The news in this publi
cation is released for the
press on receipt.
THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA
NEWS LETTER
Published Weekly by the
University of North Caro
lina for the University Ex
tension Division.
MAY 4, 1927
CHAPEL HILL, N. C.
THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA PRESS
VOL. XIII, No. 25
Kditorial Bonrrl; K. C. Branson, S. H. Hobbs. Jr., L. R. Wilson. E. W. Knitjht, D. D. Carroll, J. B. Bullitt, H. W. Odum.
Entered ns second-class matter November 14. 1914, at the Postofficc at Chapel Hill, N. C., under the act of August 24. 1912.
MEAT AND MILK ANIMALS
ME.4T AND MILK ANIMALS ■
The table which appears elsewhere |
ranks the (Xiunties of North Carolina |
on the basis of meat and milk animal i
units per f^rm. In this study horses
and mules have been omitted, attention
being given only to food-producing ani
mals—cattle, sheep, swine and poultry.
In order to determine whether one
county is more 4ieavily stocked than
another, it is necessary to reduce the
different kinds of livestock to some unit
basis. Agricultural economists have
adopted the term animal unit to mean
one mature head of cattle, or a horse,
and have reduced other kinds of live
stock to their equivalent, based on
feed consumed. On the basis of the |
amount of feed required to maintain
stock it is generally agreed that the
following are the equivalents of an
animal unit. /
\ steer or cow 1 animal unit
2 calves or heifers 1 animal unit
Y sheep 1 animal unit
14lambs.. 1 animal unit
5 hogs 1 animal unit
10 pigs 1 animal unit
100 chickens 1 animal unit
in our ini«i pi'etation we have followed
this schedule except, to save work,
we have considered nine sheep and
lambs combined equivalent to one ani
mal unit, and seven hogs and pigs
•combined equal to one animal unit.
The figures from which this table was
prepared are those of the United States
Census of Agriculture, 1926.
Ashe, Buncombe and Hay woood coun
ties lead in the total number of meat
and milk animal units and likewise rank
among the best five on the basis of
such animal units per farm. Other
counties with a relatively large total of
livestock (exclusive of work animals)
are Mecklenburg, Union, Wilkes, John
ston, Guilford, Madison and Wake. Five
of these ten counties are in the beef
cattle area; Mecklenburg and Guilford
owe their position to dairy and poultry
farms which supply the nearby city
markets; Union has developed both
dairying and poultry raising to an
unusual degree.
West Leads, East Lags
Far more significant than the total
number of animal units is the number
per farm, and the counties are ranked
on this score. The reader will observe
that there is a very pronounced geo
graphical distribution of livestock. All
of the eleven counties which rank
highest, with more than four meat and
milk animal units per farm, are the
cattle grazing counties of the moun
tains. On the other hand all of the
twenty-three counties which rank lowest
are coastal plain counties where a
cash-crop, farm-tenancy system pre
vails, the great cotton and tobacco
counties ranking at the bottom in live
stock.
The state average is 2,38 meat and
milk animal units per farm.
Fifty-two counties rank above the
average and forty-eight below. Not a
single coastal plains county ranks
above the state average in meat and
milk animal units per farm, although
several tidewater.counties rank well.
Thirty-seven counties have less than
two animal units per farm, and all of
these are cotton or tobacco producing
counties, or both.
These thirty-seven counties have 140,-
067 farms. Thus there are 140,067
farm faniil^s which do not have, on
the aversge, a cow, 3 pigs and a flock
of 60 chickens.
The cow-pig'hen program is being
urged in season and out by the county
agents, the agricultural colleges and all
who are interested in the prosperity of
the farmer, and the health of his
family. Such a program is being a-
dopted on a wide scale in Georgia to the
great advantage of the farmers. The
banks and rajlroads are pushing the
campaign with vigor, because it will
mean a general diffusion of prosperity
and will mitigate the periodic depres
sions resulting from low prices for non
food cash crops.
North Carolina is making some prog
ress toward diversification, but these
livestock figures reveal how far she
has to go. If two animal units is the
minimum for the cash-crop belt it
should not be the minimum for the
piedmont. To be even moderately
stocked piedmont farms should average
notless than five animal units (exclusive
of work stock), and there are only
three counties in the state that have
attained that minimum.
Our Low Status
We believe that few people realize
the low position North Carolina occu
pies as a meat and milk livestock state.
The 1920 census showed that counting
mules and horses only one state had
less livestock value per farm than
North Carolina, and excluding mules
and horses North Carolina ranked last
of ail the states in livestock values per
farm. No other region in America has
so few meat and milk animals per farm
as the coastal plains area of North
Carolina, and few spots are so deficient
as even the western half of the state.
And we do not make up in quality
what we lack in quantity. The last
census showed that in quality of live
stock, measured by percent of all farms
having some form of pure-bred live
stock, only two states ranked below
North Carolina.
Cattle are the most important form
of livestock, and on the basis of cattle
per farm North Carolina comes last of
the states. Some idea of our low
status as a cattle state, dairy and beef,
can be obtained from considering the
fact that we rank second in number of
farms but thirty-seventh in total num
ber of cattle!
North Carolina farmers, upon an
average, drink less milk and eat less
butter than farmers anywhere else in
the United States. Our farmers’ con
sumption of home-raised beef is almost
negligible. More tnan one hundred
thousand farms in the state do not
have a milk cow. These farms are
mainly in the cotton and tobacco belt.
We do not rank high in poultry and
egg production as can be seen from the
fact that we rank second in farms but
nineteenth in total value of poultry.
We do not rank high in sheep as can
be seen from the fact that we rank
second in number of farms but thirty-
fifth in total number of sheep.
We do not rank well in swine as can
be seen from the fact that, although we
are second in farms, we are nineteenth
in number of swine. In swine per
farm we are near the bottom. The hog,
however, is North Carolina’s main
source of meat, and on thousands of
eastern North Carolina farms the hog
is the only meat animal raised. There
are also thousands of farms with no
meat or milk animals of any sort.
North Carolina more than any other
state needs a cow-hog-hen week, many
such weeks, in fact.
COW-HOG-HE.H WEEK
In Georgia, recently, a week was
devoted by agricultural leaders, busi
ness men and railroad representatives,
with the cooperation of the press, in
giving publicity to what was termed
Cow-Hog-Hen Week and a direct ap
peal was made to business interest to
Help Make Georgia Prosperous.
The purpose of this movement was:
1. To help communities to the best
methods of financing the purchase
and handling of dairy cows, hogs,
and poultry.
2. To help work out -plans whereby
every county in Georgia at the
earliest possible date may have
the services of a county agent and
home demonstration agent, with
out which Cow-Hog-Hen farming
cannot be successful, and
3. To bring about a general under
standing of fundamental methods
by which the business forces of
every community may give most
effective help to their farmers,
both in livestock farming and co
operative marketing.
It is said that thousands of Georgia
farmers, convinced by the successes of
their Cow-Hog-Hen farm neighbors,
are eager to biiv dairy cows, brood sows
and poultry, and to grow the feed nec
essary for them, but that many farmers
have been unable to make this change
in farming operations because:
1. The local bank may be unable or
unwilling to extend the initial
credit needed.
2. Landowners may be unable to
build fences, construct farm build
ings, buy modern machinery, pur
chase livestock necessary to help
themselves or their tenants to
start. Hence they can do nothing
but get cotton credit and continue
to gamble with fate.
8. Pressure of old debts or one of a
dozen other things and especially
in many cases lack of efficient and
intelligent community and county
organization may be the chief bar
DENMAHK AND AMERICA
Yesterday I told how the farmers
of Denmark have lifted themselves
from peasantry and poverty to pros
perity and independence, not by
government subsidy, not by legisla-^
tion, not by the grace of an economic
Messiah, but by their own capable
creation and efficient management
of a system of scientific production
and co-operative marketing.
I commended the Danish system
to the farmers of America, but
suggested the danger of trying t^-
import the system without full re
cognition of the fact that there are
many differences between Denmark
and the United States, differences
that go so deep that they would
doubtless make many changes and
adaptations of the system necessary.
Let me list five of these dif
ferences that have been recognized
by all the more careful students
of the problem.
First, America has more tenant
farmers than Denmark has, and the
farm tenant can never be made the
effective factor in co-operative
organization that the farm owner
can be made.
Second, American farmers do not
live together in such compact rural
communities as do the farmers of
Denmark, and physical separateness
is always a handicap to co-operative
action.
Third, many American agricultural
sections are not as favorably located
in relation to their markets as Den
mark is in relation to its markets.
Denmark stands at the center of a
trade area that contains one hun
dred million consumers to whom the
Danish farmers have quick and easy
access.
Fourth, America is not wholly
agricultural as Denmark is. Be
cause Denmark is a purely agricul
tural state the Danish farmers have
been able to do three sweeping
things:
1. They have lifted agriculture,
as I said yesterday, from the level
of a domestic vocation to the level
of a successful commercial enter
prise.
2. They have taken the commerce
of Denmark into their own hands.
3. They have taken the state into
their own hands and organized it in
the specific interest of permanent
farm prosperity.
All this is right and reasonable in
a purely agricultural state. The
farmers of America could not and
should not expect completely to
duplicate this program in a nation
like the Uniteu States that is both
agricultural and industrial. They
must, however, furnish a statesman
ship farsighted enough to insure our
farms while our factories increase.
Fifth, America, with her great
open spaces, does not have the
pressure of population forcing us
into ever greater efficiency that
Denmark has bad, and the human
animal is naturally so lazy that it
takes the pressure of necessity to
drive him into anything as creative
and as challenging as co-opera
tive action.
These dilferences give our farmers
a different and more difficult prob
lem, but the farmers of Arnerisa
must somehow manage to achieve
the results that the farmers of
Denmark have achieved or resign
themselves to the fate of farm
hands, working for wages, while the
major profits of their enterprise go
elsewhere.
But the biggest story that has
come out of Denmark is not the
story of the scientific agricultural
production, amazingly successful as
both have been, but the story of a
nation-wide educational movement
that made all this possible. I shall
tell that story tomorrow. — Dr. Glenn
Frank, by permission The McClure
Newspaper Syndicate.
and hogs to tenants as well as;
farm owners. One banker says
such loans have proved self-liqui
dating. Not, an instance has been
reported to the Georgia association
where a bank has lost a penny on
a dairy cow loan.
2. In some counties chambers of
commerce or civic organizations
have financed the purchase of dairy
cows, poultry and hogs (Athens
(jharaber of Commerce, nearly one
hundred heifer calves for Boys’
Clubs; Fitzgerald Chamber of Com
merce traded bales of cotton for
pure-bred bull calves; Bainbridge
i Kiwania Club financed carload pur
chases of dairy cows; many other
similar examples: special com
mittees in rural counties have
raised revolving funds and bought
cattle and hogs for distribution.)—
Guy A. Cardwell, Agrl. Agent,
A. C. L. R. R.
TAKES FORWARD STEP
By a series of three laws passed at
the recent session of the legislature,
North Carolina places herself in the
van of the states which are doing
something about county government.
It is now possible for counties in that
state to choose between two forms of
government—the regular form now
existing and the county manager plan.
It is possible for the county commis
sioners themselves to install the latter
plan on their own motion, but if the
county board does not exercise its
discretiofi to appoint a manager the
electors may by petition bring the
matter to a vote. If the majority of
the votes cast at the election are in
favor of the manager plan, the board
must proceed to appoint a manager.
The manager is empowered to ap
point, with the approval of the com
missioners, such suliordinate officers as
the board may consider necessary,
except such officers as are required i;o
be elected by the people or whose
appointment is otherwise provided by
law. But inasmuch as the act does
not disturb existing elective or ap
pointive offices, the appointive power
of the manager will have a narrow
range inconsistent with his position as
“the administrative head of the county
government’’ and his responsibility “to
see that all orders, resolutions and
regulations of the board of commis
sioners are faithlully executed.’’
A novel feature is the creation of a
county government advisory commis
sion, the secretary of which is to act
as county adviser. In this capacity he
will visit the counties of -the state to
advise and assist the county officers in
providing competent and economical
administration. The development of
this office will be watched with interest
in other states.
A second bill relates to county fiscal
control. The county auditor becomes
the county accountant, and as such,
the chief accounting, auditing and
budget offiicer of the county. The
budget estimate of all department
heads and officers in charge of spend
ing money are filed with him and he
thereupon prepares his own estimates
of necessary appropriations for the
fiscal year. The county board then
determines the appropriations for the
next year, but no appropriation recom
mended by the county accountant for
debt services shall be reduced, nor can
the county commissioners make any
appropriation which will infringe upon
the powers of the county board of
education. It is also compulsory upon
the commissioners to appropriate the
lull amount of all deficits reported in
the estimates which have not been
funded as provided by law.
The third act relates to the issuance
of county bonds and notes. It specifies
the purpose for which bonds can be
issued and limits the term of the bonds
to the estimated life of the improve
ments as set forth in the act. All
bonds are to be serial in form and no
annual installment shall be more than
two and one-half times as great in
amount as the smallest prior install
ment.
The new county bond law is more
comprehensive than any which has
come to our attention, and applies to
counties the sound principles which
should govern borrowings and which
have been adopted for municipalities in
a few states, notably North Carolina
and New Jersey.—National Municipal
Review
MEAT AND MILK ANIMAL UNITS PER FARM
In North Carolina in 1925
In the following table, based on the 1925 Census of Agriculture, the counties
are ranked according to meat and milk animal units per farm. Horses and
rabies are omitted because they are work stock and should not be confused with
.consumptive livestock. The parallel column gives the total meat and milk
animal units—cattK;, hogs, poultry, and sheep—for each county.
An animal unit equals one cow or steer, or two calves, or two heifers, or
seven sheep, or fourteen lambs, or five hogs, or ten pigs, or one hundred
chickens, based on the amount of feed consumed.
State total meatand milk animal units 676,702. State average meat and milk
animal units per farm 2.38. North Carolina ranked last of all the states in
meat and milk animal units per farm in 1920, and forty-sixth in percent of
farms having pure-bred livestock.
Paul W. Wager
Department of Rural Social-Economics, University of North Carolina.
Rank County
1 Alleghany ..
2 Haywood.,.
3 Ashe
4 Henderson..
6 Buncombe .
6 Jackson .
7
8
to the start of the individual along
a safe road.
4. Failure to appreciate that there is
in Georgia now a profitable mar
ket for dairy, hog, and poultry
products.
The following remedies were sug
gested:
1. In some counties local banks have
made loans on dairy cows, poultry
Clay
Macon
9 Watauga
10 Madison
11 Avery
12 New Hanover.
13 Transylvania .
13 Currituck...
15 Cherokee
16 Pasquotank....
17 Dare
118 Tyrrell
i 19 Graham
I 20 Mecklenburg .
[ 21 Swain
I 22 Gaston
I 23 Davie
I 24 Rowan
I 26 Guilford
; 25 Yancey
i 27 Cabarrus
:28 Hyde
' 29 Gates
130 Perquimans....
31 Mitchell
31 Camden
33 Washington ..
34 Union
'34 Orange
! 36 Caldwell
j 37 Iredell
; 38 Catawba
I 39 Stanly
; 40 Alamance
i 41 Wilkes
I 41 McDowell
43 Davidson
: 44 Durham
44 Forsyth
; 46 Chowan
; 47 Chatham
I 48 Lincoln
I 49 Randolph
I 60 Rutherford
Meat Meat
and and
milk milk
animal animal
units units
per farm
10,299 7.16
, 16,483 7.12
19,182 6.08
. 9,403 4.80
, 18,129 4.77
. 9,674 4.47
. 3,838 4.46
8,307... . 4.46
9,324 4.37
, 12,786 ' 4.16
, 6,984 4.09
. 1,429 3.88
3,842 3.76
■ 3,271 3v76
8,246 3.70
. 5,648 3.69 *
291 .... 3.68
2.451 3.63
2,326 .... 3.63
14,167 3.53
. 4,638 3.31
. 8,142 3.26
. 6,069 3.26
, 11,174 3.14
. 12,903 3.12
. 7,394 3.12
. 8,232 3.08
. 3,660 2.93
. 4,607 2.91
. 4,305 2.88
. 4,626 2.85
. 2,675 2.86
, 3,684 2.81
. 13,979 2.80
. 5,839 2.80
, 6,066 2.79
11,472.. . 2.77
, 8,616 2.76
. 6,607 2.66
. 8,311 2.63
. 13,613 2.61
. 3,987 2.61
. 10,399 2.68
, 4,376 2.67
. 8,320 2.67
, 3,213... 2.56
. 8,948 2.53
. 5,907 2.62
. 10,384 2.47
. 8,610 2.42
Rank County
51 Pamlico
52 Alexander
53 Cleveland
54 Burke
65 Martin
66 Brunswick
67 Jones
68 Moore
59 Craven
60 Warren
60 Yadkin
62 Polk
63 Carteret
64 Anson
64 Montgomery..
66 Surry
66 Bladen
68 Lee
69 Onslow
70 Bertie
71 Wake
72 Caswell
73 Duplin
73 Rockingham..
73 Person
76 Pender
77 Stokes
78 Hertford
79 Sampson
80 Granville
81 Cumberland..
82 Harnett
83 Johnston
83 Beaufort
85 Halifax
86 Vance
87 Richmond
88 Lenoir
89 Wayne
90 Columbus
90 Hoke.
92 Edgecombe...
93 Franklin
94 Greene
95 Robeson
96 Northampton
97 Pitt
98 Nash./
99 Scotland
100 Wilson
Meat Meat
and and
milk milk'
animal animal
units units
per farm
2,878.'.... 2.42
4,476 2.41 ,
10,970 2.35
6,527 2.24
6,127 2.22
3,002 2.21
3,058 2.17
4,693 2.16
4,630 2.13
6,622 2.08
6,048 2.08
2,525 2.06
1,882 2.01
7,114 1.99
3,622 1.99
8,936 1.96
6,394 1.96
3,109 1.95
4,199 1.94
6,666 1.91
12,6i0 1.89
4,305 1.88
8,371 1.86
7,166 1.86
6,220 1.86
3,739 1.86
6,883 1.84
3,992 1.80
10,691 i.79
7,239...'.. 1.78
6,578 1.77
5,644 1.76
12,967 1.73
6,418 1.73
8,393 1.72
4,064 1.69
3,903 1.64
6,486 1.63
8,088 1.62
5,946 1.51
3,219 1.61
5.916 1.60
6,228 1.46
3,967 1.40
9,753 1..38
5,156 1.3b'
8,364 1.34
6,634 1,10
2,z72 1.03
4,366 94