The news in this publi
cation is relecised for the
press on receipt.
THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA
EWS L
Published Weekly by the
University of North Caro
lina for the University Ex
tension Division.
MARCH 31, 1926
CHAPEL HILL, N C.
THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA PRESS
VOL. XII, NO. 20
Editorial Board, E. C. Brarison. S, H. Hobbs. Jr.. L. R. Wilson. E. W. Knight. D. D. Carroll. J. B. Bullitt. 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, 1912
FEWER CATTLE IN CAROLINA
The more we talk about the need for
cattle, especially dairy cattle, in North
Carolina, the fewer cattle we have.
Every time the censusltakers make a
count of our cattle the fewer they re
port. This condition has been going on
long enough for us to be safe in derlar-
ing that in both beef and dairy cattle
North Carolina is steadily losing
ground. The 1920 census reported fewer
cattle than the 1910 census. The 1926
census reports fewer than the 1920
census.
During the last five yearS eighty-
seven of the one hundred counties of
the state have experienced a loss in
cattle of all kinds.
Only thirteen counties /showed an in
crease in cattle, and only seven counties
showed gains that could be classed as
creditable. See the table which appears
elsewhere.
Tidewater Last
New Hanover leads with an increase
in all cattle of nearly 100 percent. In
this case the increase was mainly in
dairy cattle, New Hanover being a city
county offering a good market for ijilk.
All of the geographic areas of the state
experienced decreases in cattle. The
greatest decreases occurred in the Tide
water counties. With the exception of
New Hanover and Chowan the Tide
water counties make a solid group at
the end of the table, making the largest
percent decreases in cattle. The recent
excellent location, abundant water, and
so on and on.
Then what is the explanation? We
think we know the main reason—our
ability to produce both cotton and to
bacco, both great ready-eash crops, but
we confess that we are unable to ex
plain fully why North Carolina should
rank last of all the states in all cattle per
farm, and last both in beef and dairy
cattle per farm.
We do not produce one-sixth of the
beef we need to consume, assuming that
we need to consume as much as the
average person in the United States
actually did consume in 1926, which was
63.1 pounds. We do not produce in the
state one-third of the milk or butter
that we need to consume, assuming that
we need to consume as much as the
average person in the United States
actually did consume in 19^5. We do
not say that we imported the balance.
Very likely we did without much of the
beef, milk, and butter we needed to
consume, which is worse >than if we had
imported the entire deficit.
Cheap range-fed production of beef
reached the pinnacle a quarter-century
ago, and the eastward march of meat
production began early in the present
century. Following in wake of the boll
weevil the states to the south of us have
been forced to produce their own meat
and milk in larger quantities or starve.
What we want to emphasize is the neces
sity for a milk cow or two on every
farm. The ideaj is a few cattle on every
HISTORY’S LESSON
If there is one lesson taught by
history, it is that the permanent
greatness of any state must ulti
mately depend more upon the char
acter of its country population than
upon anything else. The problems
of farm life have received very little
consideration and the result has been
bad for those who dwell in the open
country and, therefore, bad for the
whole nation. I am well aware that
the working farmers themselves will
in the last resort have to solve this
problem for themselves.—Theodore
Roosevelt.
tick eradication law does not seem so
far to have stimulated the cattle indus
try in the Tidewater country.
All told the state lost slightly mdte
than one hundred thousand cattle dur
ing the last five years, decreasing from
644,779 to 644,612, or 16.B percent. The
1910 census reported 700,861 cattle on
the farms of the state.
Last in the United States
There have been times in our history
when North Carolina was' an important
cattle state. This was especially true
before the Civil War. See any census
report up to 1860. But of all the states
North Carolina today stands last in all
cattle, and last in both beef and dairy
cattle, on a per farm basis,
Needless to say it is not necessary In
showing our position as a cattle state to
include other than Southern states. All
of the geographic areas of the United
States come ahead of the South in cattle
per farm. The following table shows
the rank of the Southern states in cattle
per farm.
State All Calte
cattle per farm
Texas 6,800,981 12 4
Florida 662,215 11-2
Oklahoma 1,694,616 8 0
Louisiana 703,246 C.3
Virginia 826,646 4.3
Tennessee 1,022,708 4.1
Arkansas 836,667 3.8
Georgia 938,689 B.8
Kentucky 937,779 3.6
Mississippi 938,024 3 6
Alabama 840,030 3.5
South Carolina..., 340,151 2-0-
North Carolina 544,512 1-9
United States...61,671,762 9 06
Thus it is seen that North Carolina
ranks last among the Southern states
in cattle per farm, and very naturally
ranks last among all the states in this
respect. It will be noted that the United
States average is 9.66 cattle per farm,
or more than five times the average for
North Carolina. Aside from South Caro
lina there is not another state in the
Union that even approaches North Caro
lina in fewness of cattle per farm. This
is an immensely surprising fact, and a
fact that involves worlds of significance,
which we cannot go into at,this time.
But it is worth thinking about.
We should like to point out, however,
that North Carolina’s exceedingly low
rank is hard to'explain. Tenancy can
not explain it, as our tenant rate is be
low the average for the South. Negro
ratio cannot explain it, for our negro
rjrt;io is below the average for the South.
Geographic location cannot explain it, for
our geographic location is very favor
able, compared with states to the south
of us. Natural conditions cannot ex
plain it, for it is said that we possess
most admirable natural resources
for becoming a livestock state—excel
lent climate, splendid grazing grounds,
farm, instead of ^ thousand on every
range, but North Carolina is further
away than ever from this ideal.—
S. H. H., Jr.
And God has given to us greater re
sources in waterways than to any other
people of the earth.—Brief of article of
Secretary Herbert Hoover, in The Coun
try Gentleman.
of
HOOVER ON WATERWAYS
One fundamental need of American
agriculture is cheaper transportation.
Our railways are being worked to an
efficiency never before equalled in his
tory, but with the increased cost of
labor and supplies, due to the war,
there is no very large margin in pros
pect for rate reductions by rail.
Improvement of the inland waterways
offers a large measure of help. A wise,
comprehensive, national program, pushed
rapidly to completion, is required.
Utilization of all of the major trans
portation agencies of the country—rail
ways, waterways, and highways—is
essential. There need be no, friction
between them. They can and must
function together.
For certain types of goods water car
riage has proven itself to be by far the
cheapest. Water transportation is pe
culiarly adapted to the primary agricul
tural products. On the sea or on the
Great Likes, 1,000 bushels of wheat
can IG Iran? ported 1, OiOO miles for twenty
to thirty collars. Using the moderi)
cquii. p?d Mississippi barges, 1,.000 bush
els cf wheat can be transported 1,000
miles for sixty to seventy dollars. It
costs from $150 to-$200 to carry 1,000
bushtls of wheat fi r 1,000miles by rail.
Oar farmers ha^o the highest stand
ard of living in the woilJ. That stand
ard must be maintained. In order,
therefire. to compete on an equitable
basis nothing must be left undone to
economize in the costs of transporta-
tkn. Eifery cent thus saved goes into
the pocket of the farmer.’ For when
‘the farmer is a competitive seller in a
foreign market the freight comes off
his price.
A national program is essential. Great
trsnsportation systems, whether water,
rail or road, must consist of main trunk
lines with collateral feeders. A rail
road frcm Chicago to New York would
have furious expenses if it had sections
of narrow-gauge track in,it. And our
waterways systems with stretches un
completed are exactly in that condition.
Fortunately the members of Congress,
officials of the federal and state govern
ments, and the people of the inland ter
ritory now appreciate the necessity for
a unified national pregram.
Room for Both
When we stress the necessity for im
provement of waterways, there is no
reflection on the great railway systems
of America. There must be constant
development of the railroads. But the
cost of such development increases
apace. Land values are much higher
now than when the empire builders laid
down the expanse of steel from coast to
coast. The railroads will always be
needed first. Obviously they reach mil
lions of people untouched by waterways.
They handle many sorts of commodities,
better. We must see that the earnings
of the railroads are safeguarded so that
they can continue to provide ever-
increasing facilities and increasing ef
ficiency.
We have had most bitter contro
versies between the railroads and the
waterways. But the railroads are now
reaching a point of full load and they
can well yield certain commodities to
the more economical waterways.
It is. folly to say that the prosperity
of our railroads will be jeopardized by
the improvement Of the waterways.
The improvement and development of
our highways did not stifle the railroads,
despite the tenfold increase in traffic.
The railroads could not today handle the
traffic of the highway transport. So it
will be with the waterways. All are
needed.
A Practical Demonstration
We have now had some real experi
ence in operating modern constructed
and equipped waterways, so we are
not proceeding on theory alone. The
Government itself, in 1918, established
the Mississippi-Warrior river barge line
service, which has proven to the satis
faction of everyone that it can be oper
ated at a profit. Moreover, the freight
rates are 80 percent of the rail rates.
The equipment has been limited, work
of clearing the river channels has been
slow. Nevertheless, the demonstration
has been most satisfactory.
It is not necessary to cite many figures
on the traffic now moving on the Ohio,
for instance. Steel pipe, nails, farm
fenceSr and other products of the Pitts
burgh mills are moving regularly
tows of steel barges, carrying from
5,000 to 10,000 tons each. Coal is being
shipped in the same way.' Because of
unfinished segments, it is not possible
to transport these products all the way
down the river except at high water.
But the time is soon at hand when that
can be done. It is interesting to note
that the freight transported on the
Ohio, Monongahela and Allegheny rivers
in 1923 exceeded that of the Panama
canal by 3,173,456 tons and exceeded!
that of the Suez canal by 5,467,000 tons.
Will Benefit All
YOUNG FISH TO BE HAD
The bass and trout hatcheries
the state at Waynesville, Boone, Dough-
ton, Marion, and Fayetteville have on
hand more than two million eggs and
fry, and unless the loss between now
and time for distribution to begin is
much larger than is normally expected
they should have for distribution this
spring and summer quite a number of
brook and rainbow trout, certainly a
million and eight hundred thousand.
The distribution from our two bass
stations should not be less than five
tion by the Fisheries Commission Office,
Morehead City, N. C., or by either of
the Hatchery superintendents, and fed
eral application blanks may be had by ,
writing the U. S,. Bureau of Fisheries,
Washington, D. C. Write for blanks
at once. Applications on file that could
not be filled last year will receive atten
tion first this season, and such as we
cannot fill this year will be filed for first
attention next season.—Fisheries Com
mission, Morehead City, N. C.
WHAT A DOLLAR WILL BUY
The age-old difficulty of securing the
just purchasing power of a dollar is
again under discussion. The National
Industrial Conference says in its study
that the purchasing power of a dollar
has declined to about 60 percent of its
hundred thousand this season, and, in; pre-war value. It says that “a dollar
addition to the number that will be dis- j in October, 1926, would buy on the aver-
tributed from our state owned and ope- i age only 43.7 percent of the amount of
rated hatcheries, we have by cooperating : labor it- would have commanded in 1914,
with the federal Bureau of Fisheries ar- i in other words, the board says, while
ranged to get the whole output from the ! the employe’s dollar, spent for general
U. S. Hatchery located at Edenton.N.C., ; living expenses, has decreased only
for distribution in North Carolina waters, ! about 40 percent since 1914, the em-
one-half of which distribution will be ' ployer’s dollar spent for wages has de-
made in filling state applications and the ! dined 56.3 percent and is worth con-
other half to fill applications made to the I aiderably less than half of what it was
U. S. Bureau of Fisheries. Not less than
threey hundred thousand bass, twenty
million shad, and quite a number of
various other species should be dis
tributed from the Edenton station this
year.
People in the state who would like to
have fish for their ponds, lakes, or
streams should send in their applica
tions in due time. State application
blanks will be furnished upon applica-
in pre-war days.”
The salaried men and women and the
farmers complain that while wages have
increased in industry and returns upon
stocks and bonds have been'large, they
have not received their proportionate
part of the prosperity. And that is
true.
How can a dollar on the yard stick
affect all equally? The International
Harvester is returning to barter by
offering to swap farm machinery for
corn at one dollar a bushel. But barter
is impossible to most people.
CATTLE ON FARMS IN NORTH CAROLINA
Percent Increase and Decrease 1920-1925
In the following table, based on U. S. Census of Agriculture, the counties
are ranked according to increase and decrease in all cattle on farms from 1920
to 1926. The parallel column shows the number of all cattle on farms in each
county in 1926.
In only 13 counties did the number of all cattle increase during the five-year
period. Eighty-seven counties showed losses.
Except for New Hanover county which ranks best, and Chowan, the entire
Tidewater country falls in a block at the end of the table, suffering large losses
in cattle, both beef and dairy.
State total of cattle on farms in 1926 was 544,612. State total in 1920 was
644,77,9. The decrease was 100,267 or 15.6 percent.
George M. Stephens, Buncombe county
Department of Rural Social-Economics, University of North Carolina
Rank County
It is a national problem. Though it;
Percent
Number increase or
cattle decrease
1925 1920-1925
Increase
New Hanover... 1,454 99.5
Yancey 12,470 66.4
Durham 4,805 27.1
Avery 6,112 19.8
Cherokee 8,543 13.5
Hoke 1,940 13.1
Chowan 1,662 12.8
Davie 5,446 4.1
Halifax 6,396 4.0
Jackson 9,346 3.8
Mecklenburg 13,985 3.3
Nash 4,344 3.1
Bladen 3,899 1-7
Decrease
Rank County
will benefit the farmer greatly, it Will 114
Mitchell
. 4,645
1.1
benefit the nation as a whole. It should
15
Randolph
. 8,613
1.6
bring better distribution of population
16
Warren
. 5,961
1.9
and industry. That helps the farmer.
17
Person
. 5,114
3.2
It will bring markets closer to hiln.
17
Swain
. 4,990
3.2
The cities of the Eastern seaboard are
19
Orange
. 4,866
4.1
congested. The waterways will place
20
Clay
. 3,476
4.6
many inland cities on an equality from
21
Union
.12,689
the standpoint of transportation. Better
22
Madison
.12,845
living conditions for workers, proximity
23
Davidson
. 9,021
6.7
to some of the sources of raw materials
24
Wake
.10,890
7.6
will make it to the advantage of many
26
Lenoir
. 2,694
7.9
industries to transfer activities inland.
26
Lee
. 2,668
8.3
This wiser and better distribution will
27
Macon
. 8,223
8.4
redound to the benefit of both industry
28
Surry
. 8,030
9.6
and agriculture. Greater diffusion of
29
Catawba
. 7,692
9.8
our people cai| be materially aided by
29
Cabarrus
. 7,364
9 8
waterways improvement.
31
Ashe
.20,049
10.2
Consider the providential possession
32
Greene
. 1,762
of a nptwork of great natural water-
33
Alleghany
.10,544
11.6
ways, the advance of engineering science
3^
Wilkes
.12,499
11.7
which renders feasible their completion
35
Henderson
.. 6,983
11.8
to the cheapest form of transportation
36
Gaston
. 7,449
12.1
for primary goods, the moderate capital
37
Rowan
.. 9,776
12.5
outlay required for so reproductive a
38
Robeson
.. 6,372
12.6
work. The recovered economic strength
39
Stokes
•• 6,784
12.7
of our nation places us in a new era in
4Q
Cumberland...
.. 3,694
12.8
this great project—and it bids that we
41
Watauga
.. 9,616
12.9
provide for the increasing traffic of our
42
Guilford
..11,373
13.1
country; that we set in motion the eco-
42
Granville
.. 6,049
13.1
nomic forces that will tend to a better
44
McDowell
.. 3,979
13.2
distribution of our increasing popula-
46
Caldwell
.. 5,640
13.9
tion and the wider diversification of our
46
Buncombe
..18,203
14.2
industries.
46
Northampton
.. 4,120
14.2
Thus only, will what God has given
48
Alamance
.. 7,220
14.5
us become a blessing to every cottage.
49
Rutherford ...
.. 8,004
15.2
Vance .
Number Percent
cattle decrease
1926 1920-1926
.. 3,287 15.2
Harnett 3,787 15.6
Transylvania... 3,699 16.5
Fors3?th 6,716 16.2
Lincoln 5,126 16.2
Edgecombe 2,918 16.2
Johnston. 7,022 16.8
Burke 4,438 .....17.1
Iredell 10,200 17.4
Polk 2,360 17.6
Moore 3,946 18,2
Cleveland 10,339 ...18.3
Franklin 6,068 19.3
Stanly 6,421 19.8
Wayne 4,020 20.1
Anson 6,178 20.6
Montgomery... 3,017 22.1
Pasquotank 3,326 22.3
Alexander 3,877 22.9
Yadkin 4,461 23.1
Wilson 1,804 23.9
Duplin 4,676 24.6
Sampson...'. 6,109 24.8
Chatham 7,466 25.0
Pender 2,369 26.0
Scotland 1,218 26.1
Richmond.....'.. 2,741._ 27.6
Rockingham... 6,761 27 9
Pamlico 1,646 29.2
Haywood 12,012 30.4
Caswell 2,901 34.0
Dare 239 35,6
Gates 2,301 37.4
Graham ,2,232 37.4
Washington.... 1,486 37.8
Tyrrell 1,106 39.0
Perquimans 2,001 41.6
Camden 1,467 42.5
Pitt 13,367 42.8
Columbus 3,182 44.4
Craven 12,286 47.6
Currituck 1,761 47.6
Martin 1,731 48.1
Hyde 2,386 60.6
Hertford 1,778 62.8
Onslow 2,118 63.4
Beaufort 3,009 66.4
Jones 1,265 68.0
Carteret 962 69.4
Bertie 2,208 60.6
Brunswick 3I>439 69.1