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.
APRIL 14, 1926
CHAPEL HILL, N C.
THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA PRESS
VOL. XII, NO. 23
Kciltorirtl Uoarrit E. C. Branaon. 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 PostolBce at Chapel Hill, N. C., under the act of August 24, 1912
DAIRY COWS PER FARM
B. ® L. AND INSURANCE
In no department of statistics will be
found any better story in tabloid than
that of the building and loan associa
tions of North Carolina which now have
256 local organizations with assets in
excess of $74,000,000. In 1926 these
home-makers erected 8,000 houses at a
cost of more than $26,000,000. Thus,
through this one organization alone,
North Carolina tied 8,000 families to the
soil last year. And all this has come
about since 1904 when the insurance
department took over these organiza
tions, then numbering fifty, and under
took to direct them with their $3,000,000
assets.
It was not an easy job, for the build
ing and loans lacked nearly all of the
repute which has been won by them
since. They had been under the domi
nation of foreign influences, which lack
ing the local interest made themselves
in uncounted instances the cause of
great popular disfavor. The insurance
department.engineered a strong build
ing and loan law and drove the alien
associations from the state.
A Big Insurance State
Incidentally, North Carolina has shown
phenomenal grow’th in its insurance
business. When James R. Young took
over the department and carried*it first
in his vest pocket, then sat it down in t
little room of a ramshackle hut belong
ing to the first woman’s club, it was not
a very impressive business. The in
surance commissioner’s report at the
close of 1899 showed $78,000,000 in all
state business, fire and life, and 26 years
later the enormous total of $1,709,049,-
366. And this does not consider the
miscellaneous lines of insurance, casu
alty, surety, burglary, liability, plate
glass, steam boiler, title credit and
accident. North Carolina with its Jeffer
son Standard, Pilot, and a score of other
strong home companies, has become an
insurance state. There is a huge busi
ness every year written. The 1926 sea
son wap much the best of all. Never
did so many North Carolinians win
national recognition for their writing.
The insurance business was colossal.
In no state, except New York, per
haps, did the insurance companies put
so much in building as they did in North
Carolina. The building and loans are
just a starter in computing the con
struction done through these financial
agencies. The same proportion^main-
tained by these associations will be
found in all other realms of activity.
North Carolina built last year as never
before, but the first month of 1926 easily
promises to best 1926.
Th© state spent more than $100,000,000
in actual construction for 1926. Build-
SeeK Legislative Relief
To a very large degree unorganized
and isolated, farmers naturally have
tended more and more to resort -to
political pressure to obtain relief from
their economic ills, such as dwindling
incomes, decline of agricultural produc
tion in proportion to growth of popula
tion and mounting production costs on
the farm in the face of falling markets.
But the agricultural problem is the
common problem of all industrial and
commercial life as well. It is to no
greater extent a question of what will
be the consequences for the farmer than
it irof what will they be for our entire
economic and business life if American
agriculture continues to lag behind in
comparison with the general economic
development of the country.—National
Industrial Conference Board.
BUYING MOTOR CARS
The State Department of Revenue
reports that during the year 1926 the
people of North Carolina spent $71,-
661,400.00 for new and used auto
mobiles. There were 66,696 new cars
sold in North Carolina at an approxi
mate cost of $54,116,700.00, and 49,-
842 used cars at an approximate cost
of $17,444,700.00. The money we
spent on purchasing motor cars
amounted to almost as much as the
value of the entire tobacco crop of
the state for the . year 1925. We
spent more than three times as much
in purchasing motor cars as we spent
on public education. We probably
spent more on automobile repairs
and spare parts than we spent on
public education.
THE AVERAGE FARM
The following comparisons were made
from the 1926 State Farm Census sum
mary for the purpose of computing the
crop returns from an average North
Carolina farm.
The average farm in the state con
sisted of almost exactly 100 acres in
area. Of this amount, only 27 acres
were in actual cultivation; 6.6 acres
were lying out idle, and the remaining
67.4 acres were in woods, waste and
pasture land.
Of the 27 acres in cultivation, 9.7
acres were in corn, valued at about
$20.35 per acre for grain. Approxi
mately 80 percent of this corn area had
fodder taken from it making about 6.86
acres so us^ with a value of about
$84.04 for the fodder, and a total of
$281.44.
There were 7.7 acres in cotton which,
at the average value per acre for the state
in 1926 of $61.07, was worth $470.24.
This includes the value of both the seed
and the lint.
There were 2.6 acres in hay crops, both
cultivated and wild, which averaged
about $14.66 per acre, making a total
of $36.38.
There were 2.1 acres in tobacco which
showed the greatest per acre return of
any crop, averaging about 660 pounds,
worth approximately $161.80 per acre.
The gross value of the 2.1 acres to the
farmer was therefore about $318.78.
There were 1.7 acres in wheat, worth
about $31.98.
There were 1.3 acres in truck crops
which, valued at $200.00 an acre, would
be worth $260.00.
One acre was in peanuts, worth about
$68.86.
One acre in other crops, worth about
$60.00.
The gross income from the 27 culti-
should be the center of interest for all
the people of the community the whole
year round. At least once a week there
should be some special attraction that
would bring the people together for an
hour or two of pleasure and profit.
pals and teachers choose to settle down
and become citizens and vital members
of the communities in which they work,
it will be almost impossible to carry out
a community program, especially since
such a program must of necessity ex
tend over a period of years. Schools of
permanent influence are largely built
around permanent teachers. Schools
taught by grasshopper teachers can
never become centers of community
life.
We used to think that the expensive
school house had served its purpose,
when we used it from nine o’clock in
the morning until three or four o’clock
in the afternoon for five days in the
week. Now we know differently. The
school building furnished by the tax
payers of the community belongs to all
the people of the community, and should
be used not merely by the children but
by the grown-ups as well.
The Program
In regard to the program for the
school, Mr. Moser showed that no one
program of activities could be devised
which would meet the needs of all com
munities. Every section will naturally
have its own peculiar conditions and
problems, he said, and the program set
forth is merely suggestive and will have
to be adapted to existing conditions.
First, organize at each school (1) a
boys’ corn or agricultural club; (2) a
girls’ canning or household arts club,
and let these clubs include the young
people of the community who are not
in school.
Second, connect the school work with
the occupational interests of the com
munity by adding to the curriculum
courses in farm management and voca
tional subjects, and bring to the school
as often as possible the county farm
agent and others who can assist in the
work. Introduce into the curriculum
courses in cooking, home-making, and
related subjects for the girls and
young women of the community. Em
phasize courses in hygiene, sanitation,
FOOD AND FEED FIRST
In Texas, I am pleased to report, 646
banks are on record as endorsing and
sustaining the Texas Safe Farming As
sociation’s slogan of “Better Cotton on
Fewer Acres and More Feed on More
Acres.’’ In 172 communities there is
active organization by Chambers of
Commerce, Lions, or Kiwanis or Rotary
Clubs. Our Dallas News for two years
has conducted an energetic and effective
campaign for “More Cotton on Fewer
Acres’’ in order to release acreage for
food and feed crops. Our Star-Telegram
is almost dail^ pounding upon the theme
of food and feed first, and cotton next.
Our agricultural papers, Farm and
Ranch, Progressive Farmer, and South
land Farmer omit no opportunity to
stress the importance of a balanced
agriculture. Literally, hundreds of our
country papers are doing the same thing.
At every group meeting of Texas bank
ers held this week, the President of the
Association has made safe farming the
principal topic of his address.
I have no way of knowing, nor have
any of the other men or institutions I
have mentioned any way of knowing,
what the cotton yield will be per acre
or what the total crop will be in 1927
or what the price will be next October,
but we all know that if we have our
food and feed, whatever we get for our
cotton can be used to pay debts and buy
comforts, but if we do not have our food
and feed, no price for cotton that is
remotely possible will yield a profit on
the year’s operations, and in Texas we
mean to feed ourselves. We hope the
other cotton states will do the same
thing.
That is our philosophy in Texas. If
we succeed in this planting program, as
I believe we will, our next move will
be to promote live stock—poultry, pigs,
and milk cows—first for home consump
tion and later for supplementary in
come.
Our ultimate objective is a balanced
agriculture which will maintain soil fer
tility and distribute the risks of crop
failure and price depression. Our motive
is profitable business through profitable
agriculture.—Clarence Ousley, Director
Texas Safe Farming Association,
Commerce and Finance.
vated acres totals about $1,507.68, This ^ _ .
ing and engineering contracts brought; approximately covers the actual j and health, using the assistance of the
the total to $104,514,600, according to | cash value of the field crops produced | county and state health authorities
the Dodge corporation. This, the com- j j^^it include returns from live-
pany says, is an increase of 29 percent | products, poultry and by-products
from the crops themselves.
Unfortunately, lack of space herein
does not permit of further development
of this subject, but we expect to en
large on it in the near future. This will
be from the standpoint of size of the
average family, the consumption of food
and feed products, the cost to maintain
the average farm family, etc.—Farm
Forecaster.
DAIRY cows PER FARM
The table which appears elsewhere
shows how the states rank in dairy cows
on a per farm basis. The accompany
ing column shows the number of cows
two years old and over classed as dairy
cows, as distinguished from beef cattle.
Wisconsin ranks first in dairy cows
per farm, averaging 10.16 cows two
years old and over classed as dairy.
Vermont does almost as well. Only
Louisiana and Florida rank below North
Carolina in the table, and further study
of census data forces one to conclude
that as a matter of fact North Carolina
actually ranks last of all the states in
dairy cows and in milk production per
farm. Many cows classed as beef are
dual-purpose cattle, that is they may
be milked or slaughtered, according to
circumstances. Although Louisiana and
Florida rank slightly below North Caro
lina in cows classed as dairy cattle per
farm, both of these states far surpass
North Carolina in cows two years old
and over classed as beef cattle. While
North Carolina had in 1926 only 84,927
beef cows two years old and over,
Louisiana had 300,205, and Florida had
318,517. Louisiana has per farm seven
times as many cows two years old and
over classed as beef as North Carolina
has, while Florida has twenty times as
many. Since some beef cows are milked
it is very clear that with so many more
beef cows both Florida and Louisiana
actually rank ahead of North Carolina.
In other words, North Carolina actually
ranks last of all states in milk cows per
farm, and therefore last in milk and
butter production per farm, because no
one can claim that we make up in quality
for what we lack in quantity. Just a
little observation settles that point. The
1920 Census showed that in quantity of
all livestock North Carolina ranked
forty-sixth.
Both North Carolina and the South
have just produced the largest cotton
crop on record. There will be an
enormous carry-over of the 1925 crop,
probably three to four million bales.
Another such crop in 1926 would bank
rupt the South. Very likely more atten
tion to home-raised food and feed sup
plies during 1926 will pay our farmers
handsomely. Cotton production on a
home-raised food and feed basis has
always been desirable, but never more
so than at this time. Nothing is more
important in such a system of agricul
ture than the dairy cow.
over the construction work of 1924.
Residences took $29,661,900 of this
and public works and utilities $27,231,-
900. Educational buildings required
$12,775,200, and $11,439,000 represents
the commercial construction. The in
dustrial buildings brought the total
above the $100,000,000 mark, and $10,-
796,200 was put into that.
The state, according to the Dodges,
has embarked upon a $169,740,200 pro
gram, a 63 percent increase, for 1926.
The year closed showed a gain of 29
percent over 1924. At the present rate
there should be for 1927 something like
$260,000,000 in construction. — From
Greensboro Daily News.
FARMERS MORE RADICAL
The chief significance of this shifting
of political attitudes lies in the fact that
it directly reflects a serious economic
maladjustment of agriculture, and it is
seen by the Conference Board as a warn
ing that a more scientific coordination
of all industrial and business activities
is needed, . . .
The large capitalization of modern
industrial enterprise, the growing prac
tice of employe and customer stock
ownership, increasing investments of
savings in corporate securities, all tend
to make the urban populations more
and more conservative. On the other
hand, the average farm enterprise rep
resents a capital investment of about
$12,000, generally individually owned.
PROGRAM FOR THE SCHOOL
What effect will the new consolidated
high school building program which is
now being carried out in the state have
on the social, economic, and intellectual
life of the rural and urban communities
of the state? This was one of the ques
tions raised in the regular meeting of
the North Carolina Club at the Uni
versity of North Carolina, March 8, 1926,
when A. M. Moser read a paper to the
Club on thp subject of A Community
Program for the School.
In answer to this question it was
pointed out that the possibilities for the
consolidated school to become a com
munity builder were tremendous, but
that so far the schools had not capital
ized their opportunity in this respect.
It was pointed out that if the schools
ever are to function efficiently as cen
ters of community life a different type
of school principal and teacher usually
will be needed to direct the work. At
present the teachers move too often,
and it was pointed out that until princi-
DAIRY COWS PER FARM IN THE UNITED STATES
Based on Federal Census as of January 1, 1925
The following table ranks the states according to dairy cows per farm on
January 1, 1926. The table refers to cows and heifers two years old and over
classed as dairy, whether actually being milked or not. Beef cattle are ex
cluded, although many cows classed as beef are being milked.
Wisconsin ranks first with 10.16 daii y cows two years old and over per farm,
much as possible. I North Carolina ranks 46th with 0.83 dairy cows per farm. Louisiana and Florida,
Third, the school should make an eco-1 which rank below North Carolina in the table, have respectively 300,206 and
nomic and social study of the com-: 318,617 beef cows two years old and over, against North Carolina’s 84,927.
munity. These studies should be done i Since many cows classed as beef are milked, both Louisiana and Florida actually
by the students under the direction of | rank far ahead of North Carolina in milk production per farm,
the teachers. They would concern local United States total 17,700,000 cows two years old and over classed as dairy,
geography and history; direct attention or 2,78 dairy cows per farm. „ „ „ , , ,
o. rl. Jtiobbs, Jr.
Department of Rural Social-Economics, University of North Carolina
to origins, and racial strains; note
worthy events and achievements; his
toric objects and localities; study the
condition of libraries, schools, churches,
and forces and agencies of progress; a
study of the lives of men who are lead
ers in the spiritual, intellectual, and
material upbuilding of the community;
and a study of the occupations, indus
tries and so on in which the people are
vitally interested.
Fourth, the school should begin to
organize the interests of the community
with the school as a center. Various
organizations should be revived and new
ones formed, and committees should be
appointed to encourage, for example,
the production of food and feed crops,
along with some good standard money
crop; to improve methods in cultivation;
selling; to secure credit at a low rate;
to develop community resources, such
as waterpower, forests, etc.
A women’s club should be organized
for the purpose of studying home-mak
ing, furnishing, equipment; to develop
native industries—sewing, weaving, etc.;
for social and cultural purposes such as
the study of music, art, the drama, and
literature.
It was pointed' out that the school j 24
Cows two
Number
Cows two
Number
years old
of dairy
years old
of dairy
Rank State
and over
cows per
Rank State
and over
cows per
classed as
farm
classed as
farm
dairy
dairy
Wisconsin
.1,961,019..
....10.16
26
Arizona
.... 32,966..
... 3.06
2
Vermont
. 279,448.
...10.10
26
Maine
...161,983..
... 3.04
3
New York
.1,376,676.
.... 7.28
27
Colorado
.,..163,814..
.... 2.82
4
Minnesota
.1,314,742.
.... 7.00
28
Utah
.... 71,446.
.... 2.76
6
Rhode Island...
21,961.
.... 6.62
29
Nebraska
....230,502.
.... 2.69
6
Connecticut....
. 113,866.
.... 6.10
30
Kansas
....381,722.
.... 2.30
7
Nevada
. 17,431.
.... 4.46
31
Montana
....104,344.
.... 2.14
8
Massachusetts
. 146,631.
.... 4.36
32
Wyoming
.... 33,110.
.... 2.13
9
Pennsylvania..
. 861,014,
.... 4.30
33
Missouri
....518,611.
.... 1.99
10
Michigan
. 807,800.
.... 4.20
34
Oklahoma
....361,434.
.... 1.83
11
New Jersey....
. 122,780.
.... 4.15
36
Texas
....731,203.
.... 1.67
12
California
. 662,936.
.... 4.13
36
West Virginia
....138,696.
.... 1.64
13
North Dakota.
312,079.
.... 4.11
37
Virginia
....291,978.
.... 1.51
14
New Hampshire 81,504.
.... 3.87
38
Kentucky
....388,070.
.... 1.60
16
Illinois
. 836,687.
.... 3.71
39
Tennessee
....361,309.
.... 1.43
16
Oregon
. 204,890.
.... 3.66
40
Alabama
....304,280.
.... 1.28
17
Washington....
. 267,183.
.... 3.66
41
Mississippi
..,.320,460.
.... 1.26
18
Maryland
. 172,791.
.... 3.53
42
New Mexico...
.... 39,386.
.... 1.24
19
Indiana
.. 697,788.
.... 3.60
43
Arkansas
....272,069.
.... 1.23
20
Idaho
.. 139,406.
.... 3.44
44
Georgia
....266,786.
.... 1.03
20
Ohio
.. 841,637.
.... 3.44
46
South Carolina
145,982.
.... 0.86
22
Delaware
.. 33,793.
.... 3.29
46
North Carolina.
...251,211
0.83
23
Iowa
.. 692,608.
.... 3.24
47
Louisiana
.... 98,167.
0.78
24
South Dakota
.. 243,629.
.... 3.06
48
Florida
43,641.
0.74