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