 acres .... ___________
860 acres or more_-----· - · · ----····•· ·· · ··
6
6
980
4,908
450
200
2, 1163
621
2,306
4, 9i3
4,010
530
4,708
335
1,300
38
181
305
300
100
1,190
1,092
1,241
755
1,668
I, 248
l, 286
2,990
1,338
4,267
8,685
4, 005
8,687
5, 134
6,372
8,091
2,902
2,188
2,487
6,790
5,169
344
3411
2, 7116
5,785
5,087
2113
1,502
2,330
2, 786
2,264
6,066
3,396
3,006
8,948
7, 868
3, 19l
4,232
6,774
8,0111
6,7t0
2,108
7,331
2,233
ll)8
729
1,103
4,3W
2,1147
-418
3,522
2, !Me
6,061
9,001
8,472
11,639
15,276
672
1,0.16
2,504
-1,203
-574
-1,363
-948
-1,186
lW
5,0ll8
-855
---
- -----l,645
103
2,274
lM
168
IW
Grain udion
Total farms _..•.. _·-. __ ...•.• _..• •..
I.Ass than 280 acre,1. _. .. •.. _..... .. •. _. ...
28(}-379 acres •• _..•. ___ .. .•. _....•..• __.•. .
380-559 acres ..• . ___ •• _.•........... ...•...
660-719 acres .. ·--------· ..•... ___ ...••....
7204!79 acres . ... . __ .·- ...•• •... ... ... •• ...
860 acres or more. _••••••.•.. _.•... __•.• . .
8, 1561
-829
678
1,218
I, 507
389
359
1,866
47
------------ -80(!
- - -250- - -350- - -525- - - 69- ---- -600
--2,516
87
1,710
1,328
3,844
456
4
9
9
8
6
II
I, 744
1, lf-0
1,025
2,713
3,159
33
I, 533
1, 117
1,025
1,917
198
2,961
21)
-
7ll6
22
Ill
474
-
1,018
1,351
1,864
1,325
957
1, 060
-1,329
-1, 753
-851
-957
-42
204
-636
174
-161
1119
2,
4,898
5,926
9,734
10, 122
13,725
s. 8511
146
228
328
623
306
~
::g
r-
~
z'"-I
>
a
~
~·
-I
0
"'
>
a,
C"')
Cl
Q.
~
0
an
r-
-.•...
~
180 • FARMING HAZARDS IN THE DROUGHT AREA
Tal,le 56.--Cropland on Farms Having Com-Hog Contracts in Representative Counties in
the Southern Great Plains, by Size of Form, 1934
Number of
County and size of farm
farms
Averaiie number of
acres per farm
1------,----Total
DALLAM
Total farms __________________________________________________
_
Less than 281 acres _________________________________________________ _
281--440 acres _______________________________________________________ _
441-880acres _______________________________________________________ _
881-1,600 acres _____________________________________________________ _
1,601 acres or more. ___________________________ . ____________________ _
Cropland
588
ll9
153
158
51
21
165
329
633
1,178
3, OIH
773
1,767
481
325
255
49
131
31
151
37
24:J
32.~
47i
HAU:
Total farms .. -··----·--·--- _____________ . _______ ---·__________
404
li02
138
2.'\4
449
1-----1-----1----Less
than 121 &eres-----------·--··---·--·----·-·------------------·121-200 acres._·- ____ ------ ______ . ___ ... __________ .__________________
201-280 acres __________________ ... _____ ._. ____ .-· __ . _______ ._________
281--400 acres. _________________________ .. __ . ______ .__________________
401-51',0 acres_. ____________ --·- __ ... __________________ . __ .___________
561-720 acres .. ·- ____ ·- --- . --- _·-. ___ . _·-. _. _. _____ . _____ . ________ . _.
721
acres or more____________________________________________________
CURRY
Total farms. ________________________________
. ______ . __ ------·_
Less than 280 acres _______________________ ··------·---------- _______ _
280-.179 I\CTl'S. _______ -------- ·- _______ -------. ----. - • --- - • -- -- - - - - •• 380-559 acres. ___________________ . _____ ._. __ . ________ . ______________ _
500-71\l aCT<'S. __ ---- - - ---·-- - -- • --- • - -- --- - • - • --- - •• --· -· - • -- -- • -- - - 72()-879 acre..~._ .. _______________ . _____ . __ ... ___ .. _____ . ______ . ______ _
880 acres or more .. __________ --------------------------------------_.
56
lfJ6
45
133
197
261
15
tl-17
997
361
488
TT6
491
557
340
131
121
91
6.~
33
163
319
465
629
804
2,070
320
422
67
f,()
Source· Corn-hog production control contracts of the Agricultural Adjustment Administration.
DigiltzedoyGoogle
127
237
51'.,3
929
SUPPLEMENTARY TABLES•
181
Tal,le 57,-Utilization of Land on Selected Farms in Representative Counties in the
Southern Great Plains, by Size of Farm, 1934
Average number of acres per farm
County and si•Al of farm
Number
of farms
reporting
Total
Cropland
Pasture
Former
cropland
Farmsteed
and waste
DALI.All
Ro'ID-O'op ••di,m
tarms .•..•....••..
43
904
1134
352
Less than 281 acres ....•.•. s • • •
3
9
17
9
5
189
329
677
1,166
2,669
158
211
26
383
6~
1, 6ll6
523
9'3
Total farms •••••••••••••
37
1,056
768
267
4
Less than 281 acres ..•••...•••.
1
13
11
5
7
ltlO
30
89
188
128
853
----6
352
718
1,100
2,917
126
262
516
1,035
2,023
7
14
23
Z1
Total farms ..••••..•••••
IM
387
318
M
Less than 121 acres ............
12
40
8
40
17
22
17
77
162
238
326
479
66
6
14
Total farms .••••••••••••
Less than 280 acres ..•••.......
2M-3711 scree.•.......•....•...
380-669 acres.·······•••··· -- - .
Total
281-440 acres ..••••.•.•........
441-880 acres ..••••..........•.
881-1,000 acres •••.•..•......•.
1,601 acres or more ............
5
13
101
6
279
6
8
11
6
10
15
30
Grain atdlon
281-440 acres ..................
441-880 acres .•••••..•....•.••.
881-1,600 acres ................
1,601 &eres or more ....•.....••
17
11
16
HAU:
121-200 acres ....•...••........
~1-280 acres ••••••............
281~acres ................•.
401-660 acres ..................
661-720 acres ..................
721 acres or more .......••...•.
002
140
189
269
378
521
763
141
63
611
353
13/i
9
17
15
10
6
6
175
818
479
123
243
355
438
46
61
103
171
1,172
611
612
470
Total farms •....•.....•.
47
oll9
482
~1
Less than 280 acre., ••••••.•••••
4
226
65
280-379 acres ..•••••......•.•..
380-M!lacres ....•.............
660-719 acres •.••••..•....•.•.•
720--879 acres ..•..•...•...•....
880 acres or more...•.. _•...•..
9
9
8
6
11
153
228
342
437
636
13
6
8
11
38
43
86
13
16
16
28
99
CL'RBY
Row-crop a,ctj,m
M)-7J9acre., .••..........••...
720--879 scree ..••..............
880 acres or more......... _....
634
779
lM
8
15
8
73
7
14
21
17
14
17
3
13
Grain ••dian
86869°-~ 4
3~
485
630
806
1,350
1171
858
84
1211
183
109
470
3
7
5
7
10
11
10
JU
17
182 • FARMING HAZARDS IN THE DROUGHT AREA
Tcrl,le 58.-Utilization ol Land on 1,496 Farms Having Cotton Contracts in Hale County,
Tex., by Size ol Farm, 1934
Avenge number of acnt1 per farm
Number of
fanDa
Sluorrarm
Total
Puture
Cropland
lllld
farmstead
Totalfarms ••••••••••••••••••••••••••.••••..•• ___
Lea than 121 acnt!.....................................
1, 4IMI
2112
233
623
108
874
76
142
46
1113
824
477
1136
140
194
270
381
603
49
1-----1----1...-----1---11211
70
114
11
121-:IOO - - ••••••••• ···-- ··············-······-·· •.. .
301-280 - · ••••••••••.••.•.•••..•••.•••. •·•••.•••. .•.
281-400 - · •••••••••••...•. -· .•. -· -·. -· -· -· -·. •••••.•
401-600 - - •••••••••••..•. -· •...•••..••.••• ••••··•...
6111-m acnt1...... ••. .. . . . . .. . . .. .... .. . ....• •• .. . . . .. .
721 acnt1 or more. • • • • •• . . . . • . • • . • . . . • . • • • • • • • • • . • . • . • . .
238
1, 085
21
44
64
911
112
217
11118
Source: Cotton production oontrol oontracta or the Aiirfcultural Adjunment Admlnfatratfon.
Tcrl,le 59.-Siie of Farm, Number of Livestock per Farm, and Tenure ol Farm Operators
Receiving Relief in Representative Counties in the Southern Great Plains, April4'1ay
1935
County and slut
orrarm
Number
of farms
'91:•
A ver11111 ■Ire or
farm (acnt1)
Total
?::t
Tenmeor
Average number or lfveatoct
Cattle
Hop
Opentor
ChickHonea Owner Tenllllt
em
- - - - --1 - --
D.t.LLUI
Total farms •••••••••
I
81
(I)
(I)
a
1
8'
a
1
21
2
23
511
lliLI:
Total farms •••••••••
1 - than 81 ---------81-180 - - - · · .•• ··-·····
181-aJO - · •••••••••••••
-
14e
80
18
8
71
--- -1 - 37
ae -a
23
112
89
108
234
234
e
7
-2
21
18
-- -- --2
1
'6
2
1
211
13
3
2
6
--
C'OUT
Total farms •••••••••
'1118
284
'X11
6
1
40
8
44
1 - than 280 acre■ .•••••••
280-379Mnl! .•••..•..•••••
380-669 - · •.•••..••••••
660-719 acre■ •.•.••.•••••••
720-879 acre■ .. --·-········
Unknown .•.....•.•.••.•••
87
164
312
458
1131
800
132
218
4
6
38
48
47
48
46
14
3
320
381
640
1
1
1
1
19
18
II
eo
30
7
3
11
-
-
6
7
23
2
-1
3
2
6
1
1
-1
• Report■ available for only 81 of the 199 farmers receiving relief ID May 1113a.
- ,.
164
118
42
7
I
10
• Slut not given.
1 Report■ available only for farmers approved for rehabilitation IOIIDS. In April 11136, 219 farmers ln
the oounty wen receiving relief.
• Report■ available for only 1118 or the 230 rumen reeelvlDc niter ID May 11136.
D1gilizAd
YGoogle
SUPPLEMENTARY TABLES• 183
Toltle 60.-Percent of Owned and Rented Land in Crops and Grass on Seleded Farms in
Representative Counties in the Southem Great Plains, 1934
Curry
Dallam
Item
Total operated land 1................
Other...........................
Cropland........... •. . . . ••• ••••• •• •• . .
Grain sec-
farms)
farms)
tion (37
farms)
Row-crop
eection (63
Grain sec-
farma)
farms)
tion (47
100. 0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100. 0
611. 0
311. 0
0. 6
1.5
72.8
25. 3
0.3
1.8
82.1
611.3
ill. 1
1.8
8.0
ffll. 0
28. 8
66. 3
58.1
51.3
64.5
87. 7
1------1----·1----4------1-----
Cropland........ • •• • • •• • • ••• • . • .
Bay and pasture................
Former cropland................
Total owned land.........................
Row-crop
eection (43
Hale (IM
14.-(
0.1
3.-(
0. 4
1.8
l====l====l====l===,f====
1-----1---------1-----1----42.2
42. 3
44. l
32.11
48. 8
7.2
14. 7
16.8
21.6
l~J
0.1
1.8
0.2
0.11
1.8
2. 2
0.11
I. 3
1==-===:l====l====l====I,====
50. 7
211. 1
Total sbarH-ented land....................
40. 8
311. 8
28. 8
f~~i::t:::::::::::::::::::::
Other.................................
Cropland......... .. . • ••••• •• •. . . . . . . • .
Hay and J)Q!ture.............. ••. . . . . .
Former cropland......................
Other.................................
Total cash•rented land....................
Cropland..............................
¥~':~~::::::::::::::::::::::
Other•.•..............................
Land rented out...........................
g~j~fpisture::::::::::::::::::::::
Former cropland .•....................
Other ................................ .
1------1-----f----4------1----26. 1
30.8
13. fl
0. 5
0.6
8.4
0.1
0. 7
3. II
3. 7
1.5
2. 2
42. 3
8. 7
24.4
3.11
1. 7
0.8
22.11
5. 1
0.1
0.5
1. 7
7.8
5. 8
0. 7
1.0
2.0
l====l====l~===l,===,I===
1------1----·1-----1-----1---3.9
5.8
•
1.3
4.5
1====11====1====1====1,===
3. 7
1.2
1.6
2.1
1-----•!----•l-----t-----l•--·-1. 6
3.1
0. 5
1.2
~==
0.1
• Leu than 0.06 peroent.
• Total operated land la the sum of owned and rented land lelll land rented out.
D gillzed by
Google
184 • FARMING HAZARDS IN THE DROUGHT AREA
Tol,le 61.-Use of Farm Land on Selected Farms in Representative Counties in the
Southern Great Plains, 1934
Average number of acres per farm
Curry
Dallam
Use of farm land
Row-<'l'Op
section
(43 farms)
Total land operated.................
Total cropland'·····················
Grain
section
(37 farms)
Hale (156
farms)
11(}1
1,056
l=====I=====
534
768
Row-crop
section
(63 farms)
Grain
section
(47 farms)
387
511
6911
318
353
482
112
9
105
1
· 213
f-----
Rutedtd acru .... ·-··················-····
Whcat. .......... •-·--···-·-···-··········
Wheat on fallow ............... _...... _....
Foragesorl(hums..........................
Miloandkaflr .... _........ -··-········-··
Hegari................... . ................
Corn .......•.•••....................... -..
Broom corn •......................... _....
Other crops_______________________________
Fsllow ...............................• ____
Idle cropland •.••......... -.. ········--·--·
16
10
97
254
128
74
34
46
83
8
46
21
JO
45
53
59
53
21
16
9
19
64
36
32
1
22
9
23
8
19
10
6
J 6i
30
10
20
12
30
13
38
48
40
207
180
14
12
31
i====i====t====~====i'====
Former cropland ....................... _..
8
3
5
4
352
267
Native pasture ____ ·-·-·················-··
/i6
135
201
Farmstead and waste.....................
13
15
13
13
17
1
1
The reseeded acres are not Included In the tota: cropland item.
Includes 46 acres of cotton.
Dig111zed bv
Goog Ie
SUPPLEMENT ARY TABLES • 1 85
Taf>le 6.2.-Average Acreage of Important Crops on Selected Farms I in Representative
Counties in the Southern Great Plains, 193Cr1934
Xurnberof
County and year
farms
reporting
Average number of acres per farm
1-----------------Wheat
Sorghums
Corn
Cotton
DALUM
Rorr-<rop 3tction
IQ30·-·-·····-·--····-·····--······-··-····
1931 ·-···································-·
1932·-··-···----·--··--····--····-····-···1933. ·········-···-----·--·······-·······-1934. ···--··········--·················---a,ain a,ction
1930_·-·----·------··-----·-····-·····-·--19:!l _. ·- ···········-- - --····•--·····-. - -- -1932_ ··--····-··---······--···········--- ll«l .............. - ···--··· --······- ... - - .
!934 __ • __ ··--····--···-····-··---•-····---
33
39
42
43
43
159
112
99
92
195
221
If.I
97
32
439
49/l
51
65
524
H
24
34
35
35
37
405
382
82
121
100
16.1
69
45
23
180
225
2.35
138
140
162
IR2
ZlO
191
134
HALJ:
1930.-·-·-·-·······---·-··············-·-- .
Hl.11. -········-··-·········---·-·-··-··•·llJ:!2_ ••..•••••••• _._. ____ ··········-·····--
10.J3 __ ••••••••• ------·-·-·············-·-·-
1934 __ •..• _•• ___ •• _••.••. - .••.•.• -.---·--
144
153
156
rn2
131!
120
(2)
(2)
(')
(2)
R2
70
11
71
86
43
53
59
44
46
et·RRY
Rou;-<,op lfdfon
lP~0. -····· .... - --·- -- . - .. ··--·-····· ..... .
l\l:H. - ............ - ................ - ..... 10.12 ..................... --··--··-· ·----·-.
J9:l3 ................. - ................... - .
1934_ -·· -······----···· ······-·· •..•.•• - •• -
Grain &f'dion
1930_ ............... - - - - • - • - •••• - - .... - ••. l\13! __ •. _-···---·········-··-··-·---·····--
1932 __ ._ ... __ ••.•....•. -·--············•···
ig33_··-····-··•···---····--·······-·--··-·
)1!34 __ •• _._·······-··-··--··············· ·-
85
):Ill
123
H
42
41
149
59
60
117
14~
63
115
3.1
22
25
45
45
46
47
202
33
53
lfi2
157
163
3.10
296
282
17
23
18
10
99
100
114
2tl6
II
115
96
, Reportin~ acreage.
I Not calculated.
D gillzed by
Google
Ta&le 63.-Number of Livestock on Hand April 1, 1935, and No1mal Number on Selected Farms
in Representative Counties in the Southern Great
Plains, by Size of Farm
County snd si,e or farm
I
Milk cows
I
I
Beer cows
I
I
I Other cattle I
I
All hogs
I
I Brood sows I Other hogs
I
I
Sheep
I
Poultry
I
1
I Work stock
I
than 281
I
N.
&
::,
-<
0
0
o2n
)>
N
Raic--crop 1tclion
::111
17
JO
9
i
17
3
5
3
12
25
2
26
42
6
6
9
63
64
8
6
13
II
Total rsrms ...........•.•................
13
21
4
8
Less than 281 acres ..•..........................
281-440 acres •.......•..........................
1
4
14
1
14
15
31
43
2
8
5
6
7
7
13
10
6
g
3
5
4
4
i
.5
BCl'('S •••.•.••••• • .••••.••••••..•
4
6
2
8
32
g
16
6
5
2
3
2
12
1
1
4
2
II
5
lY
45
3
4
25
l
4
23
16
3
9
9
10
8
6
3
1
2
3
69
2
4
2
3
4
l
41
52
61
70
139
1
19
12
I 122
I 107
78
126
121
163
6
3
3
4
5
3
6
5
6
g
e
Grain a,cticm
'g
J:
)>
281--1-10 acres •••.•••.•.•...... _..
441-SOO acres ••••••..•........................
881-1,f,00 u.cres ••••••••••••.•••••••••••••••...•.
1,601 ocres or more .•.•••.......................
0
z
DALLAM
Total farms .•.•••••.........•............
lRSS
>
f
Q
April Nor• 1April Nor• April II Nor• April Nor• 1April Nor• 1April Nor• ,.~pril Nor-1Aprll Nor• April Nor• 1Aprll Nor•
ma! 1, l\!3.', ma! 1, 1935 ma! 1, Hm ma! I. 1935 ma! 1, 11135 ma! 1, 1~5 ma! 1, 11135 ma! 1, 1~ ma!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I I, 1935 ma! 1, 19351
~
•
A vernge number or livestock
All cattle
....
441-SOO acres ..•••.•..•.........................
881-1,600 acres ................................ .
1,601 acres or more ..•.........•................
8
18
40
HALE
Total rarms .•.....•.•.......•........... Less than 121 acres ••.•.........................
121-200 acres ...••...................•...... . ...
201-2'!0 acres .••••.•.......•....................
281-400 acres ..•••••...•...•.....•..............
401-560 acres •••••...........•..................
661-720 acres ..•...........•.•.•................
721 IICl'ell or more .••.....•.............•....••..
II
8
8
8
10
10
I!!
21
I
16
g
g
14
15
10
20
30
5
I
6
5
8
9
9
12
10
17
4
-
-2
21
5
--
5
4
17
. .
--
-1
-
-
--
2
1
5
-2
8
3
8
14
8
7
3
14
16
5
5
3
4
4
-1
2
2
4
7
7
3
10
18
7
4
8
2
3
8
5
2
g
7
7
12
11
12
2
4
7
8
4
10
25
5
2
4
3
8
11
1
-l
_21
l
l
2
2
l
l
l
2
--76 - -- - -- -50- -12595- -- -6
-
-
gg
3
61
96
4
4
61
44
71
88
75
102
3
2
3
5
4
2
3
6
11
14
-l
-1
l
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
2
6
8
1
3
--28
-
--38
2
3
4
21
4
68
l
1
2
3
1
3
4
6
3
6
6
2
7
90
88
117
--
4
1
35
40
70
---
1
9
14
l
1
3
46
29
36
31
«
2
2
2
58
94
4
4
74
109
109
125
5
ti
4
4
4
4
66
79
~
z
:t
ITI
i
~J:
-I
)>
::111
>
CUUT
RatD-aop atdlon
Total farma •.••• •••••• •...• .....• .•.... ..
17
17
8
9 _11_2
1 - than 280 acree ........ ..... ... . .......... .
280-379 scres •.•.....•...•..... .... . ............
380--559 acres •.•.• •••• . •.• . •.•.... . .... .. .. .....
500-719 acres •.•.•.•...... . .....................
720-879 acres ... ...• .•••••••• • .. ........ ........
880 acres or more ..•.•.•••••....... _... _....... .
8
9
6
6
9
12
17
19
19
14
6
7
g
9
8
7
11
14
«
18
30
35
18
15
7
10
-
I
I
-g
-
8
6
4
7
I
2
3
a
3
2
6
3
4
7
5
1
1
I
4
I
I
I
5
3
2
3
4
9
9
10
17
16
6
3
6
6
21
14
5
8
10
3
4
2
-
5
5
4
3
Grai n iection
Total farms ...... ..... ..... . ............ .
Less than 280 acres .. . ......... . _........ . . .. .. .
280-3i9 acres . .. ......•....... .. .. . . .. . ... .. .. . .
380--559 acres.
560--719 acres • . ..... . •• •• .•......• ............ .
720-879 acres . . ... ... •.•.••...... . ... . -. .. -· .. 880 acres or more ..•.•.•••••. .....••.. .. .. . _
19
- -
4
6
IO
111
14
~6
25
- -9
- -3 - -4
,~
4
6
211
41:1
6
11
23
7
12
6
8
11
6
18
4
-- -- - - - - -- - 6
3
5
1
5
2
-2 5I
6
4
4
3
-15
4
7
12
8
8
4
5
9
19
16
16
1
2
5
7
2
2
2
2
3
1
1
1
3
2
5
5
.
I
3
a
3
19
-
3
---
-
1
4
6
----
----- ---
-
--- - - - - - - - a 3
1
1
-2
3
I
1
4
2
3
2
I
1
-
81
1211
3
4
01
82
107
1M
94
5
4
4
4
62
141
129
215
155
4
3
4
3
2
2
VT
141
3
4
711
119
5
5
72
96
102
1M
101
122
157
3
4
2
l
3
3
eu
89
HO
UMI
140
4
5
2
3
3
5
•Less thaa 0.5.
C/1
C
~
~
0
co
=-·
;:;·
"'Cl.
!i
C')
0
~
f i)
!"'
-<
-◄
)>
a,
r~
•
.....
a,
....
188 • FARMING HAZARDS IN THE DROUGHT AREA
Tal,le 64.-Number of Selected Farms With Livestock in Representative Counties in the
Southern Great Plains, April 1, 1935
Number of farms reporting
Number of livestock
Dallam
Row-erop
section (43
!arms)
111LK cow•
None •••....•........•••••.................
Curry
Hale
Grain sec• (156 lsrm•) Row-erop
tlon (37
section (63
!arms)
Grain sec•
tion (47
farms)
I
2IJ
6
4
20
81
13
11
71
3
24
311
None •.••..................................
33
33
155
4
1
56
1-5 ....••••.••............................ .
&-15 .••.•••••••.••••••••••..••.••..•...••..
1
5
1
2
l-5 ..••..•.....•.......................•...
6 or more ••......••••••••.••••..•..........
I
farms)
3
25
19
BEl:F COWS
16 or more .••••••.........................
4
I
2
40
1
2
4
OTHER CATTI.I!
None ...•..................................
g
4
5
22
5
1
3
4
56
8
2
None ..•.•.........................•.•.•...
2!)
28
94
1-3 .. ··•••••·•·•••••••••·•·•••··•··· ..••.
4 or more ................................. .
Ii
1
8
I
56
36
25
6
2
None .•.•..................................
26
26
85
29
l~ •...•••••.•••.•••...•.•••••••.••••..••. .
6 or more ..•••.••..•...•.•.......•.•.......
13
4
8
3
47
26
24
8
25
16
6
43
37
141
60
47
8
3
1-10. ··••··································
ll-25 ..•.•.....•.....•.................... .
:ljHiO. . •••..••••.•.....•.........••••..•.
51 or more ..•••••.••••.•...•..............
27
2
88
I
25
2i
8
2
3
23
10
6
5
BROOD SOWS
34
12
I
OTHER HOGS
SHEEP
None ..............•...............•...•...
1-10 ....................... ········· ...... .
lh'iO ..••••••••••••••••••••••..•••.••...•..
61 or more .••.•••••..•••••.•.......•...... .
7
CHICKENS
None ..................................... .
5
h'iO .••••••••••••••••••••.......•..•.•.....
51-100 .••..••••••• , ••.•••••••..•••.•.••... .
22
20
I:!
101 or more •.•..••••.....•••..•.•.•........
8
8
4
5
83
50
23
I
16
17
18
13
13
13
44
6
30
27
WORK STOCK
None ......•............................ . .
13
20
2'2
24
l~ ..............................•....... •.
7 or more ..••..............................
13
109
8
4
23
D1g11,zed hy
Goog Ie
13
4
Table 65.-Acreage Operated by Specified Number of Men, With or Without Tractors, on Selected Farms in Representative Counties in the Southern
Great Plains, 1934
Average acreage In farms operated by spedfled number of men
Number of farms reporting
2
l
County and Item
Total
With
tractor
With•
out
tractor
Total
With
tractor
With•
out
tractor
Total
4
3
With
tractor
Without
tractor
With
tractor
Total
Without
tractor
With
tractor
Total
Without
tractor
--- --- --- - - - - - - --- --- - - - --- --- --- --- --- - - DALLAM
Row-crop 1tcllon
Total farms ...•..••..•....... ______
Total acres operated.....•. _________
Crop acres operated ..•..•..........
43
903
533
738
17
700
221
33
1,127
829
457
261
26
1,037
698
17
772
14
609
405
559
218
27
827
596
23
4
891
654
457
261
31
9
l, 509
925
6
l, 700
1,269
7
1,241
1,092
1,241
1,092
3
l, 127
237
2
1,276
585
2
1,276
585
-
l
1,093
896
l
1,093
896
-
2
l, 746
1,486
2
1,746
1,486
--
1
4. 515
1
4,515
1,702
--
Grain1tdion
Total rarms •..........•.
Total acres operated ...... __________
Crop seres operated __ .. __________ . _
a ••••••••••
37
1,055
768
4
7
--
l, 702
Total farms ..•....•..........•••.••
Total acres operatoo .••..........•.
Crop acres operated .•.....•...•••.•
97
156
387
318
494
407
63
511
3M
41
612
431
46
33
832
59
210
171
88
348
22
39
477
19
20
649
312
31U
445
lW
211
668
486
19
818
611
10
385
249
284
55
459
376
33
162
131
40
38.,
21
511
32'2
429
22
658
3113
20
MU
15
12
832
ll30
19
246
:m
22
16
505
403
555
445
2
678
2
678
623
623
1
1
980
700
980
700
5.'14
5
609
467
533
140
'f
m
--
--
-
-
-<
6
l
160
Row-crop 1tdion
£
~
i
-'i
0
0
~
-n
Total farms •..••......••••••..•••..
Total acres operated •••....••.••••..
Crop acres operated ................
324
211
400
2
WI
333
Grain ,tction
Total farms ........................
Total acres operated .... _... _.. _... _
Crop acres operated ............••..
• Data not available for l fllrm.
I
703
483
577
13
376
242
735
468
3
347
220
:g
6
371
291
CURRY
0
VI
C
HALE
--
1
1
960
390
960
390
-
-
~
:;11:11
-f
.-a,►
Ul
....•
~
190 • FARMING HAZARDS IN THE DROUGHT AREA
Ta&/e 66.-Average Value of Farm Buildings and Estimated Cost of NHded Repairs
per Farm on Selected Farms in Representative Counties in the Southem Great Plains,
by Size of Farm, 1935
Number or f&nru1
reportlnc
Ccat a t ~ repairs
Value or bulldlnp
Count:, and slu of tum
Total
Owned
Total
Dwelling
Other
Total
Dwell1ng
OU.
- - - - - - - - - --- - - - - - - --DAI.LUI
.Roll,,crop m!OII
Total ramu, ___________
Lea than 281 IICffll. _________
43
30
$2,331
$90U
$1,422
$106
$113
3
11
3
4
342
637
102
ll7
l!O
62
17
13
18
11
6
6
6
879
1,606
2,137
2,412
6,21YJ
22
711
88
17
28
7
10
7
3
7
158
116
8
23
- - - - - - --- - - - - - -
281--440 -----------------441-880 -----------------881-1,llOO
acres _______________
1,801 acres or more ___________
Oralttmtlon
Total farms ____________
Lea than 281 acrm __________
281--440 acres _________________
441-880 - -. _____ -- ________
881-1,600 acres _______________
1,801 acres or more ___________
- - -1 - - -1
13
11
Sf2
II06
IIOO
867
2, 120
1,280
1,887
3,082
'Jfl1
131
41
47
129
43
1,96(1
776
1,180
143
78
(j1
735
1, 3115
2. 087
2, 7311
2,408
350
560
385
116
107
174
157
168
15
97
100
17
77
70
GS
IIO
828
836
70
8114
1,194
1, 7311
1,614
l, 953
838
I, 115
78
47
514
40
18
78
80
l!O
92
53
17
I, 21IO
628
1,009
776
869
1167
1,437
2,177
64
211
107
II
11
l~
1,142
l, 702
1,363
1,745
I, 796
2,396
3,467
94
1511
II
78
311
33
81
63
47
1,615
6eD
1165
93
113
40
485
90
84
71
51
33
25
62
6
893
1,000
811
87
H.U.li
Total farms ___________ -
X-than 121 acres __________
--12
40
8
40
17
121-200 -----------------201-280acres
_________________
281-400 acre, _________________
401~ acres _________________
581-720 acres _________________
721 aCffl!I or more ____________
22
4
XI
693
587
876
8211
959
31
,_
14
11
29
ao
CURBY
ROID-crop uction
Total farm, ____________
Less than 2'lO acres __________
281H17!1 acres _________ ·------380-559 acres ____ .------- --- ..
560-719 acres ___ . ______ . _____ .
--- --- - -9 - - 6
843
358
17
15
JO
6
6
720-879 acres ___ .. ---------· ..
880 acres or more ..... __ . __ ..
II
13
7
5
6
I, 436
2,077
1,828
1,572
1,816
565
862
770
S.'H
/iOO
871
111
33
I, 215
80
1,068
718
1,316
45
183
148
118
121
30
M
47
20
Grain 1tdion
Total farms _______ .....
Less than 280 acres. ___ . _. _..
280---3711 acres _____ ........ __ ..
380-559 acres ___ ... -....... __ .
560-il 9 acres .. ___ . - .. -- -- ....
i21H!7!1 acres _________ ._ ..... .
880 acres or more._ ....... __ .
1
I
46
39
1,334
557
777
1511
93
4
4
1,071
8
5
7
4
7112
I, 469
14
211
98
59
116
157
64
111
39
62
668
446
403
975
1,008
812
40
V
9
8
6
10
625
389
735
864
--- ---
11
I, 564
1,370
1,599
494
556
302
93
48
20II
215
174
41
Data not available for 1 farm.
D1□11,zed hy Goog Ie
SUPPLEMENT ARY TABLES • 191
Tal,le 67.--Percent of Acreage With Mortgages of Record Held by Different Types of
Lending Agencies in Representative Counties in the Southern Great Plains, 1935
Percent of mortgBl(ed acres
Type of lending Bl(ency
Dallam
Curry
Hale
ALL llORTGAGES
Total ..••.••.•.•..••.••• · ..•• ······•··························
100.0
100.0
100.0
Private ..••••••.•••••••...••.•..................••.......•..•.......
CorporRte ...........•..............................•..........•.....
Commercial banks ...•...................................•..•...•...
Federal Land Bank .........................................•.......
FederRl Land Bank Commissioner ................................. .
State lending a,roncies .........................................•..•..
Other ••••••••••••••••••................................•...•...•.•..
23.0
13. 6
I. 7
2.8
12.11
0.4
18.11
38.4
23. 3
62. 6
31.4
100.0
100.0
6. 4
0. 7
43.6
31. l
o.a
FIRST llORTGAGll:S
Total. ..••••.•.••................ ················•·····•·•·•··
100.0
1-----1-----1-
Prlvate •..............•••...•.•.•.•••..•.••.•.••.... • • •··· •· •· •· · · · ·
CorporRte ............•••••..•...•••.........•....•..................
Commercial banks ..••.•............................................
Federal Land Bank.........
. ....•..•..••••.•....................
Federal Land Bank Commissioner .............•..•.................
State lending agunclos ............................•........•..•......
Other ....•.•..•................••.••.•.....•...•...•..•.•.......•...
27. 3
17. 4
51. 4
3.9
2. 7
17.1
0.5
70.8
8.9
18. 3
6.1
0. 5
M.4
:JJ.6
0. 2
Source: County records.
Tal,le 68.-Federal Emer_gency Loons to Farmers in Representative Counties in the
Southern Great Plains, 1934-1935
AU Federal emergency
lonns
JQ34 crop and feed loans 1
1934-1935 feed loans •
County
Total
Dallam .......................
Hale ..........................
Curry ..••....................
$284. 405
10.1. 4f,6
217,217
Average
per farm
$401
5i
151
Average
per farm
Total
$25.1, 5il
m.12r,
li2, 589
I
$3.'\8
3:l
l:JJ
Total
Aver~
per !arm
$30,834
$43
44,341
24
31
44,628
Ont.standing Deeemh(>r 31, 19:l4.
Outstanding FelJruary 28, IOJ5.
Source: Compiled lrom data supplied by the Farm Credit Administration.
1
1
Tal,/e 69,-Acreage and Percent of Total Land Area Tax•Delinquent in Representative
Counties in the Southern Great Plains, 1935
Total acreage tnx•
delinquent, mas
Acroe.ge ta.t•delinquent
County
ol
Numher ol Percent
total hmd
acres
area
Dallam ..•....................
Hale ••.•••.......• . ......•....
Curry .•......................
2.12, 011
2R
2tl2. 23\l
·IO
105,639
12
1934
1932
1933
-
98, 28:l
-
203,847
74, i24
38,411
1931
4,485
58,134
13, i66
43,679
31,098
53,462
Source: Records in offices of county tax assessors.
D1gllized oy
G oog Ie
192 • FARMING HAZARDS IN THE DROUGHT AREA
Ta&/e 70.-Average Indebtedness of Farm Operators Receiving Relief I in Representative
Counties in the Southern Great Plains, by Tenure, April-May 1935
Tenants
Owners
I
Kind of Indebtedness
re,:::rt-
Number
of farms Annp
lndebtedness Chattel
Chattel Other
mort• debts
mort• Other
debts
gages
gages
ref:'•
Realestate
mortgape
DALLAM
Total farms• .•.•
24
$4, 15811
M
Total farms •••..
1
1,000
100
Less than 81 acres .....
81-160 acres ...........
1
1,000
--
100
-
-
--
161-300
-
1&
HALI:
---acres .....•....
Kind of lndebt·
edness (percent)
(percent)
C'ounty and size of
Number Avenge
farm
of farms lndebt·
edn81!1!
ng
- --
"
..
45
29
13
3
IMI
370
100
-
87
119
31
22
66
Ill!
81
45
M
19
CURBY
Total farms •••••
«
1,988
80
12
8
154
352
68
32
Less than 280 BCl'ell ••••
19
18
6
1,138
2,222
4,284
78
12
13
10
10
68
257
374
li62
58
68
32
280-379 acres ••••......
380-MII acres .•........
560-719 acres ..•••.....
721H179 acres ....•... ..
-1
Unknown .......•••...
80
M
--
-
-
42
24
7
3
10
8
-65
-
119
7
-35
42
81
76
91
22
506
881
!:le
Ill
24
II
78
For whom reports were available.
• Size not available.
1
Ta&/e 71.-lndebtedness of Seleded Farmers and of Relief Clients I in Curry County,
N. Mex., by Tenure and Size of Farm, May 1935
Relief clients
Selected farmers •
Size of farm
Owners
Numberof
farms
Tenants
Average
lndebtedness
Number of
farms
Owners
Average
lndebtedness
Numberof
farms
Tenants
Average
lndehtedn81!1!
Numberof
farms
Average
lndebtedn89s
--- --- - - - --- - - - --- --$2,944
22
$4592
$1,988
$352
154
---- ---3 --- -257
----"19 --las than 280 acres ...•.. _...
10
1,081
186
I, 138
68
Total farms .. _.•.•.•••
85
280-379 acres .........•. __ ...
al
17
13
9
16
380-659 acres ... _••.•....•...
560-719 acres ...•............
720-879 acres ••..••..••.. -- ..
880 acres or more ....•....• _.
Unknown ••.•••••...........
-
1,300
6
2,968
5
fi02
613
2,427
3,005
6,895
6
826
3
1
1,346
917
-
-
-
18
6
--1
2, 2'l2
4,284
42
--
7
3
-
119
24
-10
For whom reports were available.
• Data not available for a farmers.
1
Dtgilized oy
Google
374
562
506
881
-
136
SUPPLEMENTARY TABLES• 193
Ta&I• 7!.-Average Value of Farm Assets, Amount of Liabilities, and Net Worth of
Selected Farmers in Representative Counties in the Southern Great Plains, by Tenure,
1935
Tenants
Owners
Curry
Dallam
Item
Row-
Ornin
rrop
ion
section se<"t
(28
(:!O
!arms)
farms)
IJnle 1
Row- Ornfn
(U4
crop
farms) section~
section
(39
(46
!arms) farms)
Dallam
Row-
Curry
Ilale
1
Row-
Grain
crop section
crop
farms) section2
section section
(9
(8
(13
(14
farms) farms)
!arms) farlll!)
Orn.in
(HO
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --Total a.s.sets. $14, 08II $16,265 $13. 522
~.089 $10,104
--- --- --- --- ---
Real estatt> .••..... 10. 704
Machinery. _____ .. I, IOI
Live~tock __ ... ___ .
982
3fi
Farm product., ....
Other _____________ !, 173
Total Jiahilities .•. ____
Mort~a~es:
Real estate._._
Chattel.. ......
Deilnquent ta.,es ..
Other debts .......
$1,917
$1,397
$1,971
$1,M7
$1.038
591
13
534
279
24
Ill()
578
323
488
6S
Z.!O
265
12
115
1117
1,839
491
627
S06
930
232
--- --- ----- --7RI
ii9
00-I
1,002
646
12, 37R
2,021
li7~
80
9.~11
I, ~'98
1.208
1,91!6
6, iOO
gr,
744
141
571
11,490
4,0llO
2,723
8. 201
61J\l
3,61.5
275
37
163
2,345
286
28
64
2,371
711
14
108
863
11
43
1,6'~7
14
138
4, 775
9,432
o. 366
6. ooo
1,000
-442
i87
152
7. 23.'i
I, 195
1,015
108
5/il
68
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --8,225
---
6,828
1,1:m
1r.o
JOI
--Net worth ... 5,S61
---- - - - - - - -3,204
2, 4:io
IGO
-
-
--- --===1=
I
--- - - 354
477
654
I
I
136
150
!.'ii
I, 480
I
Data not a,·ailahle for 2 fanns.
• Data not available lor 3 !arms.
1
o 11i1i2Pd hy
Goog [e
D1gnizcd by
Google
Appendix B
METHOD AND SCOPE OF THE STUDY
AN
ACUTE need for reliable data to be used in formulating feasible
rehabilitation policies in the drought area of the Great Plains was
first manifested in 1934 and the early part of 1935 when, as a result
of a succession of exceedingly unfavorable crop seasons, large numbers
of farmers in the Great Plains turned to relief organizations to obtain
food for their families and their livestock. Accordingly, in February
1935 a project was outlined by a research committee set up by a conference of State and regional rehabilitation directors and agricultural
economists from State colleges to obtain data which would show:
(1) In which sections of the area a rural rehabilitation program is
needed;
(2) Wha.tis needed to rehabilitate farmers;
(3) What use can best be made of the natural resources in the
area.;
(4) What the burden of fixed costs to be met is and whether or not
the normal farm income is sufficient to meet them;
(5) Whether or not permanent rehabilitation will involve an
increase in the size of farms;
(6) What percent of the farmers have a. chance to be rehabilitated
in their present location;
(7) What disposition can be made of farmers who do not remain
in the area.
Available information pertaining to the drought area was assembled
from weather reports, soil surveys, reports of the United States Census,
and farm practice studies previously made. The State colleges, State
Agricultural Experiment Stations, State Planning Boards, State
relief and rehabilitation organizations, and other agencies in the
drought area were visited and data. collected from them that were
applicable to the study were assembled. To provide a more complete
picture of the situation in the different sections of the Great Plains,
195
o 11i1i2Pd hy
Goog [e
196 • FARMING HAZARDS IN THE DROUGHT AREA
13 counties (table A) distributed throughout the drought area 1 were
selected from which more detailed information was obtained. The
counties studied were selected to represent different conditions in the
Great Plains, and an attempt was made to select counties which would
be representative of the larger surrounding areas. Two counties
located in reasonably good farming areas, Traill County, N. Dak., and
Moody County, S. Dak., and one county embracing a portion of an
irrigated area, Goshen County, Wyo., were included in the selected
counties to determine if possible areas wherein farmers from the
stricken areas might relocate.
Factors considered in selecting counties for special study were:
(1) Climatic conditions;
(2) Soil type;
(3) Systems of farming;
(4) Proportion of farmers on relief;
(5) Available data for the area.
Data assembled in each of the selected counties were:
A. From county records:
(1) Tax delinquency in 1934, and previous years' delinquency where available;
(2) Farm mortgages of record;
(3) A map showing the location of taxing units and a
record of tax rates for recent years.
B. From Agricultural Adjustment Administration contracts:
(1) Land-use map showing cropland and grass land;
(2) Size of units operated in the county and acres of crop
and grass land in each unit;
(3) Land owner and address;
(4) Land operator and address.
C. From records of county director of the Emergency Relief
Administration or the poor commissioner:
(1) Number and location of farmers on relief;
(2) Size of farm operated by client;
(3) Tenure;
(4) Number of livestock;
(5) Number of dependents;
(6) Financial status;
(7) Relief history.
1 No county was selected in Montana because basic information had already
been assembled by the State Agricultural Experiment Station. No county from
the wheat areas in Kansas was studied because conditions in the distressed areas
were fairly well represented by counties in adjoining States.
D gil1zed by
Goog [e
METHOD AND SCOPE OF THE STUDY • 197
D. From records of the State or local rehabilitation office:
(1) Number and location of applicants for rehabilitation;
(2) Data similar to those obtained for relief clients.
E. From records of the county agricultural agent:
(1) Number of livestock purchased by the Government
during the Emergency Livestock Purchase Program;
(2) Payments made to the farmers and to those holding
liens and mortgages on livestock sold.
F. From farm survey records (see schedule):
(1) Data. on the organization of farms;
(2) History of crop production;
(3) Adequacy and condition of buildings, machinery,
and equipment;
(4) Production of livestock,
(5) Income for the year 1934 and for normal years;
(6) Financial condition of the farm operators;
(7) Financial progress made by farmers in the area.
The farms surveyed in each county were selected at random within
the crop-producing areas. Sufficient farms were surveyed in each
area. to give a reliable sample. In those counties where different
type-of-farming areas prevailed as a result of a marked difference in
soil or topographic features, ea.ch farming area was sampled and
tabulated separately. The counties surveyed, the number of farms
reported in the selected counties by the United States Census of
Agriculture in 1935, the number of sample farms surveyed, and the
percentage of all farms surveyed are shown in table A.
Table A.-Total Farms in Representative Counties in 1935 and Number of Farms
Surveyed
Sample tanns
Representative counties
Total
tanns, 1935
Number
Divide County, N. Dak ........................................... .
Hettinger County, N. Dak ........................................ .
Sheridan County, N. Dall: ......................................•...
Hyde County, S. Dak ..••....................................•.....
Traill County, N. Dak .••..........................................
Moody County, S. Dak ..............................•·....•...•....
1,576
Percentot
total
1,358
52
87
4.2
5.1
5.0
8.3
3.3
6.4
i~:rf:i'!°c~~~;;1-J::~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Goshen County, Wyo ............................................. .
Cheyenne County, Colo ........................................... .
1,444
958
I, 538
671
57
73
75
50
3.11
7.6
4.11
8.3
Dallam Connty, Te:r . ............................................. .
Hale County, Tex ........•.........................................
Curry County, N. Mex •...•........................................
701l
l,&,9
1,436
80
II. 3
156
8. 4
JIO
7. 7
1,235
I, 147
581
1,557
66
63
57
48
0 g11iwd by
Goog Ie
198 • FARMING HAZARDS IN THE DROUGHT AREA
The averages for size of farm, acres of crops, and number of livestock per farm obtained from the sample conform closely to data
reported by the census except in those counties having extreme
differences in types of farming. As the sample obtained in this study
was one primarily of family-sized crop-producing farms, some variation from the county average is to be expected in areas containing
large tracts of ranch land.
Because of differences in climate, soils, and types of farming practiced,
the Great Plains region was divided into three areas for the analysis
of the data and the preparation of reports. Divide, Hettinger,
Sheridan, and Traill Counties, N. Dak., and Hyde and Moody
Counties, S. Dak., were considered representative of the Northern
Great Plains; Sherman and Perkins Counties, Nebr., Goshen County,
Wyo., and Cheyenne County, Colo., were considered representative
of the Central Great Plains; and Dallam and Hale Counties, Tex., and
Curry County, N. Mex., were considered representative of the
Southern Great Plains.
D1□11,zed hy Goog Ie
METHOD AND SCOPE OF THE STUDY • 199
FARM REHABILITATION SURVEY
[DROl'GHT AREAS]
State___ ---------- - - --- --- - ------ - -----County _____________________________ _
M. C. D. _____________________________ _
Operator ___________________ .. __________ . ___ . __ ._______
Address ______________ . _____ .... ____ . __ ._ .. ____________
Record __ . _________ . . __________________ _
Landlord _____ . __ ..... _.. _____ ._ ... _. _______ . ____ _
Address _______________ . _________________________ _
USE OF LAND
Native gra..s.s
Rental
Former
c-rop•
land
Cropland
Hay
Pasture
Total
---------------·!--- --- ---- ---- --- --- --Owned .. ------------ · -·· · · •-----
Arrtl
Arre.!
Acrt1
Aerts
Arrr8
Rhnrerent________ _____ ________
::,;;:
:
Total operated____________
lrrig,,led:
~;·;~:L:::::::::::::::::
______________ _
_______ ----····
Cash rent.______________________
______________ _
··. . ... . I
·.·.~. :::···· ···•••• ····••••
_
1
:1
·1 -·
-
Legal description: S. ------------------------- T. ------------------------ R. ------------------------Type of soil: S. acres _______________ SI. acres _____________ L. aerflS _____________ C. acres ______________ _
Type or subsoil ______________ .. ___ .... ________ .. ____ .. ____ .... ___ ... ____ -- ___ . _.. __ . __ . __ . __ ------. ______ _
Topography: Level acres .... ___ . __________ Rolling acres ....... _________ Rou~h acres _________________ _
Water erosion:
Gullied acres ____________________
Washed acres ___________________
Sbeetacres ______________________
Top. ------- ------------------Top.
'l'op.
Soil type ________________________ _
Soil type ________________________ _
Soil type ________________________ _
Wind erosion:
Severely damaged acres___________________________________ Soil type ________________________________ _
Slightly damaged acres __________________ -----··---------- Soil type ________________ ----------------Weed problem:
Kind _______________ . __ . _______ . Notes _____________ . ___ .________ Acres. __ . ______________________ .•
Kind___________________________ Notes ____________________ .----- Acres._ --- ___ ·------------- -----Alkali land: Acres__________________________ Soil type_________ _________
Former cropland: Last cultivated .. _________________________ Why abandoned __________________________ _
Present vegetation____________________________________ Physical condition _____ . _______ . ___ . ____________ _
Condition of pastures•.. ------------------------ _____ • Percent or normal. __ . ____________ . __ . ___ . _______ _
Kinds or grass. __________________ ------ .. _._------- _______________ ----------- ____________________________ _
Carrying capacity: Acres per head mature cattle, 1935 __ ---------------------- Normal _________________ _
rse ... ______________________ _
oiglli ro hy
Goog Ie
200 • FARMING HAZARDS IN
THE DROUGHT AREA
State••..•.. -· -_-... -· -. -·-· - .....
County •.. _. ____ . ______ . ___ . ____ . ____ -·
Record ••• ·- - - -- - - - -··-·-·- -··-·-··· -· -·
BUILDINGS
Number
Kind
Size
Material
Future
Ille
Advised
repairs
Value or
building
(1935)
Dollar,
DweUtnc ....... ·-····-·-·-·-- ---·····-· ·- ·-·····•-··- -------··--- --······-··- ···········- ----··-·---·
Bam ............. ·-·-···-····- --·--··----- ---·---···-- -------·-·-· -·------·--- -···-·-···-- ---·--·---··
Dairy building._ ••.. -·-·-··-··-·····-·--------··-··--·--·-·-····---·-·--·····---··-·-·-·-·---···--····
Poultryhouae ... ___ ··-----··· -··-·------- ·---··------ ·------··--- ·---·----·-- ·•··-···-·-- ---··--··-··
Bog house._. ___ ··---·--··-·-···--·--·-•------------·-----··-···-·-···-·-····----·-·---·--·····---·-··
Machine shed ..•. _.... -·•--·---·--·······-·--·---·----·--··-··-·-----···--··----·-··---··-·--···---···
Granary·····-·--···-·---·--··---------·---·-··------------·--··-·-··---··------····-···----···--·--··
Com crib •••...•.•......•... --····-·-···-----·---·-----···-····----·-··---··----·--·-------·-··-·····Ge.rsge...•••.•.. -._--·--·-·-·- --······-·-· -·---····--- -········--- --·-·---·-·- -···--··-·-- ·-····-·····
Silo.• _•••••••••• - •• ··-·-·----- ······--··-- --········-· ·••·-······- --·----····· ------------ ···---·-····
Fenoes_·········-·-·--··--·--- --·-··----·- -···---····- ---·-·----- · ------------ ------------ ---·-- ··-···
Water system.... •-·-·-·-·-----·····-·-·-- -------·---·i----·--···-- ----··-···-- ·•··-···---- ····--······
FREQUENCY OF CROP DAM.~GE
Damage
O=·
Crop
Kind
Total
Hair or
more
Less than
hair
reooe
Total
Y,ar,
Ytar•
Y,ar,
Ytar•
Ytor,
Hall ••••.•••.•..•.•••..• _. ____ --··--··------····-··----·-·--··-----·-·······---·····-·····--·······-··
Rust. •••••.•.• ·-·-·-·---·-··-·-----·---------··-···-·----·--··---- -·······--·- ---·-······· --···-······
Flood-·-·····----·---·---·---·--·------··-------··-------·-·----·--·-·-·····----·····------··--·······
fo'i1'B'f~;tiiii:::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::: :::::::::::: :::::::::::: :::::::::::: :::::::::::: ::::::::::::
Frost. .. •··-··--··---·---·--·· -----·-·-·-- -----·-···-- ····-·-··-·- ---·······-- -·-··--·-··· -····-·-····
Hoppers .. ---·····-····--·-·----···---------·-----·----·-·····---- -·---·-·---- -··········· --··-······Other insects •••••.•• ····---- -···-···-·-- ---····--·-· -·····---··- ··-·-·-···-- -···--····-- ······-····-
FREQUENCY OF YIELDS (PER SEEDED ACREAGE)
Crop
Failure
Low
Good
AveMge
Total
Wheat:
Bushels ••.....••...•.••..... -···-_-·._ . __ ···- ·--.
Ye!ll'S•••• -···············-··········--- -········--· --····------ -----·-·---
·--·-···-·-- --···-···-··
Barley:
Bush~I, .•..•••••....•• ·-·-·-········-· --·---···- _ ·-···------- --------··-· ·-··--··--·- ---·-···--··
Years••••.•.•••.•.••••..•.•• ·-···-·-··-----····-·----··-···-·-· •·-••--··--- --········-· ··••····•··•
Oats:
Bushels ••.........••.•...••••..... _. __ -·····-·····--·--·-·---·---·····------·-······---····-···--·
Years ..••••....••••••.•••••••.•....••.. ············-·····-··--- --··-······- -···-······- -···········
Corn:
Bushels ..•..••••••••••••••••• ··--·.·-- ······--··- _ .... -·-. -·· __ -·· -····· __ . ·-·····-··. _••• ··-. -· .•
Years••••.•••••••••••••••••••••••.•••.. -·········-··--·-·-·--·- ---·······-- -·-········· ·•••·•••·•·•
o a,,,,pd by
Goog Ie
METHOD AND SCOPE OF THE STUDY • 201
State .••••••.••••.•.•.•••.•.••••....•
County ••.•........•..••.•••••...•••
Record ••.•.•..••...•..••..••......••
GROSS INCOME, 111:W
USUAL GROSS INCOME
DoUar,
&mru
Crop l!Sles ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Livestock sales .•.••••••••••••.•••.•••••
Livestock products .•••.••...•.......•.•
AAA wheat contract ••••••••..••.......•
AAA hog contract ••••..•..•.••.••.....•
ERA .•.••••••••••••••••••••.•••...•.. ·•
Other....•.•••...•...•••••••••.•••..•..•
Total •.••••.••......•..........•.•
VALlIE OF PRODUCTS USED IN HOME
What was usual gross cash Income$ ....•••••..•...•
Sources or Income:
Crops%.............. Livestock% ...•.•..•.•
Nonfarm% ••••..••••.•.•..............••••••••
Was Income sutl!clent to pay expenses 1••••••••••••
Accumulate capital •••••.•.••••.........•...••
Reduce debts ....•.••............•....••.•..••.
In how many years was farm income sutl!clent to:•
Pay farm and living expenses ........••••••••.•
Accumulate capital or reduce debts .•...••.••••
Total years reported ..•...•........•...•.....
What size of farm should one man operate to provide
adequate family Income .•••••••••••.•..•..•••..••
Kind
Dollar,
Dairy products •••.•••.....•.•.........•
Poultry products ...••••••••••••••••••.•
Meat .........•.•.•..•..•......•.......•
Crop and garden........................
• ..•••••••.....••••....•.•........•..•..............
Was this Income sufficient to pay living expenses... What type of farm .....•••••.••••.•••••.•.•••••••••
Was It sufficient to accumulate capital or reduce
debts ..........••••••••••••••••..•.•••.•••.•••••..
1
Question on orlglnal schedule.
• Question on revised schedule.
COMMUNITY INSTITUTIONS, 1934 1
C'ontrlhutlons
Institution
Membership
Money
Goods
Re~ular attendance•
Time
- ~
Dollar,
Ilouu
Yt1
No
Ye,
No
~fu'l!h................................................................ ·•········ .......... ··········
1
Any member or members of household.
• Dair or more or meeting,i.
FAMILY COMPOSITION
Relationship to head
1.
2.
3.
4.
Age
Sex
I
Workln~ on
Working
Seeking
this rarm
elsewhere
work
Head .•••.•••••.•••.....••••.•............. ·········· ·········· ············ ············ ············
·············••·••··········••············· .......... ·········· ................................... .
······························••··•········ ··•······· ····•····· ....•................... ··•••···•···
•..•• ••••·••··•············•••••••···••·•·· ·••······· ...... •··. ···••······· ·····•·· .......•.••.••..
6 . ......•........•.............••............ ···••·••·· ·········· ········••·· ·······•···· ············
,............................................
II ••... •••·•··••··•····•· ···········•··· ...... ··• ........ ·•······· .. ···••····· ....•..•.•.......••.••..
··•······· ········ .......................... ············
8. ··········································· ······•··· ...................... ············ ........... .
9. ····•······••••••······•···•··············· ...•..•••. ···•······ ·····••····· ···••······· .••••.•••••.
10.......•...•......•.•.......•.......•.........•...••.......••... ·····•· ··••· ...••..•••...••.•••••...
11. ••..•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.•....•... ··•·····•· ·····•···· •.•••••••••• ••••••·••••• ••••••·•••••
12.••••• ···················•·••··············· ··•••••••· ••••••••••.•••••••••••. ••••••••••· ..••••••••••
1
Include all members of household as or April t, 1935.
D gillzed by
Google
202 • FARMING HAZARDS IN THE DROUGHT AREA
State _____ ----- - ---------- - - - - - - - ---County________ • ____________________ _
Record ------------------------- --- -
CROP ACRES AND PRODUCTION, 1Q30--lg:J6
1933
1935
Crop
a~':;_
Acres Acre.s
seeded seeded tlon
I
1932
1931
1930
Acres ~ Acres ~ Acres ~ Acres ~
seeded tlon I seeded tion I seeded tlon I seeded tlon 1
Wheat on fallow:
Spring _________________ _
Durum _________________ _
Winter _________________ _
Other
wheat:
Spring
_________________________________ _
Durum ___________________ --------------------·--------------------- __________________________ _
Winter ____________ -------------J'lax ___________________
-- ---- - --- - --_
Barley
_____________________________
Oats. ________________ - _
Rye __________________ _
Corn:
Orafn ____________ _
Fodder __________ - Silage _____________ ---- Grain sorghwn _____________ _
Sorgo _________________ Hay:Smallgrafn ____________________________________________________________________________ _
Sweet clover_____________
Alfalfa_____________
Alfalfa seed____________
Sweetcloverseed______
Potai-_______________
------- ------- ------· -----·- ------- -------
_______ ------- _______ ··----- _______ ------- ------- _____ _
------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -----______________________________________________________ _
______________________________________________________ _
Fallow ____________________________________________________________________________________ _
Idlecroplao1d. _______________________ ··--•-- _______________________________________________ _
Annual pasture _____________________ _
Total cropland _______ _ :::::: ______________ .:::::: ::::::: ::::::: ::::::: ::::::: ::::::: ::::::: ::::::
Native hay ___________________ _________________________________ _ _________________________________ _
Native pasture___________________________________________
_________________________________ _
1
Report total bwhels, tons, or pounds produced.
NOTII.-Wrlte In crops not speciJ!ed hut grown on farm.
I
0 gi11zed by
Goog Ie
METHOD AND SCOPE OF THE STUDY • 203
State ••••••••••••••• • ••.•••.•••.•••••
County ••.•.......•.....•......•...•
Record ............ ·················
LIVESTOCK RECORD FOR 1934-35
Kind
Aprill,
1934
To
Died
Clov•
ern•
~:I~ Bought Born
Other
meat
Numbn Number Number Numb,r Number Number Numbtr Numbn
Milk cows................ ··•·-•· . . . . . . . . _
........ ........
.. . ....
.
Beefoows .••.•.•....................................................................
Steers:
2yearsorolder ..............................................................................••
I year •.•............................................................................. . ........
Heifers ..••••...•.......................... . ...................•....................................
Ce.Ives .•••.•...................................................................•...................
Bulls..••••.••...................... •-·····-·-······ .....••....................•...............•...•
Brood sows ...•.................... ·-·····- ..........•...... _.....................................•
Shoats ..••••.................................•......•.•........................•..............••...
Pigs .••.•••.•....•..............................••.••.••.......................................•....
Boar ........••..••.....•...... . ..............•.••••...................•...............•.......••...
Bree<lingewes .................................•••...................•.........................•...
Lambs .•••.....................................................................................•..
Rams .....••.•..................... ·•·-···· .....•.............................................•...
Chickens ..•••...................... ·•·-···· ......................................................•
Turkeys •..••..... -······· ..........................................•..........•...............•.•
Ducks .....•..•.........................................................•.....•..............•...••
Work stock........ ........ ........ ... . .
. ..............................•..............•..•
Colts.........•.•................................. -·•····· .............•.......•.....•...........•
Other horses •...•..............•.................................•..........••••......•...••.....•
N oteio on livestock
Breeds ...•....•....................
Age marketed ........... . . ........... .
Feeding practice ..... . . .. . . . .
Cattle
Sheep
Hogs
Poultry
Horses
I ·• •·• ..... ·················•········-················-····
Are cattle confined to pasture recorded on p. I. . . . . . . . . . _......... ·••- ................................ .
U not, what acreage ls Wied •••••••••••••••.•.•.•.........•.........•.......•.•.•....•..•••.•••.•.•.•.•••••
Age of work stock on hand April I, 1935:
Less than 7 years No ..•..............
8to12years
No ................•
13 years and older No ...............•.
D1gilized oy
G oog Ie
204 • FARMING HAZARDS IN THE DROUGHT AREA
State_._ ............•...........•.•..
County .••.•...•.•••••••.•••.......•
Record .• _..............•.•.•.•.•••••
MACHINERY AND EQUIPMENT
Kind
Make
Age
N-ry
repairs
Present
value
Dollar,
Dnllar,
TractOl'••••••••••••••••••• _••• _••.• - ••••••. ····--······ --········-· -··········· ·········--- ·•••••·•••••
Stationary engine ••.... -·- __ ••. _·-·· ...•..... ·-·· ...•.. _....... ··- .•........ -· .... ···-. __ .. -·· .......•
Combine •..•••...•.•......... _._ ...••..... ···-········--····-····· ......•.•.•• ········-··----·········
Binder .•••.•.•.•.•.....•.. ·-····-············-·······-······-·-··-·-··-····--- ............ ·----·······
Header ..••..••.•.•••....... _._··-·········-··········---·····················- ...............•...•...•
Thresher ...•••.•...•... ··········-·-····· .. -· ......•.. __ ......•........... ··-· _...............••.•.•.•
Wlndrower·-·················-··-········· -·········-· --·····-·-··- -·····-····- ..................•....•
Moldboard plow ...•...•.•......•.••.•.... ···········-····-·-·---· ·······-·--- ................•••..••
Lister ..............•.....•.•...•..•.•..... --··················--·- --······-·- ............ ······-·····
l•waydlsk. __ ······-······················ ··--····--·- ---·------·· ······-·•··- ............ ······-·-···
Tandem disk ..... ·-·······--···-·-······-·--·········-·-···--·•--·····-············-·····- ·····--·····
Sln~ledlsk ......••••.•.•...........•...... ·-·········- ·•·····-•-·· --····-···-- ·-·········· ......•..•.•
Field cultivator.·························--·········-············-··-·-·····•···-·--··---· ...•...•...•
Duck foot_-······--··· ... ···············-. --······--. . -·-·----·· .. ··- ··-. ... . -·· --·--· .. _····-·····
Sprlngtootb.•.••..•. -·················-·-- --······--· ·-···-····· ····-····--· ··--········ ........••••
Rod weerlrr. •••......................... -- --····---··
·--···-•··- ··-··-·····- ..........••
Disk drill.·····························--- --······-·· _ .. -·· ..... ·- ·- .....••... ·········-. -···········
Press drill ..•.....•...............•.•..... __ ······- ·- _.. _-· -·.. ... . . ...•.•••.... -· ...•............••••
Deep-furrow drill.. ... -........•...•... ··-- ·-·· -·· -·-·· _·-··-··· ··- ........••.. ·-· ....•.... -··-········
:~: gl~d!:-~·:::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::: ::: ::: :::::: ::::: ::::: :: ::: ::: :::::: :::::::: ::: : .::: ::::::::
Com plrker .•...••.•.•... ·--·---·-·····•-· ·-··--·-··-· ---··-····- ........... -·-·-··---·· ··········-·
Corn sheller .......•.......•... •--···-···-- ··--·-·····- ··--·····--- -··········· ·•·-····•·-· ·····-······
EnsllagA cutt~r ···········--··········-··. _ . ··-. ·····-. ----······-- .........•.. ········- ·-- ..••...•...•
Rowcultlvetor ...•••..•.•• _._············· -··········- --········-- ............ ·-·········· ·····-··-···
Llstrrcultlvator•••..•••...... _.•. __ ....... ···-····-·-· ·-········-- ·-•·····-··- ··-········· .....•.•••.•
Stalk cutter .•.•••.••••••.•.•.....••...... _-··-·········-········-····-·······-··········-· ....•..•••.•
Packer_ ... ·- .........•••.......•.....•...... -· .... ··-· _-·· .... ___ - .. __ - _--- .. - .......... _....•. ·- ..•.•
Spik&-tootb barrow ••••.... ·-····-·······- ··-····-···· ·-····-·-·-· · ··--·---·-- ..... : ...... ········-···
Mower_ •..............•.•............................. -········--· ··-···-····· ·········•-· ··-·••··--··
Dump rake ...•..•.............•........... -··········· ·········--- ····-··-··-· ··-········· ··-·····-···
Sirlerake .................................. -·········-· ·-·······-·- ··---------- -··········· -···········
Sweep rake ...•..•.•••.•.••..........•...........•...•...... __ -··· _ . -· _·- __ . -·· -· ....•..•••......••••.•
Hay stacker ..••.•••...•.••.. -·· .....••..........•...... _... ·- .. ··- __ ..... ___ .... -· ......•. _....•...•••
Trnck .••••••.•••.•.•....•.• ·-·····-······· ········-··· ····-······· --·-··-·•··· ···-········ ...•..••...•
Auto ...•••••••••••.......•••.•.•.••.•.... ··-········· ····-··-···· -··········- ······-··-·· -···········
Wap;on ..••.••••••••••.•••••••.••••••••...•....•••••••• -······-···· ·-·········· --·-··---··- -·-·········
Pack wagon •...•••••••••••••••...•.••••• __ ..•••••••••• ············--··········-···········-···········
Manure sprearler .•••••.••••.•••••••••••••...••••••••.•.••••••••... _•........•. ··········- _ .•.•••...•••
Cream aepe.rator ••.••••••.•••••••••••••••••••••••••••......•••••••. -··········· -·······-··· ••••••....••
0 gi11zed by
Goog Ie
METHOD AND SCOPE OF THE STUDY • 205
State_____ - ------- -- --.. -- -- . ---- -- -- --County •• __ . __ . _______________ --- --- ---
Record_-------·- ----------- -----------FINANCIAL CONDITION
Indebtedness
Unpaid
- - - - - - - - - - - - , , - - - - - I Interest
Kind
Original
amount
Due
date
rate
Interest
Prin cipal
Total
due
Credi- Debt adtor
~:~t
-----------1--- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Real estate:
Dollar, p.,.crnt
Dcllar, Dollar, Dollar,
First mortgage
____________________________
-------------···----------·---------------------------_
Bec-0nd
mortgage
_______________________________________________________________________________
Land purcbasecontract ____________________________________________________________________________ _
Chattel
mortgages:
Livestock
______________________________________________________________________________________ _
Machinery ______________ --------· _________ --------- ____________________________________________ _
Cro~fi~:::::::::::::::::: ::::::::: ::::::::: ::::::::: ::::::::: ::::::::: ::::::::: ::::::::: :::::::::
Iudl(Tllent
--------- --------- --------- --------· --------- ----···-------··· -----------------_
Unsecured___________________
notes __________________________________________________________
_________________
Open accounts ______________________________________________________________________________________ _
Tiuesdellnquent ___________________________________________________________________________________ _
Water assessment_ _________________________________________________________________________________ _
Other _______________________ -----------------------------------·---------------------------·--------
Total__________________ --------- --------- ------·-- --------- --------- --------- --------- ·-------ASSETS
Kind
Value
Equity
Notes
Real estate (th~ farm) ____________________________________________ Acres.
Machinery___________________________ . ___ . _______________________ . _________ . __ . _. _____________________ _
Livestock _________________________ ..... ________________ . __________ .. _____ .. _. __ . __ . ____ . _________ . _____ _
Farm products____________________ . __ . _... _. _____________________ ... _________ . _. ________ . __ . _______ . ___ _
Cash on hand _________________________ -------------- ------------·· __ . _____ .. ---------------------·-----Notes reoeivahle .. __________________ . _ . --- ____ ------ _--· __ -------- _______________ --- ------. __ .• ·-· _____ _
Accountsreceivable _______________ . ___ .. ________ . ________ . ________ .. ______________________________ . __ . __
Insurance (ca.sh value) ___________________________________________ . _____________________________________ _
Other real estate _______________ .. __ ... __ --· __ . _--- . _ --- __ ----- ______ ---- ... --- . -· __ .. __ --- _. __ . __ . _____ _
Personal property_____________ ._ ... ________ --------- ----. --· ---- _. _____ --- . ----- -------------- ------ _--Other assets __ ----------------- --- . ___ . - ---- --- ----. -- -- -- - -- -- -- ... -------·. -- . ----------- .. -- --- -----Total. ________________ ----- .. --- -- -- __ . ______ ... ---------- __ . -- -- ------ -----. - ---- ------ ---- .. ---When did you begin farming in area_·------------------------------------------------- Year ___________ _
Tenant------------------------------------·-________ Owner ___________ ----------------- --- ---- --- -----Approximate resourOOS------------------------------ __ Approximate debt_ ________ ._. _____ ._ .. _. ____ .. __
How much additional capital went lnt-0 farm ____________________________________________________________ _
Source of these funds ___________________________ -- --- --- --- . --------------------------------- -- . -- --- -- .. -How much above living expenses was taken out_ __ --------------------------··--------·-----------------Education___ ___________________ Investments _______ . _________ ----- Bank failure_---- -- . ___ . _. -... -·. __
Other_________________ -_. ___ -- -- ---- ---- - -- --- --- --- - --- - --• -- -- -- . - . - -- -- --- --- -- • - -- . --- -- -- . - . - -- -- -- --
D1011,zed hy
Goog Ie
Digitized by
Google
Appendix C
LIST OFT ABLES
TEXT TABLES
Table
Page
I. Average gross receipts per farm on selected farms in representative
counties in the Northern Great Plains, by source of receipts, 1934__
3
2. Date of first relief to farm operators on relief in April-May 1935 in
representative counties in the Northern Great Plains_____________
5
3. Percent of years different causes of crop damage were reported Oil
selected farms in representative counties in the Northern Great
Plains______________________________________________________
16
4. Average yield per harvested acre of important crops in representative
counties in the Northern Great Plains, 1911-1931________________
18
5. Utilization of land on selected farms in representative counties in the
Northern Great Plains, 1934_____ _ __ _ _ _ _ __ __ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ ___ _ __ _
23
6. Average value of farm buildings and estimated cost of needed repairs
per farm on selected farms in representative counties in the Northern
Great Plains, 1935 _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ __ _ __ __ __ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ ___ __ _ __ _ _ _ __ _
32
7. Acreage mortgaged and average indebtedness per acre, mortgages of
record in representative counties io the Northern Great Plaivs, 1935_
33
8. Farm tenancy in representative counties in the Northern Great Plains,
1920, 1930, and 1935 _ _ _ __ _ __ _ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ __ _ __ __ _ __ _ __ _ __ _
37
9. Percent of land owned by different types of owners in representative
counties in the Northern Great Plains, 1935_____________________
39
10. Average gross receipts per farm on selected farms in representative
counties in the Central Great Plains, by source of receipts, 1934_ __ _
43
11. Date of first relief to farm operators on relief in April-May 1935 in
representative counties in the Central Great Plains______________
46
12. Percent of years different causes of crop damage were reported on
selected farms in representative counties in the Central Great Plains_
55
13. Average yield per harvested acre of important crops in representative
counties in the Central Great Plains, 1910-1932__________________
57
14. Utilization of land on selected farms in representative counties in the
Central Great Plains, 1934____________________________________
62
15. Average value of farm buildings and estimated cost of needed repairs
per farm on selected farms in representative counties in the Central
Great Plains, 1935 _ _ _ _ __ _ __ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ __ __ _ __ __ _ __ __ __ _ _ ___ ___
66
16. Acreage mortgaged and average indebtedness per acre, mortgages of
record in representative counties in the Central Great Plains, 1935_ _
68
17. Percent of land owned by different types of owners in representative
rounties in the Central Great Plains, 1935_______________________
70
207
Dig111zed bv
Goog Ie
208 • FARMING HAZARDS IN THE DROUGHT AREA
Table
Page
18. Farm tenancy in representative counties in the Central Great Plains,
1920, 1930,and 1935_________________________________________
71
19. Average gross receipts per farm on selected farms in representative
counties in the Southern Great Plains, by source ol. receipts, 1934__
74
20. Percent of years different causes of crop damage were reported on
selected farms in representative counties in the Southern Great
Plains______________________________________________________
83
21. Percent of years poor yields or failures of important crops were reported
by selected farmers in representative counties in the Southern Great
Plains______________________________________________________
86
22. Utilization of land on selected farms in representative counties in the
Southern Great Plains, 1934____ _______ ___ ___ ____________ ______
89
23. Average value of farm buildings and estimated cost of needed repairs
per farm on selected farms in representative counties in the Southern
Great Plains, 1935 _ _ _ ___ _________ ________ ____________________
95
24. Acreage mortgaged and average indebtedness per acre, mortgages of
record in representative counties in the Southern Great Plains, 1935_
97
25. Type and residence of owners of land in representative counties in the
Southern Great Plains, 1935___________________________________
100
26. Tenure of operators of farm land in representative counties in the
Southern Great Plains, 1934_ __________ __ ______________________
101
'J:1. Farm tenancy in representative counties in the Southern Great Plains,
1920, 1930, and 1935 _ _ _____ __________ __ ______________________
IO 1
SUPPLEMENTARY TABLES
1. Normal gross cash receipts, source of receipts, and adequacy of income
on selected farms is representative counties in the Northern Great
Plains, by size of farm________________________________________
2. Age of farm operators receiving relief in representath·e counties in the
Northern Great Plains and number unable to work, April-May
1935________________________________________________________
3. Number of children of different ages and adult members other than
parents in farm families receiving relief in representative oounties
in the Northern Great Plains, April-May 1935__________________
4. Relative importance of different causes of crop damage on selected
farms in representative counties in the Northern Great Plains, by
degree of loss________________________________________________
5. Average annual yield per harvested acre of important crops in representative counties in the Northern Great Plains, 1911-1931__________
6. Percent of years specified crop yield per harvested acre was obtained
in selected areas in the Northern Great Plains, 1911-1931__ _____ __
7. Average yield per seeded acre of important crops on selected farms in
representative counties in the Northern Great Plains and frequency
of occurrence of yields which were good, medium, poor, or failures__
8. Average yield per seeded acre of important crops on selected farms in
representative counties in the Northern Great Plains, 1930-1934__
9. Financial progress of selected farmers in representative counties in the
Northern Great Plains since beginning farming in the area, by size
of farm, 1935 _____ ______________________ _______ _________ _____
10. Size of farm, number of livcst-0ck per farm, and tenure of farm operators
receiving relief in representative counties in the Northern Great
Plains, April-May 1935____ __ __ __ ___ _____ _____ ___ ________ ___ __
0 gi11zed by
Goog Ie
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
133
LIST OF TABLES • 209
Table
Page
11. Utilization of land on selected farms in representative counties in the
Northern Great Plains, by size of farm, 1934____________________
134
12. Use of farm land on selected farms in representative counties in the
Northern Great Plains, 1934___________________________________
135
13. Average acreage of important crops on selected farms in representative counties in the Northern Great Plains, 1930-1934____________
136
14. Percent of owned and rented land in crops and grass on selected farms
in representative counties in the Northern Great Plains, 1934______
137
15. Number of livestock on band April 1, 1935, and normal number on
selected farms in representative counties in the Northern Great
Plains, by size of farm________________________________________
138
16. Number of selected farms with livestock in representative counties
in the Northern Great Plains, April 1, 1935_____________________
140
17. Utilization of labor and tractors on selected farms in representative
counties in the Northern Great Plains, by size of farm, 1935______
141
18. Acreage operated by specified number of men, with or without tractors,
on selected farms in Sheridan and Traill Counties, N. Dak., by size
of farm, 1935 _____________________ - ___ -- ____ - -- _______ __ _____
142
19. Average value of farm buildings and estimated cost of needed repairs
per farm on selected farms in representative counties in the Northern
Great Plains, by size of farm, 1935_____________________________
143
20. Percent of acreage with mortgages of record held by different types of
lending agencies in representative counties in the Northern Great
Plains, 1935_________________________________________________
144
21. Federal emergncy loans to farmers in representative counties in the
Northern Great Plains and loans outstanding, December 31, 1934__
144
22. Average indebtedness of farm operators receiving relief in representative counties in the Northern Great Plains, by tenure, April-May
1935________________________________________________________
145
23. Average value of farm assets, amount of liabilities, and net worth of
selected farmers in representative counties in the Northern Great
Plains, by tenure, 1935_ _ _ ______ ___ ______ ____ __ __ ______ ____ ___
147
24. Normal gross cash receipts, source of receipts, and adequacy of income
on selected farms in representative counties in the Central Great
Plains, by size of farm________________________________________
148
25. Age of farm operators receiving relief in representative counties in the
Central Great Plains and number unable to work, April-May 1935__
149
26. Number of children of different ages and adult members other than
parents in farm families receiving relief in representative counties
in the Central Great Plains, April-May 1935____________________
149
27. Relative importance of different causes of crop damage on selected
farms in representative counties in the Central Great Plains, by degree of loss__________________________________________________
150
28. Average annual yield per harvested acre of important crops in representative counties in the Central Great Plains, 1910-1932________
151
29. Percent of years specified crop yield per harvested acre was obtained
in selected areas in the Central Great Plains, 1905-1934_ ___ _______
152
30. Average yield per seeded acre of important crops on selected farms in
representative counties in the Central Great Plains and frequency
of occurrence of yields which were good, medium, poor, or failures__
153
31. Average yield per seeded acre of important crops on selected farms
in representative counties in the Central Great Plains, 1930-1934__
154
o 11i1ized hy
Goog [e
210 • FARMING HAZARDS IN THE DROUGHT AREA
Table
Page
32. Financial progress of selected farmers in representative counties in
the Central Great Plains since beginning farming in the area, by size
of farm, 1935__ _____ ______ ___ ___ __ ___ ___ ______________ __ ____ _
155
33. Size of farm, number of livestock per farm, and tenure of farm operators
receiving relief in representative counties in the Central Great
Plains, April-May 1935____ __ _ ____ ___ _____ ____ ___ _____________
34. Utilization of land on farms having corn-hog contracts in representative counties in the Central Great Plains, by size of farm, 1934_ ___
35. Utilization of land on selected farms in representative counties in the
Central Great Plains, by size of farm, 1934______________________
36. Percent of owned and rented land in crops and grass on selected farms
in representative counties in the Central Great Plains, 1934______
37. Use of farm land on selected farms in representative counties in the
Central Great Plains, 1934_ _ __ ___ _________ _____ __________ ___ __
38. Average acreage of important crops on selected farms in representative
counties in the Central Great Plains, 1930--1934________________
39. Number of livestock on hand April 1, 1935, and normal number on
selected farms in representative counties in the Central Great
Plains, by size of farm________________________________________
40. Number of selected farms with livestock in representative counties
in the Central Great Plains, April 1, 1935______________________
41. Utilization of labor on selected farms in representative counties in the
Central Great Plains, by size of farm, 1934_ _____________ _____ ___
42. Average value of farm buildings and estimated cost of needed repairs
per farm on selected farms in representative counties in the Central
Great Plains, by size of farm, 1935 _____________________________
43. Percent of acreage with mortgages of record held by different types of
lending agencies in representative counties in the Central Great
Plains, 1935_________________________________________________
44. Federal emergency loans to farmers in representative counties in the
Central Great Plains, 1934--1935_______________________________
45. Average indebtedness of form operators receiving relief in representative counties in the Centro.I Great Pia.ins, by tenure, April-May
1935________________________________________________________
46. Percent of farm land held by resident and nonresident owners and tenure of operators in representative counties in the Central Great
Plains, 1935_________________________________________________
47. Average value of farm assets, amount of liabilities, and net worth of
selected farmers in representative counties in the Central Great
Plains, by tenure, 1935_ __ __ ______ __ ___________ _______ ______ __
48. Normal gross ca.sh receipts, source of receipts, and adequacy of income
on selected farms in representative counties in the Southern Great
Plains, by size of fa.rm_ __ __ __ ___ __ ________ ________ ______ ___ ___
49. Age of farm operators receiving relief in representative counties in the
Southern Great Plains and number unable to work, April-May 1935_
50. Number of children of different ages and adult members other than
parents in farm families receiving relief in representative counties in
the Southern Great Plains, April-May 1935_ _ ___ ____ ___ _________
51. Relative importance of different causes of crop damage on selected
farms in representath·e counties in the Southern Great Plains, by
degree of loss________________________________________________
52. Crop yield per harvested acre in selected areas in the Southern Great
Plains, 1905--1933____________________________________________
o 11i1ized hy
Goog [e
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
165
166
167
168
168
169
170
171
172
173
173
174
175
LIST OF TABLES•
211
Table
Page
53. Average yield per seeded acre of important crops on selected farms in
representative counties in the Southern Great Plains, 1930-1934___
176
54. Average yield per seeded acre of important crops on selected farms in
representative counties in the Southern Great Plains and frequency
of occurrence of yields which were good, medium, poor, or failures__
177
55. Financial progress of selected farmers in representative counties in the
Southern Great Plains since beginning farming in the area, by size of
farm, 1935__________________________________________________
178
56. Cropland on farms having corn-hog contracts in representative counties in the Southern Great Plains, by size of farm, 1934. _______ ___
180
57. Utilization of laud on selected farms in representative counties in the
Southern Great Plains, by size of farm, 1934_ _ __________________
181
58. Utilization of land on 1,496 farms having cotton contracts in Hale
County, Tex., by size of farm, 1934____________________________
182
59. Size of farm, number of livestock per farm, and tenure of farm operators
receiving relief in representative counties in the Southern Great
Plains, April-May 1935_____ __ __ ________ ___ __ ___ __________ ____
182
60. Percent of owned and rented land in crops and grass on selected farms
in representative counties in the Southern Great Pie.ins, 1934_____
183
61. Use of farm land on selected farms in representative counties in the
Southern Great Plains, 1934. _____ __ ____ ____ __ ____ _______ _____
184
62. Average acreage of important crops on selected farms in representative counties in the Southern Great Plains, 1930-1934. _____ ___ ___
185
63. Number of livestock on hand April 1, 1935, and normal number on
selected farms in representative counties in the Southern Great
Plains, by size of farm________________________________________
186
64. Number of selected farms with livestock in representative counties in
the Southern Great Plains, April 1, 1935________________________
188
65. Acreage operated by specified number of men, with or without tractors,
on selected farms in representative counties in the Southern Great
Plains, 1934_________________________________________________
189
66. Average value of farm buildings and estimated cost of needed repairs
per farm on selected farms in representative counties in the Southern
Great Plains, by size of farm, 1935_____________________________
190
67. Percent of acreage with mortgages of record held by different types
of lending agencies in representative counties in the Southern
Great Plains, 1935_________ ___ _ ____ ___ __ ____ ___ _ ___ ___ ________
191
68. Federal emergency loans to farmers in representative counties in the
Southern Great Plains, 1934-1935_ ____ ___ __ __ ____ _______ _______
191
69. Acreage and percent of total land area tax-delinquent in representative
counties in the Southern Great Plains, 1935_____________________
191
70. Average indebtedness of farm operators receiving relief in representative counties in the Southern Great Plains, by tenure, April-May
1935________________________________________________________
192
71. Indebtedness of selected farmers and of relief clients in Curry County,
N. Mex., by tenure and size of farm, May 1935__________________
192
72. Average value of farm assets, amount of liabilities, and net worth of
selected farmers in representative counties in the Southern Great
Plains, by tenure, 1935___ _______ ___ ___ ____ _ ____ __ ___ _________
193
01g11i
ro hy
Goog Ie
Index
213
Dig111zed bv
Goog Ie
j
o
g,•· ed by
Goog [c
INDEX
Page
Agricultural Adjustment Administration (see also Livestock Purchase
Program, Emergency):
Livestock purchased by __________________________________ 26, 27, 92, 93
Payments ________________________________________ 2,3,4,42-44, 74-75
Agriculture, development of, in Great Plains_____ __ _ ___ _ ___ _ __ _ __ ___ x111-x1v
Assets, farm, by tenure ___________________ 37-39, 71, 72, 101-102, 147,171,193
Automobiles, farmers' ownership of__________ ___ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ __ _ _ __ __ _ _ _
29
Brown, L. A., Gemmell, R. L., and Hayes, F. A.: Soil Survey of Sherman
County, Nebraska_ __ _ __ _ __ _ __ __ __ _ __ __ _ _ __ __ _ __ _ __ __ __ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ 49n
Brown, L. A. See Mathews, 0. R.
Buildings, farm:
Repairs needed, average cost of_ ________ 31-32, 66-67, 95-96, 143,167,190
Value, average estimated __________________ 31-32, 66-67, 95, 143, 167, 190
Carter, William T., Jr.: The Soils of Texas____________________________
77n
- - - and Others: Reconnaissance Soil Survey of Northwest Texas_______
79n
Census, Bureau of the:
Fifteenth Census of the United States: 1930 _____________________ 68n, 100n
Fourteenth Census of the United States: 1920 ________________ 37n, 71n, 101n
United States Census of Agriculture: 193/j __________________ 20n, 22n, 27n,
33n,37n,58n,59n,60n,61n,7ln,88n,89n,97n, 100n, 101n
Chemistry and Soil!!, Bureau of: Atlas of American Agriculture _________ 7n, Sn,
10n,48n,79n,80n
Climate:
Crop production related to. See Crop, yield.
Drought. See Drought.
Growing season, length oL _______________________ 7, 10, 11, 12, 50, 52, 80
Rainfall (see also Population movements) ________ 7, 10, 12-16, 50-53, 80-83
Temperature____________ __ __ __ _ __ _ __ ___ _ __ ___ __ __ __ _ _ 10, 50, 52, 79--80
Colorado, Yearbooks of the State of ____________________________ 57n, 151n, 175n
Crop:
Damage, causes of, degree of loss, and frequency of_ _______________ 16--17,
55-56, 83-84, 126,150,174
Failure, by type ___________________________________________ 85-86, 177
Loans. See Loans, Federal emergency.
Sales, as source of income _____________ 3-4, 43-44, 74, 75, 123-124, 148,172
Types of (see also Land use) ______________________________ XIII, XIV, xvi,
6--7, 23, 24-25, 41, 46-47, 63-64, 77-78, 90-92, 135, 136, 161,
162, 184, 185.
Yield:
Average per harvested acre ____________ 17-18, 56--57, 85,127,151,175
Average per seeded acre ___ 17, 18, 57, 85-86, 129,130,153, 154, 176, 177
Reporting, method of____________________________________ 17n, 57n
Variation, by year ______________ 17, 18, 19, 56, 57, 84-86, 128,152,177
215
D gillzed by
Google
216 • FARMING HAZARDS IN THE DROUGHT AREA
Drought:
Page
Crop damage caused by ______________________ 16, 1515, 83, 84,126,160,174
Effects of ________________________________________________ 5, 42, 53-M
Occurrence_ _ _ _ __ ____________ ______ ___ 12, 13, 14, 115, 16, 151, 152-153, 80-83
Elliott, F. F.: Typu of Farming in the United Statu __________ 6n, 46n, 47n, 78n
Employment, off-the-farm. See Income.
Erosion. See Soils.
Farm products, home use ___________________________________ 3, 43, 44, 74, 75
Farms (aee also Irrigated areas; Land use; Tractor-operated farms):
Size of_ __________________ 20--23, 58--60, 87-89, 123-124, 133, 148, 157, 182
Type of_ ___________________________________ XIV, XVI, 6-7, 46-47, 77-78
Federal emergency loans. See Indebtedness.
Federal Emergency Relief Administration. See Relief.
Federal Land Bank, mortgages held by _____________ 34, 68, 97-98, 144,168, 191
Federal Land Bank Commissioner, mortgages held by__________________
34,
68,97-98, 144,168,191
Feed and seed loans. See Loans, Federal emergency.
Financial progress, farm operators (3ee alao Land use):
Insolvency ____________________________________________ 4,37-38,39, 72
Net worth, average, by tenure ______ 38, 39, 45, 71, 72, 101-102, 147,171,193
Size of farm and ___________ 1~21, 58--60, 86-87 131-132, 155-156, 178--179
Frost. See Climate, growing season.
Fuller, 0. M. See Willard, Rex E.
Gemmell, R. L.
Hayes, F. A.
See Brown, L. A.
See Brown, L.A.
Income:
By adequacy, size of farm, and source____________________________ 2-4,
42-44, 74-76, 123--124, 148,172
Employment, off-the-farm, as source of_ ________________ 123--124, 148,172
Federal Government as source of ______________________ 2-4, 42-44, 74, 75
Reduction in ________________________________________ 2-4, 42-44, 74-76
Indebtedness (see also Tax delinquency; Tax rat~s):
Amount per farm, by tenure _______ 32, 37, 38--39, 71, 101-102, 147,171, 193
Loans, Federal emergency:
Average number a1.d amount per farm:
Crop, feed, and seed ______________ 34-35, 68, 96, 98,144,168,191
Mortgages (see also Federal Land Bank; Federal Land Bank Commissioner):
Chattel__ ____________________________ 32-33, 67, 75, 96,147,171,193
Lending agencies and acreage mortgaged_ 34, 67-68, 97-98, 144,168,191
Real estate:
Acreage mortgaged and average amount per acre __________ 32-33,
34,67-68, 96, 97-98
Foreclosures, average number per year___________________
33
Relief and nonrelief families compared, by size of farm and tenure___
36,
69, 99, 145-146, 147,169,171, 192
D gillzcd by
Google
INDEX• 217
Irrigated areas:
Page
Crop:
Acreage __________________________________________ 63, 64,161,162
Damage ______________________________________________ 55-56, 150
Yields ____________________________________________ 56-57, 153, 154
Farm:
Buildings ________________________________________________ 66,167
Income _______________________________________________ 42-44, 148
Size:
Financial progreee and ____________________________ 59, 155-156
Land utilization and ________________________ 59, 61-62, 158,159
Farming, types of, in_____ ______________________ __ ______________
47
Financial condition, farm operators in_. _________ __________ ___ 71-72, 171
Labor requirements and size of farm ____________________________ 66,166
Land utilization and tenure _____________________________ 61-64, 160,161
Livestock _______ ----------- _____ - --- -- __ - - _- - --- - _ 64-65, 163-164, 165
Ownership, type of_ _______________________________________ 69-70, 170
Water supply_________________________________________________
55
Johnson·, W. D.:
~
High Plains and It& Utilization___________________
48n
Kansas State Board of Agriculture: Biennial Report& __________ 54n, 152n, 175n
Kincaid Act______________________________________________________
58
Labor requirements, farm (see also Irrigated areas):
Acreage operated and __________________ 30-3i, 65-66, 94-95, 142,166,189
Machinery, ownership of, and. See Machinery.
Tractors, use of, and. See Tractor-operated farms.
Land owners, type oL ____________________________ 39-40, 69-70, 99-100, 170
Land retirement areas _________________________________________ 2, 41-42, 56
Land use:
Crops, percent in, by type ______________ 23-25, 60-64, 89-92, 135,161,184
Size of operating unit and:
Financial progress, relation to ______________________________ 20-21,
58-60,87, 88, 131-132, 155-156, 178-179
Relief status, relation to _______________ 21-23, 60, 88-89, 133, 157, 182
Variation in _______ -- - -- - - - -- - - - - - - -- - -- ------------ XIII, XIV-XVI,
1,2, 20, 22-24,60-62, 87-92, 134,158,159,180,181,182
Tenure and ______________________________ 25, 61, 62, 63, 90,137,160,183
Larson, G. A. See Watkins, W. I.
Liabilities. See Indebtedness.
Livestock (see also Agricultural Adjustment Administration):
As source of income ______________ XIV, 3-4, 43-44, 74-75, 123-124, 148,172
Number:
·
Farms reporting, by type ___________ 26-28, 64-65, 92-93, 140, 165, 188
Reduction in _______________________________________________ XIV,
26, 27, 42, 45, 58,64-65, 75,92-93, 138-139, 163-164, 186-187
Ownership and relief status (see also Relief families) __ 28, 65, 93, 133, 157, 182
Production, areas of_ ________________________ xm, XIV, XVI, 26, 64-65, 92
Livestock Purchase Program, Emergency ________________ 3-4, 42-44, 75, 92-93
McClure, R. W.
See Veatch, J. 0.
01g11i
ro hy
Goog Ie
218 • FARMING HAZARDS IN THE DROUGHT AREA
Machinery (see also Tractor-operated farms):
Page
Repairs, needed, average cost of__ _______ _____________________ ___ 29, 94
Type and extent of use _________________________________________ 29, 94
Use, extent of, and labor requirements ___ 29-31, 65--66, 94-95, 141, 142, 189
Value, average estimated, per farm __ - ___ - . ____ 29-30, 66, 94, 147, 171, 193
Machlis, J. A. and Williams, B. H.: Soil Survey of Hyde County, South
Dakota_________________________________________________________
10n
Maladjustments in Land Use in the United States_______________________
2n
Mathews, 0. R. and Brown, L.A.: Winter Wheat and Sorghum Production
Under Limited Rainfall___________________________________________ 105n
Methodology:
Areas represented _____________________________ xv, 1-2, 41-42, 73-74, 198
Counties in area studied ______________________________ 1-2, 41-4'2, 73-74
Farms, B1J.mple, number in study _______________________________ XVI, 197
Method and scope of study ____ --------------------------- XVI, 195-198
Sample counties in study ______________ xv, 1-2, 41-42, 73-74, 195-196, 197
Representativeness of_ ___________ XVI, 1-2, 41-42, 73-74, 196, 197-198
Sources of data ______________________________________________ 195-197
Mortgages.
See Indebtedness.
National Resources Board _________________________________________ 2n, 19n
Nebraska Agricultural Statistics ______________________________ 57n, 151n, 152n
Nebraska St.ate Board of Agriculture: Annual Reports _________ 57n, 151n, 152n
Owners, farm:
Farm assets, value of. See Assets, farm.
Indebtedness. See Indebtedness.
Net worth, average. See Financial progress.
Type of_ _ _ ____ ___ _______________ ___________ _ 39-40, 69-70, 99-100, 170
Populstion movements __________________________________ • __________ 53-54
Poulson, E. N. See Sweet, A. T.
Rainfall. See Climate.
Real estate, average estimated value per farm _______ 32, 66-67, 96,147,171,193
Rehabilitation families:
Age:
Children, number and ______________ . _____ _____ ____________ 77, 173
!leads____________________________________________________
173
Average loan budgeted_________________________________________
76n
Composition _________________________________________________ 77, 173
Disabilities of heads __________________________________________ 77,173
Livestock ownership __________________________________________ 93,182
Number oL ________________________ . _____ . ________ ·_________ . __ 44, 76
Size of farm _______________________________________________ 88-89, 182
Rehabilitation problems, by region _____________________ 19, 58, 86-87, 103-106
Rehabilitation, suggestions for, in representative counties __________ . __ 106-119
Relief:
Accessions:
Date of first ______________________________________ 5, 45, 46, 76-77
Rea.sons for ______________ ... _ . ____ . _. ______ . ____ 5--6, 45-46, 76-77
As source of income ________________________________ 2-3, 4, 42-44, 74-75
Grants, average monthly ________________ . __ .___________________
76n
Intensity ______________________________________ 1-2, 5, 41-42, 44, 76-77
Tenancy and need for ___________________ 38-39, 77,101, 145-146, 169,182
o g,t, 7 Pd by
Goog Ie
INDEX• 219
Relief families (see also Indebtedness):
Page
Age:
Children, number and ________________________ 6, 46, 77,125,149,173
Heads ____________________________________ 5--6, 46, 77,124,149,173
Disabilities of heads ___________________________ 5--6, 46, 77,124,149,173
Farms, size of, compared to nonrelief farms ______________ 21-23, 60, 88-89
Livestock ownership ____________________________ 28, 65, 93,133,157,182
Net worth____________________________________________________
45
Russom, V. M. See Wolfganger, Louis A.
Sample counties in study. See Methodology.
Size of farms. See Land use.
Soils:
Crop production, related to _____________________________ 7, 10, 49-50, 79
Erosion, wind, extent of_ __________________________ 7, 9, 16-17, 48, 56, 84
Types of_ __________________________________________ 7, 8, 10, 48-50, 79
Steele, Harry A.: Farm Mortgage Foreclosures in South Dakota, 1921-1932__
34n
Strieter, E. H. See Wolfganger, Louis A.
Sweet, A. T. and Poulson, E. N.: Soil Survey of the Fort Sumner Area, New
Mexico_________________________________________________________ 79n
Tables, list of text and supplementary _____________________________ 207-211
Taeuber, Conrad and Taylor, Carl C.: The People of the Drought States____
5411
Tax delinquency ___________________________________ 35-36, 68-69, 98-99, 191
Ta:,; Delinquency of Rural Real Estate in 15 Oklahoma Counties, 1928-33___
98n
Ta:,; Delinquency of Rural Real Estate in 55 Texas Counties, 1928-33______
98n
Ta:,; Delinquency of Rural Real Estate in 10 New Mexico Counties, 1928-33_ _ 98n
Tax rates _________________________________________________________ 69, 99
Taylor, Carl C. See Taeuber, Conrad.
Temperature. Sec Climate.
Tenancy, farm:
Farm assets, value of, and. See Assets, farm.
Problems related to __________________________________ 37-39, 69-70, 100
Ratio:
By region and year __________________________ 37-38, 70-71, 100-101
Residence of owner and_ _ _ _ _ __ _ __ __ __ _ __ _ __ __ _ __ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ 99-100
Relief status and _________________ 38-39, 72, 76-77, 101, 145-146, 169,182
Tenants, farm:
Farm land, percent operated by_________________________________
25,
37,38,39,61,62,63, 70,90, 100-101, 137,160,183
Indebtedness. See Indebtedness.
Net worth, average. See Financial progress.
Topography ______________________________________________ 7, 47-48, 78-79
Tractor-operated farms ___________________________ 30-31, 94-95, 141, 142, 189
Veatch, J. 0. and McClure, R. W.: Soil Survey of the Fort Laramie Area,
Wyoming-Nebraska ____________________________________________ 49n, 50n
Watkins, W. I. and Larson, G. A.: Soil Survey of Moody County, South
7n
Dakota_________________________________________________________
Willard, Rex E. and Fuller, 0. M.: Type-of-Farming Areas in North
Dakota____ ____________ __________ ________________ _______ 18n, 127n, 12811
Williams, B. H. See Machlis, J. A.
Wolfanger, Louis A., Russom, V. M., and Strieter, E. Il.: Soil Survey of
Perkins County, Nebraska_____________________________________
49n, 50n
Wyoming AgricuUural Statistics ______ - _______________________ 57n, 151n, 152n
0
o a,,,,pd by
Goog Ie
01 lh
oyG ogle
@FedFRASER