The news in this publi
cation is released for the
press on receipt.
NOVEMBER 11, 1925
THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA
NEWS LETTER
CHAPEL HILL, N C.
THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA PRESS
Published Weekly by the
University of North Caro
lina for the University Ex
tension Division.
VOL. XIL NO. 2
Editorial Board: E. C. Branson, S. H. Hobbs, Jr.. L. R. Wilson, E. W. Knight, D. D. Carroll. J. B. Bullitt, H. W. Odum.
Entered as second-claaa matter November 14, 1914, at the Poetoffice at Chapel Hill, N. C.. under the act of August 24. 1912
SECOND IN FARMS
With 283,496 farms North Carolina
ranks second among the states of the
Union in total number of farms. Only
Texas, with five times the area of North
Carolina, ranks ahead of us in total
number of farms The table which
appears elsewhere ranks the states of
the Union according to the number of
farms. The parallel column gives the
percent gains and losses in the number
of farms during the five-year period
following 1920. Texas, ^ith 466,420
farms, leads in number. Rhode Island,
with only 3,911 farms, comes last in
number.
A farm, for census purposes, is all
the land which is directly farmed by
one person, either by his own labor
alone or with the assistance of mem
bers of his household^or hired employees.
When a landowner has one or more ten
ants, renters, croppers, or managers,
the land operated by each is considered
a farm.
The U. S. Decreases
During the last five years there has
been a net loss of 76,736 farms in the
United States. There are 1.2 percent
fewer farms today than there were in
1920. It is the first time in the history of
the United States that we have experi
enced a net loss in the number of farms.
The increase by decades since 1860 is
shown in the following table which gives
the number of farms at each census
period.
Year
Number
of farms
1,449,073
2,044,077
2,659,989
1860
1860
1870
1880 4,008,907
1890 4,664,641
1900 6,737,372
1910 6,361,602
1920 6,448,343
1925 6,372,608
“The net decrease of 76,736, or 1.2
percent, in the United States total is
the result of considerable decreases in
some sections of the country, partly
offset by increases in other sections.
Among the reasons givfen for decreasea
in the number of farms were the follow-
population, lacks more than one hun
dred thousand of having as many farm
dwellers as North Carolina. The farm
population of North Carolina is greater
than the combined farm populations of
Rhode Island, Nevada, Delaware, Ari
zona, Wyoming, New Hampshire, Con
necticut, Utah, Vermont, 2^w Jersey,
New Mexico, Massachusetts, and Idaho,
greater by several thousands.
A Frontier State
And yet North Carolina is a frontier
state. Although she possesses rnore farm
dwellers than any other state except
Texas, only one-fourth of the land area
of the state is under cultivation. Three-
fourths of the land area of the state is
in forests, cut-over woodlands, broom-
sedge, and unused areas. In the Tide
water country alone there is rich
wet land which, if drained, could
add fifty percent to the present cultT-
vated area of the state. Less than a
third of the great Coastal Plains area
is under cultivation; less than a third of
the vast Piedmont country is under the
plow; and less than a fourth of^the en
tire mountain country is tilled, even
counting grazing lands. Vast^ areas in
North Carolina contain only a few
families to the square mile. Even the
most densely], populated areas are
sparsely settled when compared with
many European states.
Why We Increase
The large increase in farms in North
Carolina, therefore, is not surprising
when we remember that three-fourths
of the. state is still to be brought u^der
the plow; when we remember that
North Carolina is the only state posses
sing two great cash crops of fairly equal
importance; when we remember that
the vast Coastal Plains area, because
of its natural resources in the way of
soils and seasons, aided by favorable
location near the northern consuming
public, is destined to become the winter
garden, or truck producing center of
America; when we remember that Pied
mont Carolina with her rapidly grow
ing industrial cities is offering larger
local markets for home-grown foods
and other raw materials; when we re
member that even the mountain coun-
ing; The ravages of the boll weevil in j try, after long years of partial eclipse,
some of the cotton states; the migra- ’ promisees to stage a boom that will at-
tion of negro farm workers; a succes-] tract as much attention as Florida’s
sion of dry seasons in parts of the north-; show.
west; the consolidation of (arms; and a i Parallel Development
general recession from wartime expan-
Sion in agriculture, which still persisted ; North Carolina is rapidly developing
in l!i20. Increases have resulted from ! ‘•'t® ® industrial state, but unlike
the opening up of lands in parts of the [ a'™°st all other developing mdustrial-
West; from the sub-division of ranches “rban areas, she is not doing it at the
and large farms 'for more intensive expense of the vast rural regions. It is
operation; and from the development ® parallel development that is taking
of orchards, truck, and poultry farms.
The establishment of small truck and
poultry farms, especially near cities,
accounts for most of the increases
shown for New England and some other
parts of the East.”
North Carolina Second
In 1920 North Carolina, with 269,763
farms, ranked fifth among the states of
the Union. In 1925 she ranks second,
having supplanted three great agricul
tural states during the brief period of
five years. The states which have been
supplanted are Georgia, Kentucky, and
Mississippi, all three of which have suf
fered heavy losses in number of farms.
Georgia, the heaviest loser, had 310,732
farms in 1920 and only 249,098 in 1926,
a net loss of 61,634, or nearly a fifth'Of
her farms. Kentucky lost 12,116 farms,
or 4,6 percent. Mississippi lost 14,868,
or 5.6 percent of her farms.
On the other hand North Carolina
showed a net gain of 13,732 farms dur
ing the five-year period. We now have
6.1 percent more farms than we possessed
in 1920. Only two states in the' Union
showed larger numerical gains than
North Carolina, namely, Texas 30,387,
and California 18,743. This is rather
significant in view of the fact that
North Carolina is both small and densely
settled compared with Texas and Cali
fornia.
Our Farm Population
At the present time North Carolina
has the second largest farm population
of all the states. On the farms of this
state live approximately one million six
hundred thousand people, or 58 percent
of our 2,760,000 inhabitants. Missouri,
which ranks third in farms and in farm
place in this state. Our industrial-urban
gains are well known. The fact that
during the last five years we have gained
13,732 farms, while the United States I
lost 76,000, goes to show that the farm }
situation in North Carolina is relatively
good. We should be thankful that we
have not suffered the unhappy experi
ences of Georgia, South Carolina, MiS'
sissippi, and other states.—S. H. H., Jr,
COOPERATION
California rightfully owes much to
its development of cooperative as
sociations. They have g,iven the
state a sound and pr^ofitable agricul
ture. They have enabled the state
to weather the economic trials fol
lowing the World War as no other
section has been able to do. They
have molded the people of California
into a unit with a single-thought and
a single purpose. ^
Cooperative marketing is the great
contribution of California producers
to the welfare of their state. It is
one of California’s contributions to
the social and economic stability of
the nation.—N. C. Cotton Grower.
XII. AMOUNT OF CURRENT USED
Having considered in the preceding
article tlie current requirements of
electric appliances used around the farm
household, we now turn to the larger
farm operations where the spin of the
electric motor is made to replace the
toil of hand labor. A table showing
typical monthly consumption of elec
tricity in kilowatt hours is out of the i
question here, since farmers differ so
much in the kind of apparatus they
have use for, and in the amount of work
they have to give to the various pieces
of apparatus. Instead a table is pre
sented showing consumption of elec
tricity per unit of work done, and cost,
per unit of work based on a rate of 10
cents per kilowatt hour.
objective, and more money is still com
ing in. The phenomenal growth of this
organization during the past five years
demonstrates what can be accomplished
by and for our rural folk if the under
taking is based on correct principles
and if the management is gifted with
vision, energy, patience, initiative, and,
business ability. All of these qualities
are possessed to a remarkable degree
by the President of the Farmers Fed
eration and his staff and their enthusi
asms have infected the membership as
well. Beginning with a small neighbor
hood organization of fifty members and
$6,000 in capital stock, the Farmers
Federation has increased fifty-fold in
membership, now 2,5O0, and its capital
stock is now arour.d $250,000, which will
enable it to become a real factor in mar
keting farm products not only in home
territory but in the great eastern mar
kets as well as foreign countries. A
remarkable feature about all this is
that western North Carolina is not es
sentially a farming councry.’’~N. C.
Cotton GzoAver.
THE FARMERS FEDERATION
In Westefn North Carolina farmers
have no special money crops. The major
products consist of poultry and eggs
and Irish potatoes. Strawberries and
such vegetables as tomatoes, cabbage,
beans, sweet corn, carrots, beets, let
tuce, spinach, and celery are also grown.
When individual farmers formerly
“sold down’’ the prices of these perish
able products on glutted local markets
“the bottom fell out.”
In the vicinity of Asheville the Farm
Bureau Federation, Inc., a democratic
corporation consisting of 2,500 share
holding farmers, represents the out
standing farmers’ organization of its
kind in the South. Market News,
bulletin published by the Bureau of
Markets of the North Carolina Depart
ment of Agriculture, relates the story
of the recent growth of this farmers’
cooperative from which we quote:
“Perhaps the most conspicuously
successful organization for marketing
general farm products to be found in
the entire country is doing business in
western North Carolina with Asheville
as the base of operations. The Farmers
Federation, Inc., has just completed a
stock drive which added $160,350 to its
capital stock, $10,360 more than^their,
TOWN AND COUNTRY
There should always be a spirit of
cooperation and friendship between
town and country dwellers. Time was
(and not so very long ago) when thqre
was a great gulf fixed between the
two, and it was taken for granted that
what appeared to be in the interest of
one was per se inimical to the best in
terest of the other. Although this feel
ing is not so strong as it was it still
prevails to too great an extent.
So far as fundamental economic prin
ciples are concerned, all the people are
interdependent, and, therefore, vhat
affects the people of the towns and
cities affects to a greater or less extent
the people of the rural districts. If toe
producers of cotton, tobacco, truck and
fruit do not prosper, on account of cer
tain adverse conditions neither will the
business men of the towns and cities
prosper, that is, they will not per
manently prosper. If the business
methods of the city and town men work
permanently against the men of the
rural districts, those business methods
will in the end redound to the hurt of the
cities and towns, because the fountain
head is the all-important part of the
stream and must be fed to give a
healthy flow. But the only way in
which a fountain head of a stream can
get a healthy outlet is through good
conditions for its passage to the sea.
In other words, if there is to be per
manent prosperity in a community,
county, or state there must be coopera
tion between town and country.
Let there be cooperation between
town and country, and the best start
ing point would be in the maintenance
of good roads and schools, such as we
have in this county and state. Town
and country dwellers are benefited alike
by good roads and good schools, whose
resultant good effects, in accordance
with the fixed laws of trade, promote
both agricultural and business prosper
ity.—Sanford Express:
Grinding corn
Sawing wood .
Pumping water.'..... ...
Separating cream
Churning butter
Grinding feed
Husking corn
Milking .
Cutting beets and turnips...
Cutting ensilage (and elevating it)
The rate of 10 ctnts per kilowatt
hour which is the basis of the costs given
in the above table is only a rough esti
mate taken from averages of rural
rates in all parts of the country. It is
made to include the flat rate for current
(which might be only 4 or 6 cents per
K. W. H.) plus the rural service charge
which public utility companies usually
make on account of the increased ex
pense of serVing rural customers as
compared with city customers. It is hoped
that figures on actual rates charged
by the power companies of North
Carolina may be presented in a later
article. If the rate is less than the
cautious estimate of 10 cents per K. W.
H., as is likely to be the case, then the
cost per unit could still be calculated
from i'he table given above. For in
stance, at a 7 cor.t ratu, the cost of
grinding feed would be .66 multiplied
by 7, or 4.62 cents per 100 lbs. of feed
ground. Grinding corn would cost 5.6
cents per bushel instead of 8 cents, and
so on.
Monthly Consumption
In order to get an idea of total month-
Cost of Current
K.'W.H. per unit
.8 per bushel
1.25 per cord
.6 per 72 gallons
.04 per 100 lbs.
.06 per 100 lbs.
.66 per 100 lbs.
.1 per bu.
.016 per gallon
.16 per ton
.66 per ton
Cost per unit
8.0 cents per bu.
12.6 cents per cord
6.0 cents per 72 gal.
0.4 cents per 100 lbs.
0.6 cents per 100 lbs.
6.6 cents per 100 lbs.
1.0 cent per bu.
0.16 cents per ga!.
1.6 cents per ton
6.6 cents per ton
ly consumption of electricity, including
both household appliances and farm ap
paratus, an average based on 77 elec
trified farms in Pennsylvania has been
taken. Small, moderate-sized, and a
very few large farms are included. The
average monthly consumption was 104.2
kilowatt hours, and the average month
ly bill was $8.55. That made the aver-
■ age rate to be 8.2 cents per K. W. H.
All these figures, of course, concern
only the farmer who gets his power
from a public utility company. In the
case of one who generates bis 6wn
electricity on the premises by means of
a water wheel turned by small stream,
there is practically no operating ex
pense after the system is once installed.
There .^re thousands of small power
sites in Central and Western North
Carolina, which, once harnessed, would
supply farms with power and light at
very little cost. And in the case of one
who generates electricity by,; gasoline
or kerosene engine, about the only
operating expenses are those of fuel
and oil,—A. T. Cutler.
Trade, banking, and manufacture can
easily make a city big, but they are no
guarantee of its being great.
A city is really great when it is the
best possible place to live in and to rear
children in—which means, the best
schools and churches, the best libraries,
the best attention to sanitation and
health, the wholesomest recreation and
the highest morality, the most neigh-
J borly and the freest from gossip, feuds,
' and factions, the keenest sense of civic
I and social responsibility and the best
; conditions of law and order, the best
i market facilities and the most generous
I concern about progress and prosperity
an the surrounding trade area. —Gas
tonia Gazette.
NUMBER OF FARMS IN THE UNITED STATES IN 1925
Percent Increase and Decrease 1920-1925
In the table below the state-s of the Union are ranked according to the total
number of farms in 1926 as recently reported by the U. S; Census Bureau. The
accompanying column shows the percent increase or decrease in the number of
farms between 1920 and 1926.
U. S. total 6,372,608 farms in 1925 against 6,444,343 in 1920, a decrease of
75,735 farms, or 1.2 percent since 1920. The largest numerical decreases occurred
in Georgia, South Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, Kentucky, Illinois, Ohio,
Arkansas, and Montana. The largest numerical increases occurred in Texas,
California, North Carolina, Minnesota, Virginia, Washington, Oregon, and
Oklahoma.
North Carolina with 283,495 farms now ranks next to Texas in total number.
During the five-year period our numerical gain was 13,732, and only Texas and
California had larger numerical increases.
S. H. Hobbs, Jr.
Department of Rural Social-Economics, University of North Carolina
WHAT MAKES A CITY
Our small towns are in grave danger
of being strangled by the larger cen
ters. Unless they become choice resi
dential or industrial centers, they have
no special attraction to offer home seek
ers who are moving in every day from
rural communities. No man can afford
to do business and to rear a family
a dead town. The only place he
can afford to move into, small or
large, is a choice residence center.
Rank States
Number
Percent
Rank States Number
Percent
of Farms Inc. or Dec.
of Farms Inc. or Dec.
1926
1920-1925
1926
1920-1925
1
Texas
...466,420.
.. 7.0
26
Nebraska .. .
.127,830 .
. 2.7
2
North Carolina.283,495.
..5.1
26
West Virginia
. 90,377..
.. 3.6
3
Missouri .
....260,485.
.-1.0
27
South Dakota.
. 79,631,
. 6.6
4
Kentucky.
258,510..
..—4.6
28
North Dakota.
. 76,969...
.-2.2
5
Mississippi.
267,233..
.—5.6
29
Washington....
. 73,'271..
..10.6
6
Tennessee.
....262,666.
.. 0
30
Florida
. 69,202..
.. 9.6
7
Georgia...
....249,096.
-19,8
31
Colorado
. 68,016...
.-3.2
8
Ohio
,...244,707..
.—4.7
32
Oregon
66,911..
. 11.4
9
Alabama ..
. ...237,679..
.—7.2
33
Maine
. 50,036..
... 3.7
10
Illinois ..
....226,646..
.-4.9
34
Maryland
. 48,997..
.. 2.3
11
Arkansas..
....221,897..
.—4.6
35
Montana
. 47,054..
-18.4
12
Iowa
.. .213,^95.
.. 0
36
Idaho
. 40,684...
.—3.6
13
Pennsylvania ...200,420..
.-0.9
37
Massachusetts
. 33,466...
... 4.6
14
Oklahoma.
....197,226.
.. 2.7
38
New Mexico..
. 31,690.,
.. 6.2
16
Indiana ....
.196,806..
.—4.6
39
New Jersey...
. 29,676...
.—0.1
16
Virginia....
....193,720.
.. 4.0
40
Vermont
. 27,786...
.-4.4
17
Wisconsin
....193,133.
.. 2.0
41
Utah
. 26,000..
, 1.3
18
Michigan ..
192,326..
..-2.1
42
Connecticut.,,
. 23,237..
.. 2.6
19
New York.
....188,762..
.—2.3
43
New Hampshire 21,066..
.. 2.6
20
Minnesota.
....188,260.
.. 5.6
44
Wyoming
. 16,611...
.-1.6
21
South Carolina.172,762..
-10.3
45
Arizona
10,803...
.. 8.3
22
Kansas
....165,880.
.. 0.4
46
Delaware
10,257..
.. 1.2
23
California..
....136,413..
..16.9
47
Nevada
. 3,912...
..23.7
24
Louisiana .
....132,461..
.-2.2
48
Rhode Island .
3,911...
—4.2