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 its University Ex
tension Division.
JUNE 14,1922
CHAPEL Hn.T., N. C.
VOL. vni, NO. 30
Editorial Board i S. C Bransoii, 8. H. Hobbs, Jr., L. B. Wilson, B. W. Kniftht, D. D. Carroll, J. B, Bnllltt, H. W. Odum. Entered as second-class matter November 14.1914, at the Postoffice at Chapel Hill, N, C., under the act of August 24, 1913.
LIVESTOCK LEVELS IN CAROLINA
OUT OF PRINT
North Carolina, Industrial and Urban,
the 1920-21 Year-Book of the N. C.
Club, is already out of pTint. The edi
tion was small—only 1,500 copies, and
the written requests exhausted the sup
ply in less than three weeks.
We are saying this to the University
News Letter_readers as a public answer
to the dozens of letters that are now
reaching us daily.
And also as a reminder that if they
want the 1921-22 Club Year-Book on
Home and Farm Ownership they will
need to apply for it at once, in order
to secure a copy when it goes to the
public next November. As usual the
edition will be small and the 2,000 copies
will be mailed out to applicants in order
of requests.—E. C. Branson, Editor.
HOW BIG IS YOUR TOWN
How big is your town? We do not
mean its area in feet or miles or blocks.
We do not mean the number of men,
women, and children. We do not mean
the number of houses or the miles of
paved sidewalks or hard surfaced roads.
We mean is your town big in heart, and
if so, how big? We mean is your town
big in purpose, and if so, how big? We
mean is your town big in ideals, and if
so, how big? We mean is your town big
enough to protect the weak, the inno
cent and the helpless? Is your town
big enough in thought and purpose and
motive to have fine churches, good
preachers, good schools, and the things
that elevate and educate? Does your
town have a heart, a purpose, and an
ideal? How big is your town? Give
the answer without the use of the dol
lar mark.—Christian Sun.
LOW RANK IN LIVESTOCK
North Carolina stands only four
places above the foot of the column of
livestock levels in the United States.
Forty* three states made a better show
ing in 1920. See the table in last week’s
issue.
The quality of our livestock consider
ed, our position is even lower. Only
two states of the Union had a smaller
percent of pure-bred farm animals in
1920. Pure-bred livestock ratios will
be exhibited in the University News
Letter at an early date.
It is well to remember (1) that live
stock is a term that covers food-animals
—pigs, poultry, sheep, beef cattle,
milch cows and the like, as well as
work-animals-mules and horses main
ly; (2) that our cotton and tobacco
counties are deficient as a rule in food-
animals and that such rank as they have
in the livestock column in today’s issue
is lifted by the relatively large numbers
of mules and horses used in cotton and
tobacco culture; (3) that outside the
cotton and tobacco belt the ratios are
lifted by meat-and-milk animals; (4)
that our eight-fold increase in work-
stock since 1850 is explained by the
twenty-fold increase in cotton produc
tion and the twenty-five-fold increase
in.tobacco production, and (6) that as
our work-stock ratios have risen, our
food-stock ratios have fallen during the
last seventy years—milk cows 60 per
cent, other cattle 70 percent, hogs 69 per
cent, sheep 92 percent, and so on.
A county may be ahead in work-stock
and behind in food-animals, as in the
cotton-tobacco belt. Or it may be
ahead in food-animals and behind in
work-animals—as in a range or pasture-
land area where cash-crop farming is
relatively little, for instance the moun
tain and some of the tidewater counties.
With these interpretive considerations
in mind, the student may ask. What is
the livestock rank of my home county?
Why is its rank high or low? Is its
rank due to work-animals mainly or
food-animals mainly? What penalties
does my county pay for deficiency in
food-animals? How can food-animals
become profit-producing to the farmers
of my county? What are the greatest
obstacles to livestock development at
present? What can be done about it
under present conditions? And so on
and on. And these are important ques
tions for local bankers, merchants, and
commercial club secretaries.
The Counties that Lead
Pasquotank with a ratio of 62 percent
was far in the lead in North Carolina
in 1920, livestock levels considered, fol
lowed by Hyde, Camden, Perquimans,
Haywood, Ashe, and Buncombe in the
order named. See the table elsewhere.
These seven counties are well ahead
of the average ratio in the United
States—which is 44 percent. Forty-
nine counties are above the state aver
age—which is 31 percent. These are
the counties that have fairly well spelled
out the problem of balance in cash-
crop, food-crop, and food-stock farming.
In the measure in which they have solved
this problem of a safely balanced
farm system, they are fortified against
the bankrupting results of the ap
proaching boll weevil. But they are
still in danger, if livestock means work-
stock mainly in the home county.
The Counties that Lag
Twenty-seven counties are conspicu
ously below the livestock level of the
state, in ratios that range around 76 to 86
percent below the level of a lightly
stocked farm area. Which means that
their meat-and-milk animals could be
increased five to ten times in number and
still they would be only lightly stocked
farm areas. Could be, we say, but never
likely to be unless local market facili
ties offer fair profits in ready cash for
food animals and livestock products.
The farmers are not book-keepers but
they know well enough when they are
behind or ahead of the game in any par
ticular farm enterprise.
All of which means that the town-
end of local meat-and-milk production
depends on the local cash profits the
city consumers offer to nearby food
farmers.
The livestock levels of the seven
counties at the bottom of the column—
Jones, Montgomery, Moore, Caswell,
Granville, Bladen, and Brunswick, in
the order named—range from 21 to 14
percent. That is to say, they are from
79 to 86 percent below the level of a
lightly stocked farm area. Their farm
land would sustain from five to seven
times the number of livestock units they
now have. Leaving out work-stock,
the food animals of these counties
could be multiplied by ten or more.
But will they be so multiplied under
present, conditions? Decidedly not. The
farmers, are not stupid. They know
well enough in a rough way whether
there is ready cash and a fair profit in
this or that farm product.
And so at the last we run inevitably
into the local market food problem- a
city problem and every city’s most im
portant business necessity in the days
at hand and ahead.
If the bankers and merchants will not
help the farmers solve this problem,
they will pay a very certain penalty in
another year or so. It is a town-and-
country problem in cooperation. Neither
farmers nor city dwellers can solve it
alone—a fact that cannot be too often
stated or too promptly considered in
earnest sort.
TOWN AND FARMERS
What does your town do for the far
mers who trade in it?
We know of one village—it has only
about 400 people—where there had
been complaints that farmers were
sending their money away to mail or
der houses and the merchants decided
to create a more friendly feeling be
tween the villagers and the surrounding
farmers.
They found many things could be
done. The first achievement was plenty
of hitching posts for teams and places
to park cars. They even went one step
farther and provided sheds for cars and
machines.
Again, it was found that farmers of
ten have to wait in town for repairs and
for other reasons. A room, 12 by 14,
right on the main street, in an unused
building, was fitted up simply with
tables and chairs and rest room facili
ties, and now that room is filled most
of the day with farmers’ wives and
their children, who have at last just
what they have wanted for years. That
room is used so much that it will soon
have to be enlarged.
But one good thing usually leads to
another. The farmers began to have a
definite friendly feeling for the little
village. Here was service without any
Released Week Beginning June 12
KNOW NORTH CAROLINA
Teaching Agriculture
Dean C. B. Williams
Most educational leaders now real
ize that special education and train
ing in any special line, including ag
riculture, is highly essential for the
greatest efficiency. It is only by
special training in the hard school of
personal experience and by profiting
from the experience and observa
tions of others that men learn to
perform the operations of daily life
most efficiently. It is only within
comparatively recent times, how
ever, that our people have adequate
ly appreciated the value of teaching
of agriculture in our public schools.
Even yet, in some schools, agricul
ture, although required by law, is
not taught as effectively as might be
desired.
As North Carolina is made up
largely of a rural population, any sys
tem of agricultural education and
training will add to the efficiency of
our boys in the country and will
without doubt be in the interest of.
more profitable production and a ful
ler and happier country life.
We are entering upon an era of
marked agricultural advancement
throughout the South. Public schools
and higher institutions are to play
an important part in bringing about
better conditions, provided they see
their duty clearly and perform it in
telligently. In almost every com
munity of the State, there is a pub
lic school which is, or should be in
reality, a center of community life.
This school belongs to the communi
ty and should be the place at which al
most every movement for its better
ment should be planned and set in
motion. One of the most effective
ways to vitalize these centers will be
the teaching of agriculture in the
right way. To many it appears to
teach rural children things that have
little or no practical bearing on their
future life. Of course it is recognized
that the fundamental three R’s are
necessary. But after these there
should be some marked differences
between the work of rural schools
and city schools. For instance, in
teaching mathematics, it seems log
ical and practical to use problems
largely of the kind that come up for
solution in the life of boys and girls
on the farm. Such problems may
be used just as effectively in the
teaching of mathematics as are the
problems of the bank and the store.
North Carolina cannot train its
rural youth for most efficient living
on the farm until Agriculture is pro
perly taught in all our rural schools.
Our people realize as never before
the value of special education with
reference to farming.—C. B. Wil
liams, Dean of Agriculture, State
College of Agriculture and Engi
neering.
thought of immediate returns. Mail or
ders for goods began to fall off a little.
Then the business men of the village
decided to have a meeting and ask the
farmers in to talk things over. Lunch
eon and hot coffee was served. There
were no set speeches. The villagers
said they wanted to meet the farmers
on the basis of genuine friendship.
The farmers were treated with the ut
most cordiality. There was no conde
scension shown. Just a friendly basis of
equality.
Then someone suggested forming a
community club, villagers and farmers
all working together. , The idea was
immediately accepted. In a few months
a community house was built. It proved
remarkably easy to get the funds. The
farmers contributed and there was a
fine get-together feeling all around.
There will be movies in that little
community house. Dances will be held
in it. Neighbors will visit and children
play together there. The farmer comes
to town now and he is greeted with a
friendly smile on every corner. And
the villagers say the farmers are the
finest people in the world. And the far
mers are warming up a little more every
day.
We do not believe that after a year
or so there will be many mail orders
going out from that community.
The strange thing is, why don’t more
towns follow the example of this little
place with 400 inhabitants? They could
all do it with a little initiative.—
Milwaukee Journal.
OUR COUNTRY CHURCHES
That which has concerned us for
many years, and concerns us yet, is the
great and undeveloped work of the
country church. We have only praise
for the fine work that the average coun
try church is doing. It is the country
church that is sending the ministerial
students to our colleges; it is the coun
try church that is giving the best and
ablest leaders to the denomination, to
all denominations, and to the whole
nation. But while this is true, the coun
try church is not measuring up to the
great opportunity which she has. Mag
nificent school buildings have found
their way into practically every local
ity. Most of these schools are being
manned by college and university grad
uates. Subjects are being taught in these
schools that a few years ago were taught
in colleges. Community pride is assert
ing itself, and no man is acceptable as
a teacher unless he is'thoroughly cap
able.
But what of the country church? We
find practically the same type of coun
try churches that we found ten years
ago. It is true that we have built a
few new churches, but we have not
kept pace with other things or done our
duty by the country church. How long
can the church continue to hold the re
spect of her young people when she
does not measure up in opportunity to
other organizations in the community?
Where does the blame lie? The aver
age community has fallen into the habit
of contenting itself with a once-a-month
service and claims that such is all it
has time for.
The country cannot demand the ablest
men so long as $25,000 worth of auto
mobiles are parked in the church yard
while the people listen to a $200-preach-
er. God cannot prosper a cause
where the people will pay more for
gasoline to be used as a means to help
get them to church, than they pay the
preacher who must speak to them after
they get there.
This is no tirade against automobiles.
We believe in the modern conveyance,
but we should be willing to pay to help
the church advance along with other
things. The church can demand the
respect of the world only as the mem
bership of the church respects the
church. Let us have good schools and
good teachers, but let us also have
good church buildings and good preach
ers. Let us have automobiles, but let
us pay our pastors enough salary to put
them beyond the starvation line and
give them a chance to study and to
serve at their best.—The Christian Sun.
LIVESTOCK LEVELS IN CAROLINA
In January 1920
Counties ranked from high to low according to the ratio of animal-units to
the number needed to make a lightly stocked farm area. Ratios based on the
1920 census figures (1) for all livestock and (2) the acres of farm land.
A lightly stocked farm area calls for one animal-unit for every five acres,
and an animal-unit is one work-animal or one dairy cow, or two other cattle
five hogs or ten pigs, or one hundred poultry being counted as one animal-unit,
because they consume about the same amount of feed as one work-animal or
one dairy cow.
The average of the U. S. was 44 percent; for N. C. 31 percent; for Iowa 91
percent. N. C. averages range from 62 percent in Pasquotank to 14 percent in
Brunswick county.
Table of bills for imported food by counties, in next week's issue.
Robert W. Proctor, Robeson County
Department Rural Social Economics, University of North Carolina
Rank
County
Percent
Rank County
Percent
1
Pasquotank
62
50
Gates
31
2
Hyde
52
50
Iredell
31
3
Camden
61
50
Stanly
31
4
Perquimans
60
54
Anson
30
6
Haywood
48
54
Avery
30
A sh p . .
47
64
Halifax
30
6
Buncombe
47
54
Hertford
30
8
Cleveland
43
64
Robeson
30
8
Graham
48
54
Swain
30
8
Madison
43
54
Wake
30
8
Mecklenburg
43
61
Alexander
29
12
Alleghany
42
61
Craven
29
13
Gaston
41
61
Davidson
29
13
New Hanover
41
61
Lenoir
29
13
Tyrrell
41
61
Sampson
29
16
Mitchell
40
61
Vance
29
17
Dare
39
67
Caldwell
28
17
Greene
39
67
Cherokee...
28
19
Cabarrus
37
67
Duplin
28
19
Lincoln
37
67
Durham
28
19
Transylvania
37
67
Hoke
28
19
Wilson
37
67
Polk
28
23
Clay
36
67
Wilkes
28
23
Henderson
36
74
Harnett
27
23
.Tqpksnn
.Rfi
74
Martin
27
23
Pitt
36
74
Scotland
27
23
Yancey
36
74
Yadkin
27
28
Catawba
35
78
Chatham
26
28
Chowan
35
78
Cumberland
26
28
Forsyth
35
78
Lee
26
28
Edgecombe
35
78
Macon
26
28
Johnston
35
78
Orange
26
28
Northampton
35
83
Burke
26
28
Rowan
35
83
Columbus
26
28
Union
35
83
Person
25
36
Bertie
34
83
Rockingham
26
86
Currituck
34
83
Surry
26
36
Guilford
34
88
McDowell
24
36
Rutherford
34
88
Onslow
24
36
Washington
34
88
Pender
24
36
Watauga
34
88
Randolph
24
36
Wayne
34
88
Richmond
24
43
Alamance
33
93
Carteret
22
43
Beaufort
33
94
Jones
21
43
Pamlico'
33
94
Montgomery
21
46
Franklin
32
94
Moore
21
46
Nash
32
97
Caswell
20
46
Stokes
32
97
Granville
20
46
Warren
32
99
Bladen
16
60
Davie
31
100
Brunswick
14