TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION R. D. LEWIS. Director, College Station. Texas Mcu; i953 Cotton and Manpower Texas High PAHIIISJBRARY .& M. comm OF TEXAS in cooperation with the UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 1 The TEXAS AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL COLLEGE SYSTEM cuss GILCHRIST. Chancellor MAJOR MIGRATORY ROUTES TO HIGH PLAINS I PIainS Iigxo‘ " v éegqfi‘ 9 c» 9- » a on area ‘°'°°¢,*°\‘_ ,¢»°?§v¢ ‘p3; qe s» s» ~s_ ‘ ‘£44293; Lubbock and Crosby counties if”? High Plains cotton area ‘ ‘°" m“ ' , Other moior cotton oreos Migratory routes U. S.DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NEG.49IO3 BUREAU OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS Figure 1. DIGEST This report presents the results 0f a study 0f farm labor employed in the cotton crop of the Texas High Plains. Made in Lubbock and Crosby counties by the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station and the Bureau of Agricultural Econom- ics of the United States Department of Agriculture, the study covered the experience of 324 farm operators in the 1951 crop. It was focused on the types, sources and utilization of labor .in an area that annually requires large inputs of manpower in the hoeing and chopping and harvest operations. An area of commercial, family-type farms, the High Plains long has been the terminal point for a large stream of migratory farm workers originating mainly in South Texas. Labor-saving machinery, including mechanical cotton har- vesters, are in wide use and make the High Plains an excel- lent laboratory for analyzing the probable effects of high- level mechanization in the rest of the Cotton South. The find- ings point up the role of regular hired workers and of the op-‘ erator and his family in mechanized cotton production. They also show the need for worker training programs, more ade- r quate educational facilities for the children of migratory work- ers, and a better understanding of the functions of public em- iployment services. r One of the principal results of the study is the attention iit directs to an institutional barrier to full mechanization of §cotton crop. The barrier is an outgrowth of a tenure system gthat has not kept pace with farm technology. As a conse- quence, full owners in 1951 machine harvested between 2 and ‘E73 times as large a proportion of their cotton as did tenants. If more productive use of available cotton manpower is to be achieved, it is evident that research and education in the field iof landlord-tenant relations must move along with, or precede, §lthe advance of technical developments. CONTENTS Page Digest ..................................................................................................................... .. 3 Introduction ........................................................................................................... .. 5i Purposes of the Study ....................................................................................... .. 5‘ ‘Area of Study ...................................................................................................... .. 6 Irrigation ....................................................................................................... .. 7v Mechanization ............................................................................................... _. 7 Farm Size and Tenure ............................................................................... .. 8 Farm Manpower on the High Plains ............................................................. ..11i Competition with Other Areas ................................................................. ..l2 Recruitment Methods ................................................................................. ..12 The 1951 Sea-son .................................................................................................. -13‘ Drouth ............................................................................................................. ..14’ Employment of Mexican Nationals ......................................................... ..l5' The School Law ............................................................................................ ..15 Labor-Use Patterns ............................................................................................. ..17 Cultivation .................................................................................................... ..18 Harvesting .................................................................................................... .19 Machine Operations ........................................ ..-. ........................................ ..20 Sources of Cotton Labor .................................................................................. ..20 Crew Workers ............................................................................................... ..2 Mexican Nationals ...................................................................................... ..23g Recruitment of Cotton-Harvest Workers ..................................................... "239 Men and Machines in the Cotton Harvest .................................................... ..2 Use of Strippers, 1951 ............................................................................... ..27r Hand Labor Versus Machines .................................................................. .28 Irrigation ............................................................................................... .. Farm Size ............................................................................................. ..2 Tenure .................................................................................................... .. Labor Turnover ...................................................... __ 32 Reasons for Loss of Crews ........................................................................ "33 Losses of Workers Since June 1950 ....................................................... .34 Wage Rates ........................................................................................................... ..37 Harvesting Rates ......................................................................................... ..37 Wage Rate Changes ................................................................................... ..37 Special Problems in the 1951 Harvest ........................................................... .38 Lack of Labor . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 38 Crowded Gins ............................................................................................... "38 Other Problems ............................................................................................ ..39 Effects on Plans for 1952 .................................................................................. ..40 Increased Stripper Use ............................................................................. ..40 Use of Foreign Workers ........................................................................... ..40 Loss of Year-round Workers ..................................................................... ..41e Adjustments in Operating Scale ............................................................. ..42 Summary and Conclusion .................................................................................. ..42 Methodology of the Survey ............................................................................... ..46 Acknowledgments ................................................................................................ _.47 Bibliography of Related Materials ................................................................. "471 l MANPOWER-Texas High Plains Joe R. Mnlheral, William H. Metzler and Louis J. llucoff* ' POWER IS A KEY FACTOR in the national defense program. itions relating to the supply and utilization of manpower _ s are important from the standpoint of essential agri- I al production. Similarly, as workers may move freely een farm and nonfarm employment, these conditions are Ly relevant to the production of defense goods in indus- ‘Expansion of the Nation’s preparedness effort necessar- aces a strain on the labor market. Within agriculture, ffects vary in different parts of the country, and with Went crops. Of all the crops, however, cotton regularly ves the highest man-labor requirements in the full har- f As the largest cotton-producing state, Texas has a ma- take in the solution of farm manpower problems. This y. ecially true during a national emergency. Previous studies of farm labor supply and utilization in Is have been restricted largely to the collection of statis- w meet certain specialized administrative needs in connec- “with public programs. Farm management studies of requirements have been made for a number of areas, QWltlIOHlZ the complementary studies of supply and utili- ‘n, this information is not adequate as a manpower policy ‘- Previous studies particularly have neglected the utili- n of seasonal farm labor. PURPOSES OF THE STUDY .The study on which this report is based represents an at- :- to appraise the farm manpower experience of one cot- roducing area of Texas during the 1951 season. Ques- for which answers were sought dealt with the extent of pf various types of labor by source, including the on-farm g supply; the existence of labor reserves; effects of the f‘ n outbreak on normal labor sources; organized means of p ing or increasing the labor supply; and the outlook for 952 harvest. ectively, associate professor, Department of Agricultural Economics t ociology, Texas Agricultural Experiment Station (on leave); labor ‘V mist and social scientist, Bureau of Agricultural Economics, U. S. » rtment of Agriculture. __6_ The study was designed to furnish practical information to farm employers and workers on the High Plains and to local, state and national agencies having operating responsi- bilities in the field of farm manpower and wages. Four pre-. liminary reports on selected phases of the study have been re- ' leased as Progress Reports 1491, 1501, 1502 and 1506 by the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station. AREA OF STUDY The High Plains cotton area was studied because it is a labor-deficit area during the cotton harvest. In an average- season, the High Plains must depend for harvest labor on the timely appearance of thousands of migratory workers from South Texas and elsewhere. At the same time, the area has a peculiar advantage in machine substitution for hand labor. It appears to be moving rapidly toward maximum use of me-_ chanical harvesting equipment. Cotton plantings were heavy on the High Plains in 1951. Despite some disappointments owing mainly to unfavorable weather, about one million bales of cotton were produced on less than three million acres of land. Thus, the area offered an excellent setting for a study of farm man power. Within the area, Lubbock and Crosby coun- ties were chosen for sampling. These counties together typify the High Plains. In 1951, their record of production was con- sistent enough to provide a reliable pattern of experience. Immediately after the 1951 cotton harvest, 324 farmers in the two counties were interviewed. This was, however, about 3 months after the portion of the harvest involving hand labo 1951. See “Methodology of the Survey.” The important position of the High Plains in cotton pr duction results from a combination of physical conditions’ Fine sandy loams comprise the dominant soils. Its smooth topography slopes to the south and east at about 7 feet a mile Its elevation ranges from 3,700 feet in the northwest to 2,50 feet in the southeast. With a growing season of approximatel 210 days and rainfall averaging 20 inches, cotton may be pr ' duced on dry land at a minimum cost for the control of weeds insects and plant diseases. But it was the expansion of irri gation that raised and stabilized its yields. Cotton acreage on the High Plains varies from year year, depending on fluctuations in price, weather conditio _7._. programs of acreage restriction. Grain sorghum is the i. competing crop. In 1950, cotton occupied about 40 per- * and grain sorghums approximately 50 percent of the 'land. Wheat, the third most important crop, accounted ‘most of the remainder. Oats, barley, hay and a few vege- _/e crops were grown on small acreage. ' Irrigation ', Since 1940, when only 250,000 acres were being irrigated lithe High Plains, a striking increase in irrigation farming ' occurred. In 1950, an estimated 14,000 wells were sup- g irrigation water for nearly 2,000,000 acres. But these is were made at considerable cost. In addition to the ex- _;.- of drilling wells and installing pumping equipment, irri- cotton production introduced problems of Weed and in- I control and a higher year-round labor bill. f Irrigation has not greatly affected the significant natural antages of the High Plains. Level topography still per- l; the universal application of multi-row—mainly four-row j ctor-drawn equipment and the tilling of relatively large ages per operator. The average date of the first killing _'t, November 4, assures comparatively early defoliation of {cotton plants, and makes widespread use of mechanical Qfesting equipment possible. Mechanization In making decisions concerning the use of a mechanical I ester, farmers on the High Plains must take into account Q mber of factors. For example, they must decide whether ‘¢;= ant one of the storm-resistant varieties of cotton to mini- - weather damage and field losses incurred while await- ‘the defoliation which follows the first frost. They must ye a decision either to buy a cotton-stripping machine or ‘epend on the availability of custom strippers. The opti- acreage for a stripper, estimated at 275 acres of dry- f. cotton or 200 acres of irrigated cotton, must be consid- g. Grade and field losses which accompany stripper use be Weighed against probable savings in wages paid for 1» harvesting. As wages are largely determined by the me of migratory workers and anticipated prices for cot- farmers must appraise in advance the prospective labor ly. Yields are important also, as it is difficult to attract of Workers to harvest a poor stand of cotton. Even the i ition of the crop in areas of Texas south of the High Plains _3_ figure in calculations, as these areas compete for harvest la-sg bor. Farm Size and Tenure The alternative use of machinery or human. labor, there- fore, becomes a complex problem of economic judgment. Only a few factors, such as size of farm, amount of irrigated land and the tenure of the operator can be known in advance. (See Tables 1 and 2.) Table 1 shows the proportion of irrigated cotton on the 324 sample farms, distributed by the total cotton acreage on these farms. Part or all of the cotton land was irrigated on’ 70 percent of the cotton-producing farms in the two counties.’ On 60 percent of the cotton farms, more than half of the crop‘ was grown under irrigation. The entire crop was irrigated on, 23 percent of these farms. The remainder, comprising 30 per-i cent of the total, produced cotton entirely on dry land. Dry-land farming was associated with the larger units, which had 250 acres or more planted to cotton. Nearly 4O per- cent of the farms in this size group, mainly in Crosby county, had no irrigation facilities. Small farms, those having less than 125 acres in cotton, appeared most frequently in the “50 percent and over” irrigation category. All cotton land was irrigated on only 13 percent of the small farms. Irrigation" was practiced in varying degrees on a higher proportion of‘ medium-size farms, with 125-249 acres in cotton, than on, either of the other two farm-size groups. The tenure status of an operator often affects labor utili- zation. It determines the incidence of labor costs or, if ma- chinery is substituted, of labor savings. (See “Economics of; Mechanical Harvesting in the High ‘Plains Cotton Area of Tex- as,” Texas Station Bulletin 735.) The extent to which this, difference in income might slow down mechanization of the harvest is uncertain. It is clear, however, that a high rate of Table 1. Extent 0f cotton acreage irrigated, by total acres in cotton on 324 farms, Lubbock and Crosby counties, 1951 ~ Farms with a given percentage of Acres in All cotton acreage irrigated $011120“ farms I Up to 504,9 None 50 percent perceirt nercent Num- Per- Num- Per- Num- Per- Num- Per- Num- Per-. ber cent ber cent ber cent ber cent ber cent ' All farms 324 100 96 30 33 10 119 37 76 23 Under 125 88 100 24 27 4 4 49 56 l1 l3 - 125 -249 126 100 30 24 l0 8 48 38 38 30 250 and over 110 100 42 38 19 17 22 20 27 25 i ncy is a factor of some importance in the mechanization "ure, and that tenancy rates are relatively high in each of counties 0n the High Plains. According t0 the 1950 Cen- __ of Agriculture, 49 percent of the farms in Lubbock county a 41 percent of those in Crosby ‘county were operated by nts. . . j Similar results were obtained in 1952. In the two coun- ,1 combined, 43 percent of the farms were operated by share ants, 30 percent by full owners and 24 percent by part own- ‘l (Table 2). A scattering of partnerships, operating share- pers and others accounted for the rest of the tenure ar- i‘ ements. Full ownerstended to be concentrated in the small-farm ‘up having less than 125 acres in cotton. Part ownership , rred most frequently on the large farms having 250 acres §~ ore in cotton. Share tenants were identified to a consider- degree with medium-size farms. More specifically, 43 ’ ent of the small farms were operated by full owners, 52 . ent of the medium-size farms by share tenants and 36 ent of the large farms by part owners. il-These variations in tenure by size of farm were closely f ted to the different levels of investment in farm real estate v machinery. Full owners were the oldest of the tenure ps and were less likely to be interested in operating a i; acreage. By investing their funds in equipment, share fints could operate larger farms than would otherwise be ible. Part ownership, on the other hand, was frequently loyed by owners as a method for expanding their scale of “ations to maximize the use of large machinery. These "ces of tenure permit adjustments that are highly desir- in a dynamic agriculture. As already indicated, however, ,_ impinge on the progress of mechanization and, hence, on ions as to the use of labor. ,e 2. Tenure of operators on 324 farms, by total acres in cotton, Lubbock and Crosby counties, 1951 A" Farms operated ‘by farms Full owners Part owners 332$; Othersl Num- Per- Num- Per- Num- Per- Num- Per- Num- Per- ber cent ber cent ber cent ber cent ber cent 324 100 97 30 78 24 140 43 9 3 88 160 38 43 11 l3 36 41 3 3 126 100 30 24 28 22 66 52 2 2 110 100 29 26 39 36 t 38 34 4 4 idea partnerships, estates and operating half-and-half sharecroppers. .9889 spsom 59¢ wfifiwfifi 23:3 we 5E5 dpwxao? we @320 we wwowrfimm ma» mfisvmn was $.22 his Lmsow PE wEBh .215 wwswnoss Q5 3oz dfimrm $5 m5. so sofiou wfimmgw wpmvio? Qmwkimm .m wfirwrm __11__ g FARM MANPOWER ON THE HIGH PLAINS i‘ otton farming on the High Plains developed on a man- -scarce basis. In few, if any, years has the local supply u been sufficent to meet peak ‘seasonal demands. As y as the grazing economy gave Way to the cultivation j on and other row crops, recruitment of additional Work- 0m outside the area became an annual problem for farm- 1nd employment agencies. {During periods of general labor scarcity, the problem be- Q; more serious. One year during World War II, farm "requirements on the High Plains in the peak month of ber called for 2% times the regular force then avail- Fon farms. The fullest practicable use of all Workers in =1 1e34would have supplied less than half the Workers need- n 3. To cope with such stringencies, the farmers have avail- 1 two courses of action to reduce reliance on migratory ‘ers: They can resort to mechanical cotton harvesters or ‘ the cropping system toward a 10W labor-consuming crop fgrain sorghum. At various times, they have done both. fAs far back as 1914, home-made Wooden sleds were Wide- to harvest cotton on the High Plains. Ground losses ting from the use of this crude instrument were heavy, Qver, and could be justified only when cotton prices were in relation to Wage rates. Nearly a third of the crop was 1 ed in 1926, as compared with only a small percent be- in 1929 and 1935. Improved mechanical strippers began 1].; in the 1940’s, and by 1944 these machines were used rvest about 20 percent of the crop. ijThe development of combine-type grain sorghums pro- w High Plains farmers a cash crop alternative to which '“ can readily turn when labor is scarce and when relative favor the shift. Acreage adjustments during the War g: illustrate this point. In 1941, cotton and grain sor- J acreages were about equal on the High Plains. Slightly p‘ than a million acres were in each crop. By 1945, grain ‘hum was planted on nearly three million acres, and cotton j ings had declined to about 400,000 acres. As cotton prices f- after the war, a reverse trend occurred, until by 1951 cot- ‘plantings approached the three million-acre mark as grain hum steadily declined. This expansion of the big labor- ' ming crop did not signify a corresponding increase in labor supply. Rather, it was accompanied by increasing __12_ dependence on machine harvesting as a means of reducing the risk of labor shortages and high labor costs. Competition with Other Areas Despite the increased use of machine harvesters, most farmers on the High Plains still prefer t0 “snap” their cotton by hand the first time over. Thus, the demand for harvest labor remains heavy, especially through October and early November. No complete count of the number of workers who migrate into the High Plains area has ever been made, al-i though estimates of the Texas Farm Placement Department range from 100,000 to 150,000 in the average year. Volume and timing of migration depend on a variety of factors, the. most important being the demand situation in cotton-produc- ing areas lying south and east of the High Plains. Most of the harvest workers travel in crews of 10 to 20 persons. The large, high-yielding fields on the High Plains have long been ; the chief objective of their trek. There are other attractions as well. Wage rates on the High Plains are generally above those paid in other parts of the State, a condition made possible by production efficiency and made necessary by the area’s remoteness from the centers a of labor supply. Apart from the relatively attractive wages, Y the High Plains also enjoy a reputation for good labor rela-f tions. In recent years, housing for seasonal workers has im-' proved and the number of units has greatly increased. Other facilities, including recreation, have been provided in the towns and cities. A gradual settling of migrants (an estimated 10,- 000 Latin-Americans in the city of Lubbock alone) has speed- ed the process of accommodation and brought the familiar language, foods and customs into the environment to stay.’ Schooling for the children of migratory workers and unsatis- factory health conditions continue to be unsolved problems, but these are scarcely worse on the High Plains than at the places of origin of the worker families. ' Recruitment Methods The public agency which is responsible for the orderly routing and placement of migrants on the High Plains is the Farm Placement Department (generally called by farmers the‘ “Farm Labor Office”) of the Texas Employment Commission. i, Operating from directional stations located at such points as Brady and Abilene, the Farm Placement Department directs: as many as 50 crews a day to the areas of greatest demand. ‘ _13_ Within the area, a labor camp provided jointly by the city and county of Lubbock served as a placement and distribution center. i Many cotton farmers deal directly with crew leaders and workers, frequently establishing a Working agreement that extends from year to year. Before the cotton-harvesting sea- son opens, farmers maintain contacts by correspondence, by telephone and, in some instances, by personal visits to South Texas. An estimated 5,000 to 6,000 harvest workers now live year-round in Lubbock, yet there is little “day haul” activity. These local workers usually form crews and negotiate with farmers through leaders who, as with the migrants, provide transportation for the workers to the fields and for the cotton to the gins. A 5-day week is standard for cotton pullers, Saturday and Sunday being days of rest and recreation. Individual per- formance rates vary considerably, but some proficient work- ers can pull as much as 800 pounds of cotton daily. The aver- age would be closer to 400 pounds, or slightly more than one bale a week per worker. THE 1951 SEASON Manpower supply and utilization in the 1951 cotton crop of the High Plains were marked by unusual circumstances. In the first place, under the pressure of rising cotton prices and encouragement from governmental sources, Texas farmers in- creased their cotton acreage from 7,048,000 in 1950 to 12,407 ,- 000 in 1951. Outside of the High Plains, most of the increas- ed acreage was located along the routes normally followed by ' migratory harvest workers—beginning in the Lower Rio Grande Valley, then northward through the Corpus Christi cotton area, the Coast Prairie, the Blackland Prairie and the 0' Rolling Plains. (See Figure 1.) Initially, crop prospects were t generally excellent. labor supply and wage rates. Weather soon became the key factor in the outlook for Abnormal planting seasons nar- rowed the usual spread in maturity dates from the southern producing areas to the High Plains, and it appeared that com- 1“ petition for available labor would become intense by early fall. v E, ti I a Farmers on the High Plains became apprehensive because >f ‘the region is the terminal area in the migration, and farmers on the Blackland Prairie were worried because of their rela- tively weaker competitive position in a short harvest season. Fears of a ruinous labor shortage were voiced by farmers, by _14_ agricultural agencies and by the daily press. A continued draining of farm workers into industrial jobs and into the armed forces added to the concern. Organized efforts to ob- ' tain the services of Mexican Nationals for the harvest were started in many parts of the State. Drouth Weather conditions allayed the threat of a labor shortage as the 195-1 season progressed. A moisture deficiency had ser- ' iously reduced crop prospects by the end of July. Weather re- a ports continued adverse through August. Temperatures above I 110 degrees were reported from numerous stations. Cotton be- gan opening prematurely as far north at the Red River and west of the Rolling Plains. Yields from the early crop in the Lower Rio Grande Valley reached and exceeded expectations. Otherwise, except for the High Plains, there was disappoint- m.ent. O But over most of Texas the rains came too late. In ear- ly September, the Bureau of Agricultural Economics report- ed that “benefits to late cotton in northern counties of the Blackland and Low Rolling Plains areas failed to materia- lize as the return of scorching temperatures depleted mois- ture received during the previous week and caused further de- terioration.” Throughout the summer, the High Plains was o, referred to as the “favored” area. In one of the most abnor- mal seasons in history, cotton farmers in the Lower Rio Grande Valley were racing to complete their harvest before Septem- ber 15, when stalks must be destroyed as a safeguard against the pink bollworm, while the first bales were being harvested near Lubbock. Between the two geographic extremes, the cotton crop i fell far short of early indications. Migratory workers moved past scorched fields in the Blacklands and converged on the High Plains earlier than usual. On October 8, the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal reported that 20,000 cotton pullers, includ- ing 15,000 migrants, were at work in the county. A demand for an additional 4,500 workers was indicated, although this ' was not regarded as a shortage. Schools were closed at Little- field, Brownfield and Morton. A killing frost on October 31 caused the cotton leaves to fall within 10 to 14 days and permitted the large-scale use of machine strippers. For the remainder of the season, over- ~ crowded gin facilities were the principal bottleneck to com- pletion of the cotton operation. A bumper crop was harvested v without serious mishap. __]_5__ Employment 0f Mexican Nationals By far the greatest proportion of Workers in the cotton A harvest of the High Plains, as usual, consisted of American s citizens of Mexican extraction who migrated northward from the southernmost counties of Texas. A comparatively small ; number of Mexican Nationals, however, Were employed dur- inge 1951 in Lubbock and Crosby counties. Approximately 1 1,200 of these farm laborers from Mexico worked in the area c. during all or part of the cotton season. The School Law ~ The family relationship occupies a place of extraordinary . esteem in the value system of the typical migratory Worker. Wife, children and aged members of the kinship group com- a monly accompany the family head on his travels, despite the j inevitable discomforts and despite living conditions which are . often poor. Except for the very young or infirm members, the entire family usually Works in the cotton fields. An amendment to the child-labor provisions of the Fed- eral Fair Labor Standards Act in 1949 altered this family work pattern in the cotton harvest of the High Plains. The 3 amendment, which became effective in 1950, applies to all farm employers Whose crops or products go either directly or indirectly into interstate or foriegn commerce. It makes Figure 3. A group of migratory cotton-harvest Workers on the exas High Plains. Adult workers predominate in the harvest, but many tin-American families bring children and older members along. illegal the employment of children under 16 years 0f age dur- ing school hours, other than the farmer’s children on his own farm, and provides heavy penalties for wilful violation by the employer. The amended law undoubtedly reduces the effective labor supply as represented by any given number of migrant fam- i ilies, although the extent of this reduction can scarcely be gauged in a season such as 1951 when the supply of adult workers was generally adequate. Its impact—real or antici- pated—may have strengthened the trend toward a mechanized harvest. It unquestionably stimulated intra-area migration, a causing many families to move from one school district to h another to enable their children to work in a district which i had closed its schools temporarily. It evoked criticism from . many farmers who maintained that most of the older children p would not attend school anyway. They said farmers were simply deprived of part of their labor force and the worker i Figure 4. Weighing in cotton at the turning row. Members of the operator’s family on the High Plains seldom pull cotton themselves, but 1 keep busy during the harvest with weighing, checking, hauling and other . management duties. A~ ilies 0f part of their income, without really contributing V the educational needs of the migrant children. _ School attendance in 1951 was increased tremendously in ,1 localities. Both teaching staffs and facilities were heav- burdened in the early fall. Some rural schools reported in- ‘bases in enrollmentas high as 125 percent. Many of these ;ildren could not speak English, and few of the teachers un- irstood Spanish. Before the end of the cotton harvest, ap- ximately half of the schools in Lubbock county closed for ‘=4 rest of the season. Most schools in the larger population ‘pnters remained open, leading to considerable debate among idents of the different districts over school policies. Past estimates of labor requirements and of labor supply p; the High Plains have been based largely on a “head count,” §'th perhaps a crude allowance for variations in the age com- sition of labor crews. To the extent that children are elim- ted from the labor force, this method of calculation is no vnger valid. Application of the law further suggests a ser- us need for providing appropriate school facilities for mi- ants without disrupting normal periods of attendance by ident children. The implications of this problem are not together local in character and its solution does not rest sole- with local people. LABOR-USE PATTERNS » The types of labor used in cotton operations vary widely "fin production areas in the United States. In some sec- ns, cotton production is largely a matter of family labor; " others, most of the work is done by large crews of hired workers who are recruited to do the chopping and picking. j e of farming operations most often establishes labor-use ftterns, though tenure and share-cropping arrangements are ;; important. Local traditions in regard to the dignity or ignity of different types of farm work have served to com- cate the labor-use picture. In recent years, mechanization cultivation, Weed control and harvesting have started to nge the patterns of labor use in cotton operations all over e country. p, The Texas High Plains is in transition from hand har- ting with large crews of migratory workers to a mechan- g harvest operation. It affords an opportunity to observe In use under both types of harvesting operations, and un- = a combination of the two methods on the same farm. La- a use in harvesting cotton is related to that in hoeing and __]_8_. chopping and in other production operations. Hence, it is de- sirable to analyze the labor-use patterns in all the major cot- ton operations. Cultivation Cultivating operations on the High Plains are usually. done by the operator or by some member of his family. Fam- ly workers engaged in these operations on 89 percent of the~ farms in the two sample counties but did only 59 percent of the total job (Table 3), because on farms large enough to af- l ford regular hired Workers this work was frequently done by them, or partly by them and by the operator. Operators of small farms estimated that they, or members of their fam- ilies, did 85 percent of the cultivation Work and that regular hired Workers did 4 percent. Those on medium-size farms. Table 3. Percentage of major cotton operations performed by family, regular hired, local seasonal, migratory and other types of i labor, Lubbock and Crosby counties, 1951 Percentage of operation performed Operation and type by each type of labor °f lab“ used All l Small | Medium Large ' farms‘ farms farms farms fercent Cultivating 100 100 100 100 Operator and family 59 85 74 49 Regular hired labor 32 4 19 42 Local seasonal 8 9 5 9 Migratory 0 0 1 0 Exchange 1 1 1 0 Custom 0 1 0 0 Hoeing and chopping 100 100 100 100 Operator and family 9 29 15 4 Regular hired labor 11 1 9 13 Local seasonal 39 48 38 38 Migratory 41 22 38 45 Hand pulling 100 100 100 100 Operator and family 2 9 1 1 Regular hired labor 3 2 2 4 Local seasonal 13 25 14 11 Migratory 82 64' 83 84 Stripper operation 100 100 100 100 Operator and family 46 50 48 45 Regular hired labor 25 2 12 34 Local seasonal 16 20 22 13 Migratory - 2 3 2 1 Exchange 1 6 ‘ 2 0 Custom 10 19 l4 7 lAverages weighted by average size of farms in each size group: small, 77.8 acres in cotton; medium, 178.7 acres in cotton; large, 477.6 acres in cotton. Percentages are shown as a total of each operation, exclusive of farms on which the specific operation= was not performed. On 1 percent of the sample farms there was no hoeing or chop- ping, on 9 percent no hand pulling and on 9 percent no machine stripping. Cultivating‘ was done on all farms. _]_9_ ~did 74 percent of this work with family labor, regular kers 19 percent. Operators of farms of more than 250 did 49 percent with family labor and 42 percent with lklar hired workers. Chopping and hoeing of cotton, on the other hand, were largely by local or migratory seasonal workers. Family , kers engaged in this operation on 41 percent of the farms L. l, performed only 9 percent of the entire job. On small V; s, 29 percent of the hoeing was done by the operators or ‘in bers of their families, as compared with 15 percent on lgium farms and 4 percent on large farms. Eighty percent i his operation was done by seasonal workers, either local or I atory. Small operators used a larger number of local work- Large operators were more inclined to hire migratory g kers. This difference is probably associated with the fact it migratory workers are inclined to travel in fairly large s, whereas local workers may work as individuals or in ily groups. ' Harvesting if The type of work force in the harvest varied significantly ‘ h the degree to which harvest operations were mechanized. 1 kers participated in the actual harvest on only 10 percent the farms and performed only 2 percent of the hand-pull- f operations. More than 80 percent of this operation was _ie by migratory workers and another 15 percent by local "onal laborers. Local workers were employed to a greater ant on small farms than on the large holdings. Family a kers performed an average of 9 percent of the hand pull- ; on small farms but only 1 percent on large holdings. 1; On the other hand, family workers, including the opera- 7, provided nearly half of the labor expended on stripper op- tions and contributed some machine work on about two- i’ ds of the sample farms. Regular hired workers also play- 5a much more important role in stripping operations than hand harvesting, performing a fourth of the total of such Ir. These workers performed a third of the hand harvest- " eon large farms. Small and meduim farms, having fewer lar hired workers, depended to a greater extent on local onal workers and on custom stripping. Twenty percent .the mechanical harvesting on small farms was done by A seasonal workers and 19 percent on a custom basis, as pared with 22 percent and 14 percent, respectively, on ium farms. Migratory workers were rarely used in strip- 3 g operations, regardless of farm size. Machine Operations If the pattern of labor use in 1951 is indicative of What d may be expected in a fully mechanized harvest, the demand for migratory Workers 0n the High Plains will decline in di- rect proportion t0 the increased use of strippers. At the same time, family and regular hired workers may be expected to‘ contribute increasing proportions of labor to the total harvest . requirements. These shifts likely will occur more rapidly on irrigated than on dry-land farms, as irrigation practices fit in more closely With the use of regular hired labor. The net effect Will be to make available for other employment thous- ands of Workers now needed during the fall on the High Plains. SOURCES OF COTTON LABOR The principal reason for selecting the High Plains as the A sample area in a farm manpower study is illustrated in Table 4. A major labor-deficit area, the High Plains is dependent on migratory workers both to chop and to harvest cotton. In 1951, approximately half of the Workers employed in the cot- ton-chopping and hoeing operations were migrants, While more than three-fourths of the cotton harvest workers came- from outside the area. These data involve some double counting, as they are de- rived from numbers of workers reported by each of the 324 farm operators in the sample. Some Workers were employed Table 4. Types of workers employed in chopping and pulling cotton, Lubbock and Crosby counties, 1951 T Number and proportion of Type of worker I workers 1n each typel Chopping and hoeing I Pulling Number Percent Number Percent Total 40,888 100 58,210 100 Farm operators 801 2 _ 135 '-= Family workers 1,123 2 651 1 Paid _ 269 _ 2 Unpaid 853 2 Regular hired workers3 1 699 4 1,160 2 Other locel workers4 16,896 42 11,341 20 Migratory workers . 20,369 50 . 44,923 77 1A sum of all the workers reported by individual farm operators. Hence, workers who were employed on two or more farms have been counted twice. The probable extent of this multiple counting was not ascertained. 2Less than 1 percent. “And members of their families. ‘Originating within the High Plains cotton area. _21__ two 0r more operators, especially in cotton chopping. No f1.“ pt was made to eliminate this duplication. Similarly, fgpercentages apply to the distribution of labor by types of H-kers; they do not necessarily reflect proportionate contri- ns to total labor needs. In the eyes of the individual ‘er, however, the data represent a labor-use pattern of ‘iderable importance in cotton production. Besides employing large numbers of migratory Workers, n farmers on the High Plains also hired many local labor- j About two in five cotton choppers and one in five cotton ers were employed locally (Table 4). Many of these local Jkers came from the city of Lubbock where a comparatively pool of seasonal labor has developed since the War. > Regular hired workers did not figure prominently in the l labor force. Only 4 percent of the chopping laborers and frcent of the harvest laborers were of this type in 1951. the operator and his family performed relatively little d labor in the 1951 crop. Less than 5 percent of the work- iwho chopped cotton and less than 2 percent of those who ed cotton were members of the operator’s family. q- a i“ m.’ f, Practices in the use of mechanical harvesting equipment id according to the variety planted, yields, size of farm p tenure of the operator. However, most farmers favored pulling the first time over followed by machine strip- i: of the rest of the crop after frost had defoliated the a The role of the farmer in the harvest was strongly i» ted, in turn, by the use of machine strippers. As one ‘w, operator put it: “A farmer can’t afford to waste his Vie at hand labor. My son and I can go out with the strip- 7 and get out 10 or 12 times as much cotton as we could p. get together at hand pulling.” This attitude carried over f heir regular hired workers who were generally more pro- f ive in assisting at machine processes than in hand-labor ‘A tions. ’ A separate analysis shows that of the farmers who hand ed any part of their crop, only 12 percent used any family 2r in the operation. Only 2 percent harvested their entire p. with family labor. F At the other extreme, 86 percent of the farmers used 1 migratory labor in pulling their cotton, while 55 percent 4 migratory labor only. Dependence on workers from out- p the area was almost universal. Only 11 percent of the <1 ers relied mainly on local off-farm labor for hand pull- ~, although 37 percent used some workers of this type. _2g_ Crew Workers A few harvest workers employed by farmers in Lubbock and Crosby counties in 1951 came from Lubbock and othe a nearby towns in family groups or alone. Most of the cotto pullers, however, moved in crews which functioned as multi" worker units. Around 52,000 such crew workers were em ployed in the two counties during the harvest season (Tabl 5). These data were expanded to county totals from figur reported by each farmer in the sample. Duplication in th count occurs when crews were employed by more than on farmer. Of this entire force of crew workers, 43,000, or 83 per cent, were domestic Latin-Americans; about 5,500, or 11 per cent, were Negroes; 1,900, or 4 percent, were Anglo-Amer" icans; and the remaining 1,200, or 2 percent, were Mexica Nationals. Thus, in 1951, as for many years past, Latin American migrants comprised the core of the harvest laboi force. ' More than three-fourths of the Latin-Americans origi nated in South Texas, although 9 percent came from Lubboc .1 and other population centers on the High Plains. Most of th remainder moved onto the Plains for the harvest from Ea, Texas and other areas within the State. Forty percent of al the Negroes employed in crews came from the city of Lu' bock, with the next largest percentage coming from East Tex as. South and East Texas together supplied about two-third of the Anglo-Americans, with somewhat more than half o this group coming from East Texas. ? Table 5. Number and types of workers in crews, and home base of cre in the cotton harvest, Lubbock and Crosby counties, 1951‘ Home base All \ Anglo- Latin- Negro Others workers American American Num- Per- Num- ‘Per- Num- Per- Num- Per» Number ber cent ber cent ber cent her cent Total 51,623 1,901 100 42,948 100 5,157 100 1,317 100 Lubbock city 3,945 157 8 1,580 4 2,208 40 0 0 Other places on . High Plains 2,755 202 11 2,282 5 269 5 0 0 East Texas 3,481 719 38 823 2 - 1,939 36 0 0 South Texas 34,645 524 27 33,651 78 472 9 0 l’ Elsewhere in Texas 1,782 45 2 1,363 3 374 7 0 0 Other states 344 127 7 217 1 0 0 6 O. Outside the U. S. 1,220 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,220 93 Don't know 3,451 127 7 3,032 7 195 3 97 1 lApplies only to crews in hand pulling. Mexican Nationals QImported laborers from Mexico accounted for only a frac- F part of the total labor force. Other counties on the M Plains employed Mexican Nationals in 1949 and 1950, their employment in Lubbock and Crosby counties in 1951 gin the nature of an experiment by all parties to the con- ,.Results of the experiment Were mixed. Only 3 percent ye farmers in Lubbock and Crosby counties used Mexican onal workers in 1951. These counties had no private r procurement organization for transporting Mexican Na- ls from reception centers and distributing them among ers. A local gin acted as agent of the Dawson County ers Association in negotiating with the Texas Employ- it Commission to obtain Mexican Nationals and it placed loximately 1,200 workers in the two-county area. Other ‘ers obtained their workers directly through the Associa- j rather than through the gin. The main objection to the Nationals was summed up by farmers as “too much red tape.” Fees and expenses , nted to $30 per worker plus a $10 membership fee in the I iation. Wages were paid at the “prevailing rate,” or M1 cents an hour or $1.50 per 100 pounds of cotton, which- ’ was higher. Employment equaling three-fourths of the V» of the Nationals’ stay on a farm was guaranteed by the er. Workers also were supplied with bedding, kitchen 'ils and other items not normally furnished to domestic kers. Some farmers expressed reluctance to make these ditures because they then would have no legal recourse a workers did not remain as long as they had contracted iork. A new agreement was negotiated by the Governments of ZAUnited States and Mexico concerning employment condi- j for 1952. Meanwhile, 10 percent of the farmers inter- ed in this study indicated an intention to employ Nation- 'n 1952. Two-thirds of the farmers who employed them 951, however, stated that they would not do so in 1952. LECRUITMENT OF COTTON-HARVEST WORKERS i During the 1951 season on the High Plains, most-of the ers and farmers made their own job contracts (Table I; Farmers stated that 38 percent of the crews employed in .28,6:w@8: pcwfiwumfim was QQQEMZDMUQH mm 95mm was wpwvio? MOM wwflmmumw awswo E5 wpmpwsmw Q@.TPO.HQ mfiiswo $95. dim?» $5 2E 3 Bsop m5 wcocw WHQxMORW 55$ %.HOP.NHW<.~E pa.“ pwpcwu cofimwuop 4 .m mpswwm ___.25_. rvest came to their farms of their own volition. An V, proportion of the farmers located crews for themselves. L‘ rew” is defined as two or more workers traveling and _"ng as a unit throughout all or most of the season. Most contain between 10 and 20 members, the average being Ad 16 members.) In short, about three-fourths of the i. were hired for the first time as a result of direct ne- a ion between employer and employee. Another 18 per- of the crews returned to work for farmers with whom "thad made arrangements the previous year. In some , these arrangements had extended over several years. ._perators of large farms were somewhat more inclined f others to have arrangements that continued from year r. More than a fourth of the large-farm operators had gements of this type. On medium-size farms, only one l" or in eight had a continuing agreement with his crew. ieven percent of the farmers reported that they had been 4 by the Farm Placement Department of the Texas Em- went Commission. According to the farmers interview- is office placed 4 percent of all crews and these compris- ‘ercent of the workers. Operators of medium-size farms, 14 hand, and Latin-American crews, on the other, made ost use of this organization’s services. .6. Method of obtaining cotton-pulling crews, as reported by 324 persons, Lubbock and Crosby counties, 1951 Crews by size of farms Type of crew i Method All i recruitment crews N s '3 A E ' a I g G . ‘ = E g .2 *- 5“: E o fl w r. b0 ° '5 " s; '5 E v g l: E a E 0 a m S >1 <1 < A 4 z Z y Percent l _ l 100 100 100 100 100 _ 100 100 100 came to farm 38 38 41~ 35 43 38 43 0 i located crew 38 41 36 38 39 38 37 331 _ ined thru Farm ' ent Department 4 2 6 3 0 4 2 34 l talned thru V ‘ration 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 25 ' -- arrangement " previous year 17 18 13 22 15 18 18 0 5 2 o a 1 a 2 o s g to farmer's activity in‘ arranging for the work of Mexican Nationals on his _not specifically to his participation in their recruitment. __'l through friends or neighbors. ._26__ In addition to direct placements made by the Farm Place- ment Department, informational and directional services of- this agency are designed to move workers from areas having an ample supply of labor into deficit areas. Some 250 crews consisting of 4,000 workers were directed, during the fall of- 1951, into Lubbock and Crosby counties by Farm Placement" representatives located at Brady, Abilene and other directional , stations south of the High Plains. Many of the continuing arrangements, moreover, resulted from original placements made by this service. The understanding of the farmer as to the recruitment of; his labo-r is not always clear and accurate. In the case of this survey, it should be noted some 3 months had elapsed between- the hand-labor operation and the date of interviewing, and‘ this undoubtedly introduced a memory bias of some conse- quence. Another indication of misinformation on the part of farmers was noted in connection with the program for im- porting foreign workers. Of those farmers who used Mexican A Nationals, about a third reported that they had recruited Mex- ican Nationals for themselves, while another third credited. the Farm Placement Department with obtaining these foreign workers. Only 25 percent of the farmers identified the Daw- son County Growers Association as the recruitment agency. Actually, this association cooperated with the Texas Employ- ment Commission in recruiting all of the Mexican workers em- ployed in the two counties in 1951. MEN AND MACHINES IN THE COTTON HARVEST Within certain limitations, machine strippers may be freely substituted for human labor in harvesting cotton on the High Plains. The extent to which such labor-saving de- vices are used, therefore, directly affects the demand for farm labor during the harvest season. Machine harvesting also is a factor in the farm labor situation of competitive producing areas and, indeed, in the total manpower picture of the State. A number of studies of mechanical cotton harvesting, have been made by the Texas Agricultural Experiment Sta- tion. Most of these were concerned either with the agrono- mic and engineering aspects of the problem, or with other" specific phases of production efficiency. Although labor re- quirements had to be considered in those analyses, supply and, use of labor were emphasized in the present study. Because of the interchangeability of human labor and machinery, the study, therefore, involved an appraisal of the use of the chiefs labor-saving device connected with the cotton harvest. ___27._. Use 0f Strippers, 1951 T completely mechanized cotton harvest now appears to tfldistinct physical possibility on the High Plains. Al- y in 1951, there were still technical difficulties in the he capacity of strippers on hand was adequate for the “Two-thirds of the operators on the sample farms in Lub- "and Crosby counties owned strippers, and some owned more machines (Table 7). Some machine stripping rformed on 91 percent of the farms, although the en- lj op was machine harvested on only 8 percent. lthough the sample farms in the two counties had a to- ; 244 strippers, only 230 strippers were used during the ipylseason. Many of the unused strippers were located in iiniwhich the cotton had blown out during windstorms, little or none to harvest. ,1 ustom stripping was fairly common in the area in 1951. ‘g the farmers owning strippers, 28 percent operated I equipment on other farms. Eight percent of those who l» strippers used them on two or more farms besides fig-own. A _ thus, despite the extensive use of hand labor in the early of the harvest, an impressive portion of the 1951 crop ‘rvested mechanically. A total of nearly 17,000 bales, ‘l7. Use of machine strippers during the 1951 cotton harvest on ‘ farms surveyed in Lubbock and Crosby counties I t e m I Number Percent p rlns surveyed 324 100 with strippers 218 67 l’ I on which work with strippers was done 296 91 H-work 28 8 of it 26s s3 1 rippers on ample farms 244 100 'V rs used, 1951 230 92 who used strippers on other farms 60 28 I ‘ other farms used on 90 ~ who used strippers on one other farm 43 20 I m» 12 s J three or more 5 2 l‘: es harvested on home farm with strippers 18,703 100 l own stripper 17,168 92 Q custom stripper 1,535 8 y 3e number bales harvested per stripper 83 Jlome farms 75 I other farms 8 __28__. or 40 percent of the crop on the sample farms, was machinei stripped. Ninety-two percent of these bales were harvested on the home farm and the remainder on other farms. This meant an average of 83 bales per stripper, With 75 bales har- vested on the home farm and 8 bales on a custom basis. Hand Labor Versus Machines A great many factors affect the choice between harvest- ing cotton by hand and harvesting it by machine. One decision that needs to be made before planting time is the choice of seed. Stormproof varieties should be planted if the cotton is to be harvested by machine, because they are. not likely to suffer as much damage as open boll varieties, if: harvest is not started until after frost kills the leaves (which is essential to successful machine stripping). This problem will diminish if chemical or other artificial defoliation be- comes generally practical. ' Other factors affecting the choice between harvesting by hand or by machine include the prevailing wage rates, yields per acre, acreage in cotton and tenure of the operator. The prevailing wage rate is determined largely by the. supply of labor in relation to the size of the crop. If Wage rates are high, there is more advantage in machine stripping.’ If yields per acre are very low, mechanical stripping is ad- vantageous because it is difficult and expensive to harvest a, poo-r crop by hand. On the other hand, even though irriga- tion increases the yield per acre, it seems to have had little effect on the extent to which mechanical strippers were used. Irrigation Comparativly little difference was found in the extent of‘ machine stripping of cotton grown on irrigated land and that grown on dry land. In both cases, about half of the crop Was- harvested by hand the first time over, and slightly less than 10 percent was hand pulled the second time over. Approxi- mately 39 percent of the total irrigated cotton crop and 43 percent of the dry-land cotton was harvested by machine. . This difference in harvesting practices may be greater in other years. A series of hailstorms damaged plantings oni irrigated land and reduced yields in a few areas of Lubbock and Crosby counties. The average yield on all irrigated land in the sample, based on 500-pound bales, was 489 pounds of lint per acre. On dry land, the average was 136 pounds of, lint per acre. _._29___ Farm Size Cotton was harvested by machine on a much higher pro- portion o-f medium-size farms than of large or small farms. Fifty-seven percent of the crop on farms of medium size, 35 percent on large farms and only 16 percent on small farms was machine stripped. *- On some small farms, the acreages of cotton, along with the low yields of 1951, were not large enough to justify own- ership of a mechanical stripper. It was not uncommon, there- fore, for all the cotton on these units to be hand pulled, freq- uently with the help of the family. Big irrigated fields at- tract migratory workers and make possible the hand harvest- ing of more than half the crop the first time over and another 13 percent the second time over. The large-farm group, how- ever, included also a number of dry-land units on which the entire crop was handled by machine. Without regard to size of farm, 9 percent of all operators in the sample hand pulled their entire crop, while 8 percent harvested the whole crop with strippers. The prevailing pat- tern of the harvest was one hand-pulling operation, followed 2 or 3 weeks after frost by stripping. Unusually heavy ground losses from stripping in 1951, plus favorable prices, caused some farmers to send workers through the fields picking up cotton by hand after the stripper. Tenure Perhaps the most important fact disclosed by this study is that full mechanization of the cotton harvest is becoming more and more dependent on the solution of institutional prob- lems as rapidly as the technological problems are solved. Ten- ure of the farm operator was an exceptionally important fac- tor affecting the amount of stripping done in 1951. On farms operated by full owners, 68 percent of the crop was harvested by machine, as compared with only 26 percent of the cotton produced by tenants (Table 8). Part owners, who owned some of their land and rented the remainder, har- vested 29 percent of their crop with strippers as did those in “other” categories of tenure, such as partnerships, estates and managing share-croppers. The role of tenure in the development of mechanical har- _ vesting is especially striking when the size of farm is held constant. Comparisons involving part owners and “others” _3()_ are not meaningful because of the mixed nature of these two tenure categories. However, the contrast between full own-t’ ers and tenants offers convincing evidence of the effect of the tenure arrangement on the use of harvest machinery. On large farms, full owners stripped 53 percent of th“ crop, as compared with only 28 percent for tenants. On med 7 ium-size farms the difference was even greater-82 percent for full owners and 39 percent for tenants. A third of th crop on small farms operated by full owners was stripped? While stripping accounted for only 11 percent of the crop 0 I tenant-operated small farms. * This raises a question as to whether the cost of mechan“ ical strippers is the reason for their more general use by own er-operators than by tenants. Apparently it does not. A ne " stripper during the 1947-49 period cost about $925 and =- trailer about $720. This is a relatively modest investment f0 most tenants operating on the High Plains. Moreover, cusv Table 8. Method of harvesting cotton according to irrigation, size o’ farm and tenure of operator, 324 farms in Lubbock and Crosb counties, 1951 ‘ Irrigation, T l V Number and proportion of bales farm size, °lta tenure b“ es \ Hand-pulled Hand-pulled Harvested first time over s e over by machine Num- Num- Per- Num- Per- Num- Per-. ber ber cent ber cent ber cent . All bales 47,061 23,984 51 4,374 9 18,703 40 i By types of land ‘ Irrigated 34,323 17,772 52 3,274 9 13,277 39 1 Dry land 12,738 6,212 49 1,100 9 5,426 43 ~ By tenure and Small 157 67 43 24 15 66 farm size Full owners 14,230 3,653 26 886 6 9,691 68 ' Large 4,729 1,737 37 463 10 2,529 53 _ Medium 8,214 1,320 l6 161 2 6,733 82 " Small 1,287 596 46 262 21 429 33 . Part owners 9,681 5,548 57 1,197 13 2,936 30 Large 5,957 3,378 57 837 l4 1,742 29 i Medium 3,174 1,870 59 296 9 1,008 32 . Small 550 300 55 64 12 186 34 _ Tenants 22,163 14,227 ~ 61 2,148 10 5,788 26 Large 9,125 _ 5,292 58 1,237 14 2,596 28 . Medium 6,282 3,107 50 705 ’ 11 2,470 39 Small 6,756 5,828 86 206 3 722 11 _ Others 987 556 56 143 15 288 29 " Large 570 300 53 65 11 205 36 “ Medium 260 189 73 54 21 17 6 42 ' __.3]____ iistripping has become fairly common in the area and is ble to most of the operators who have not already bought Laers of their own. important reason for the direct effect of tenure on eof mechanical strippers is found in Bulletin 735 of the (S Station. 1That bulletin sho-wed that under the customary lease, the Wt pays all the on-farm production expenses and, there- _i; receives the benefits of savings in the wage bill attribut- ‘to machine harvesting. The landlord’s share, however, fiversely affected by the reductions in grade and the great- yound losses associated with machine harvesting of the f,e crop after frost, in contrast with complete harvesting {- nd, much of it at an earlier date. Under the circumstances described in that study, returns * e landlord in 1947-49 averaged between $3.00 and $4.00 per bale on machine-stripped cotton than on handhar- d cotton. However, the use of mechanical strippers ‘rently increased the net returns to tenants much more i it decreased the returns to landlords. Therefore, the use “ rippers was profitable from the standpoint of the farm rise as a whole. l A redistribution of expenses was sug- f». as a means of avoiding this loss of income to the land- ~ Without discouraging the use of machine strippers on land. There are undoubtedly a variety of arrange- possible for doing this. If, for example, the tenant g the entire ginning bill on machine-stripped cotton, the "ing of net returns would be about the same regardless of lmethod of harvest. * The present study was not designed to analyze tenure tions. It reveals, however, that the proposed adjustment a se agreements has not been made on many rented farms, that this “institutional lag” was slowing down the a- f. ement of a widely accepted goal—a fully mechanized cot- harvest on the High Plains. f The specific methods used by landlords in 1951 to en- f» age hand ulling, or to discourage machine stripping, i- not ascertained. It is an easy matter, however, to con- A by contract the approximate ratio of machine use to hu- }= labor in the cotton harvest. A provision in the lease re- ing the tenant to hand-harvest the crop the first time 4 is one method. Another is to require the planting of i of open boll varieties. Windstorm damage is an ever- .__32__ present hazard on the High Plains and machine stripping un- der existing practices necessitates leaving the mature cotton, in the field for perhaps 6 weeks until frost has defoliated the plants. Thus, if the labor supply is available, no prudent op- erator will run the risk of waiting until conditions are favor- _ able for machine stripping, unless his cotton is a storm-re- sistant variety. Other studies in recent years have demonstrated that, un- g der optimum conditions, machine stripping is economical on the High Plains. This study shows that owner-operators are taking advantage of the profit opportunity of mechanical har- g vesting to a much greater extent than are tenants. It sug- gests that both landlord and tenant might benefit by modify- ing their lease agreement so as to share the saving in costs, or the higher net returns, associated with mechanical har- vesting. LABOR TURNOVER Cotton farmers _on the High Plains are concerned with two types of seasonal labor mobility. One involves the timely . movement of harvest crews into the area as the crop matures. a The other involves the movement of crews within the area. during the season. The arrival of large numbers of workers on the High. Plains each fall may substantially solve the harvest problem from the standpoint of the total area. It does not, however, assure the individual farm operator of an uninterrupted har- vest on his own farm. Having obtained the services of cot-- ton pullers, he then strives for a minimum turnover in his» labor force, at least until his fields have been pulled over the first time. Continuity in the employment of harvest work-i ers, other conditions being favorable, is a goal which employer and employee quite understandably share. Excessive labor turnover can be costly to both parties. Since June 1950, another type of manpower loss has oc- curred on the High Plains, as well as in the rest of the coun- try. Following the outbreak of the Korean conflict, the ex- pansion of the armed forces and of production for defense purposes began exerting additional pressure on the available. manpower. On the High Plains, this increased labor demand I probably affected the supply of regular hired workers and the‘ family labor force more than seasonal migrants. The net re- sult, however, was to bring the farmer into more direct com- petition for workers with industry and the armed forces, as was the case during World War II. _33_. Reasons for Loss of Crews _ It has been indicated that about 18 percent of the crews employed in 1951 had returned t0 the same farms under a l ntinuing arrangement with the operator. At the other ex- t me, some operators hired and lost as many as four differ- ant crews before completing their cotton harvest. Of the crews employed on sample farms, 32 percent left the farmer before the end of the season (Table 9). A few of “hese crews were on loan from other cotton farms in the area, d their leaving was simply in compliance with their con- ctual obligations. w. Another 3.5 percent of all crews employed and 11 percent 9f those who left before the season ended, gave as their rea- "n a desire to put their children in school. In this group ere families who returned home, usually to South Texas, at p bout "the time schools opened in that area. Doubtlessly as- ' ciated with this reason was the arrival of the first “north- r”. The school needs of the Latin-American children freq- Tuently coincide in timing with the distaste of their parents for cold weather. Information was not obtained from farmers on a second a e of migration in connection with the schools. This was f e movement between school districts on the High Plains. ~ he amended Federal Fair Labor Standards Act resulted in prtain of the schools being closed temporarily during the of the harvest. During the cotton harvest season, some orkers moved their families into districts where schools were ‘ ble 9. Reasons given for crews leaving farms before the end of the cotton harvest, Lubbock and Crosby counties, 1951 Percent of Reason for leaving A“ Crews crews which left crews in harvest 100 l» s which remained to end of season 68 - s which left before the end of seasonl 32 100 l“ Dissatisfaction with wage rates 7 22 ifllilDissatisfaction with earnings 2 6 lv-‘Dissatisfaction with poor field 4 12 illflfllissatisfaction with light yield a s ‘Dissatisfaction with housing 1 1T0 put children in school 3 11 1T0 return to regular employer 1 3 iflliscellaneous 11 36 J d of season” was determined by answers to the question: “Did this crew stay with t- as long as you wanted them?” _34_ closed in order that the children might work Without vio- lating the law. 1 Dissatisfaction with wage rates was given as the reason ‘ by farm operators for 22 percent of the crews that left farms before completion of the harvest. This reason was closely as- sociated with an unsatisfactory level of earnings, an explana- tion given for the departure of another 7 percent of the crews that left. A Poor fields and light yields, frequent causes of labor re- cruitment problems for farmers and likewise a factor in low‘ earning levels for workers, were cited in the case of 20 per-l cent of the crews as their reason for leaving. Harvest work- ers, especially in the larger crews, traditionally have been re- luctant to work in low-yielding fields. The experience of farm- ers in 1951, when the crop in local areas was damaged by hail, indicates that workers are likewise inclined to leave a crop when production proves to be disappointing. In some instan- ces, farmers meet this worker-resistance to poor fields with, higher wages; in others, they rely on the use of machine strip- pers. Dissatisfaction with housing ranked least important of all the specific reasons advanced for the early departure o- crews. This has not always been the situation on the Hig A Plains. Lack of housing once seriously handicapped complet- ion of the late harvest. But, in 1951, 77 percent of the farms in this sample had labor houses on the place. This appears td meet at least the minmum requirements, particularly sinc crews often establish headquarters on a farm having housinl facilities and work both there and on other farms in the neigh borhood. Miscellaneous reasons were reported as causing the re mainder of the crews to leave certain farms early. Many 0 these were of a personal nature, such as sickness or death v the family, trouble in the crew or with other crews, arres or a desire to join friends or relatives at work on other farm When one crew or family left, a chain of events involvin other crews frequently ensued, thereby increasing the tota labor turnover. Losses of Workers Since June 1950 The problem of manpower losses and labor stringenc during the 1951 season did not center around hand labor fo chopping or pulling cotton. It centered, instead, around v _35__ experienced help to handle machine operations in culti- y stripping and in similar tasks. This occurred on a umber of farms, but not in cotton production gener- Yi me farmers had sons or regular farm hands who had to the armed forces after June 1950, the date of the outbreak; a few had lost Workers to nonfarm employ- ~S0me lost regular hired Workers who moved to other f» the outbreak of hostilities in Korea, 165 farmers in k and Crosby counties had sons who left for service in at forces or to enter nonfarm employment. By Feb- $1952, a total of 149 sons had gone into the armed forces ‘r had left farm Work to take nonfarm jobs (Table 10). ‘fmanpower losses affected only 7 percent of the farm rs, but they sometimes constituted a serious handicap Yvidual farms. All but a few of the sons who left had 1w work in cultivating during their last year on the lmost had assisted in stripper operations and somewhat than half had done some Work in pulling cotton by hand. Number and activity of family and regular hired workers who left cotton farms in Lubbock and Crosby counties after the outbreak of Korean hostilities to February 1952 Total Members of Regular ' - operator's family hired workers 1 - Total "h" — - -— '1' eavmg leaving worked Worked Did no Worked Did no in in work in in work in cotton cottLn cotton cotton cotton l Number w l a leaving1 s87 s29 172 14 151 44 r ' I‘ to forces 202 180 142 7 37 15 ‘Into A - work 7 0 0 0 0 7 11m V ~ work 67 60 30 7 30 0 _. a m- self 0 0 0 o 0 0 _ on other farms 60 60 0 0 60 0 l reasons 52 so o o 3o 22 l i ‘t! - gel‘; lgfllosse All workers Members of Regular =2 - h“; who left operator’s family hired workers V Number I». 329 172 157 1 and hoeing 254 142 112 operations 172 112 s0 142 112 30 104 82 22 ,1 12 9o 22 I - to county totals from samples of 324 farms. jut year on farm. _35__ Only 45 farmers had hired workers to replace their sons in their farm operations. Data were not obtained as to how many of the other operators had tried to obtain replacements and failed, or how many did not look for replacements. » It was; common for them to state, however, that inability to obtain competent labor had been a major problem during the 1951; season. Expanded totals from the sample data indicate there were 1,160 regular hired workers on cotton farms in the two se- lected counties. They worked on 808 farms, or one-third of all cotton farms in the area. A total of 157 regular workers, or approximately 15 percent of the entire number, had left‘ these farms since the Korean outbreak. Somewhat more than half of them had simply left to work on other farms but 24 percent had gone into the armed forces and 19 percent into. nonfarm employment. Although these losses occurred to only 6 percent of all farmers in these counties, they affected 18, percent of all farmers who employed regular farm workers.- Seventy-eight percent of the regular hired workers who left} had worked in cotton during their last year on the farm. All these had assisted in cultivating, most had engaged in chop; ping and hoeing, fewer than half had worked in stripper op-p erations and only 10 percent had done any hand pulling. Of the 150 farmers who had lost regular hired workers; 135 had obtained replacements. Only 10 percent had not done so. Of these 150 farmers, 60 percent stated that they had ex» Table 11. Percentage distribution of farmers, by wage rates, for chop» ping and hoeing cotton, Lubbock and Crosby counties, 1951 A“ farmers Proportion of farmers who Farm characteristics paying hourly Pa"! <9" hm") i1 fates‘ I 50-55 cents l 60-65 cents 1 70 cents or more. Percent All farms k 100 10 61 28 Irrigation Mostly irrigated 100 14 61 25 Mostly dryland 100 7 60 32 Tenure? Owners 100 ll 58 32 Tenants 100 8 65 A 27 Farm size ‘ Large 100 10 60 30 Medium 100 l0 61 29 Small 100 ll 61 28 lOther rates not included in this table include day wages, usually at $5.00 or $6.00 per day. “Operators with miscellaneous types of tenure omitted. Owners include part owners. perienced difficulty in finding a replacement, as compared with _ 40 percent who reported that they had no great difficulty. WAGE RATES Farmers were asked the rates they had paid for chopping and for pulling cotton during the 1951 season. The most com- mon rate for chopping cotton was 65 cents an hour, although almost as many farmers paid 6O cents. Ten percent of the farmers paid less than 60 cents, 29 percent paid 70 cents or more (Table 11). A few farmers paid by the day but the hourly rate was the standard for the area. Variations in the level of wage payments with irrigation, tenure and size of farm were not of great significance. Farm- ers on irrigated land averaged paying somewhat higher rates than those on dry land. Tenants were more inclined than owners to pay the average rate, while owners were more likely to pay above or below the average. Wage rates increased slightly with the size of the farm operation. a Harvesting Rates Questions asked in regard to rates for pulling cotton were designed to show changes in wages during the season as well as to ascertain the level of rates paid. The usual practice among farmers in this area was to pay a combined rate for pulling the cotton and hauling it to the gin. The crew leader then could make a return from the truck in which he trans- ported his crew to the area. Two-thirds of the farmers paid on this basis in 1951. The usual rate for hauling was 25 cents a hundred pounds of seed cotton. This figure was deducted in the case of all combined rates so as to arrive at a net figure for pulling cotton. These net figures were used in tabulating the rates for 1951 (Table 12). Wage Rate Changes A few farmers started paying $1.25 a hundred pounds at the beginning of the season, but all in this group were paying $1.75 before the season was over. Approximately one-third started paying $1.50 a hundred, but 73 percent of these also § raised their rates to $1.75 or $2.00 before the end of the sea- " SO11. More than one-third of the operators started paying $1.75 at the beginning of the season, but 40 percent of these é. farmers raised their rate, usually to $2.00. One-fourth started paying $2.00. Of these farmers, 21 percent increased the rate l during the season, usually to $2.25; 13 percent, however, re- _33__ Table 12. Starting wage rates for pulling cotton in 1951 and changes during the season, Lubbock and Crosby counties Proportion of farmers who Increased Both increased '0 Starting Started Paid this Decreased rate at this rate all _i_ifi____ ratel and decreased > rate seasonl Once? | Twice’ rate’ Percent All farmers 1G0 46 32 l5 4 3 $1.25 - 1.35 2 0 29 71 0 0 $1.50 - 1.60 32 24 42 31 0 3 $1.75 - 1.85 37 53 34 6 2 5 $2.00 - 2.10 26 64 21 1 13 ~ 0 $2.25 and up 3 86 0 0 0 14 ‘Most increases and decreases were in terms of 25-cent intervals. A few were of 5 and 10 cents, a few also were of 50 cents and one of $1.00. ZPercentage is proportion of those who started paying a given rate» duced the rate, usually by 25 cents a hundred pounds. Only a few farmers started paying $2.25 a hundred and this group. usually paid the same rate throughout the season. Almost half of the farmers then increased their rates above the first offering of the season. The trend was not en-‘t tirely upward, however, as 7 percent of the farmers reduced. their rates while the harvest was in progress. Changes in» rates were common on farms that had either all irrigated or all dry-land cotton, and occurred on large, medium and small farms with about equal frequency. SPECIAL PROBLEMS IN THE 1951 HARVEST Lack of Labor Farmers were questioned as to the problems they had ex-i perienced in connection with the harvest. Forty-five percent, responded that‘ they had no problems, that the harvest had proceeded smoothly. Thirty percent stated that they had lack- ed labor at some time during the harvest period (Table 13)., For some, it was a lack of regular workers to operate the strip- per or to assist with general duties about the farm; for others, it was inability to get harvest workers at the time they were needed. Crowded Gins Next in importance to the problem of lack of labor was that of overcrowded gins. Almost 20 percent of the farmers indicated that they had been hampered in their operations by having to wait at gins to unload their cotton. Some farmers hauled cotton as far as 60 miles to get their trailers unloaded." Some gins assigned unloading days for all farmers in the area. Figure 6. Cotton trucks and trailers Waiting their turn at the gin. use of the expanded High Plains cotton acreage since the War, gins ijfrequently crowded during the peak of the harvest season. Other Problems Some farmers were handicapped by poor cotton, by cotton s too short to be handled easily by the strippers and by ar circumstances Which arose from the dry Weather or adverse climatic conditions. new problem appeared in 1950 and caused additional i ern in 1951. This was the amended Fair Labor Standards or the “School LaW.” Enforcement officers came into }§§area in 1951 and issued warnings in a few cases. In many g e rural school districts, the situation was simply met by 'ng the schools until the harvest was over, thereby per- _ing the children of migrants to Work legally. Farmers ost urban districts were not able to close their schools in 13. Farmers reporting problems in connection with 1951 cotton * harvest, frequency and order in which those problems were reported, Lubbock and Crosby counties Order in which Farmers N 1 problems were reported and problems umber First Second Third 1;, farmers reporting 324 a with no problems 146 i‘ with problems 178 of problems . of labor 100 93 7 0 fded gins e0 44 1s 0 cotton 14 11 3 o labor law 17 9 6 2 _ ‘ther 13 s 4 1 i, of housing 8 6 2 0 1s 7 s 0 i iber of farmers in the survey who mentioned a specified problem and indicated t, second or third in importance. _4Q_ spite of claims that they were- losing workers to the areas ' which children could Work. Community protests over the si ‘ uation Were reflected frequently in the comments made i the farmers. ” EFFECTS ON PLANS FOR 1952 How did the 1951 farm labor experience of operators 'y Lubbock and Crosby counties affect their farm plans for 1952 This question was approached by linking it to problems e countered in the 1951 harvest and by relating the labor ou i look for the coming year to such specific adjustments as p0 sible reductions in cotton acreage, increased use of machin strippers‘ and the contracting of imported workers. Many d the operators did not anticipate making any important chang in their farm plans because of the labor outlook for 195 (Table 14). Increased Stripper Use Half of the farmers interviewed stated that they had n expectation of taking any of the lines of action indicated a‘ coping with the labor situation (Table 14). Purchaseof mo ‘ strippers Was mentioned most frequently as a method for sol ing the labor problem; 23 percent of the operators indicat an intention either to buy their first stripper or to add anoth machine to those already on hand. Seven percent expected 1 contract for custom stripping, 9 percent planned to keep the cotton acreage down and 11 percent planned to employ forei Workers. l Increased stripper use did not appear to be strongly . sociated With size of farm or status of mechanization on t =,_ farms. But a slight tendency was indicated toward an .~ pansion of stripper use on larger units and on units on whi only a part or none of the crop Was machine harvested in 195 l Wage rates paid at the start of the 1951 harvest season, ever, seemed to have had some effect on plans for using striq pers. Of those operators who began the season by payi $1.50 a hundred pounds for hand pulling, 32 percent expect to buy more strippers or to hire custom stripping done. T ? compared with 26 percent of the operators paying $1.7 5 a hu dred pounds at the start of the season and 38 percent of tho’ paying $2.00. Use of Foreign Workers .Farm size and wage rates figured in the intentions of o erators to contract for imported labor. Among operators 1 ___41_ prms, 16 percent expected to employ foreign workers as compared with 9 percent of the operators of med- farms and 6 percent of the operators of small farms. mployers who paid the lowest Wage rate at the start 1951 season were inclined more than other farmers to employing foreign Workers. Fifteen percent of those id $1.50, 9 percent of those who paid $1.75 and 10 per- jthose who paid $2.00 reported that they intended to 1' for imported labor the following season. Loss of Year-round Workers ers who had lost family or regular hired Workers he outbreak of Korean hostilities were most affected lgroup by plans to curtail their acreage in cotton. Also, Ljhbsence of dependable machine operators, these farm- ye less prone than others to depend on the purchase of p 'ppers for harvesting purposes. Seventeen percent of prators in this category planned to keep down their cot- Effect of labor outlook for 1952 on farming plans, 324 farm operators, Lubbock and Crosby counties Proportion of farmers reporting that 1952 labor outlook will lead them to: l. flufified Total Keep Contract Contract Do none I ' items cotton Buy for for of acreage more custom imported these down I strippers strippers labor things Percent 100 9 23 7 11 50 reage 100 11 19 9 6 55 100 6 25 6 9 54 100 12 23 6 16 43 _ mechanization '5 t, 1951 100 8 18 l0 13 51 100 10 24 7 11 48 100 4 20 4 4 68 te for per 100 1951 100 9 27 5 15 44 100 10 21 5 9 55 100 12 26 l2 10 40 100 4 20 10 6 60 = rev.’ 100 17 17 8 8 50 100 9 23 7 11 50 ily or regular hired workers. ._42__. ton acreage and an equal proportion planned to buy strippe A Of the operators who had lost no year-round workers, only. percent expected their cotton acreage to be adversely aff ted, while 23 percent expected to buy more strippers. Adjustments in Operating Scale A separate question concerned with plans for reduc' the acreage in farms reflected relatively unimportant chang in total acres to be farmed by operators in 1952. The ag gate reduction in 1951 acreage reported for 1952 was less th, 1 percent. This slight drop was due mainly to the fact t I 4 percent of the respondents planned to quit active farmi operations in 1952. Those who were continuing to farm pla' ned to increase their acreage by 2 percent. Most of the chan were being made by tenants and part owners who were shi“ ing their holdings for the following year. ‘ SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Among the different type-of-farming areas in Texas, t High Plains cotton area requires the heaviest volume of no local labor during the cotton harvest. In recent years, ho ever, rapid progress has been made toward full mechani tion of the crop, making of the High Plains an excellent loc, for analyzing the effects on manpower of a major transiti from hand labor to machine use. a The Texas Agricultural Experiment Station and the B reau of Agricultural Economics of the U. S. Department - Agriculture undertook this study to provide needed info I tion about the types, source and use of labor in the cotton cr of the High Plains. The results are intended to be of pri tical value to farm employers and workers, as well as to lo x state and national agencies concerned with problems of fa manpower supply, recruitment and utilization. - Lubbock and Crosby counties, where 324 farm operato were interviewed in February 1952, are typical of the Hi Plains cotton area with its commercial, family-operated fa l: and its highly mechanized methods of operation. Althou the average rainfall is only about 20 inches, irrigation has - panded rapidly in recent years, and yields of a bale to the ac are not uncommon. Full owners and managing share tenan are the most common tenure groups. They are about equal _ number, but part owners comprise an important third ca gory. In any year, the area is dependent on a large volu of migratory workers for the cotton harvest. In 1951, pa of drouth conditions t0 the south, a sizeable number = workers made a timely appearance for the harvest. 4- strippers, moreover, were generally available, and 9 10 operators harvested part or all of their crop me- 1Y- was found that the type of labor used in cotton produc- ‘the High Plains depended largely on whether a par- ioperation was handled by machine or by hand labor. ize was also a factor in the labor-use pattern. The op- jand his family contributed more than half of the labor j; d with cultivation and slightly less than half of the i» the stripper operation, but this group performed very the hand labor of hoeing, chopping and hand pulling. "ry workers accounted for about four-fifths of the hand l and two-fifths of the hoeing and chopping. Regular Workers chiefly supplemented the labor of the farm fam- achine operators, while local seasonal workers partic- ;to some extent in each type of activity, especially hoe- ‘d chopping. =0 estimated 41,000 “hoe hands” and 58,000 harvest _j== were employed in the two counties in 1951, although Vigures involved some duplication in the count of work- ployed on more than one farm. Nearly 52,000 of the t workers were members of crews consisting of about persons each. Domestic Latin-Americans comprised “ ent of these crew workers, 11 percent were Negroes, vnt were Anglo-Americans and 2 percent were Mexican ls. Thus, in 1951, as for many years in the past, Lat- iricans from South Texas were the core of the harvest ‘force. Recruitment methods were generally informal; f s reported that nearly three-fourths of the harvest either came to the farm of their own volition or were _'by the farmers themselves. Most of the remainder mployed as the result of arrangements made in the year. The Farm Placement Department of the Tex- ployment Commission functioned as the public agency for the recruitment, routing and placing of work- lchine stripping of cotton on the High Plains has in- i» rapidly in recent years. Forty percent of the 1951 as machine stripped, most of it after an initial hand l. Two-thirds of the 324 farms had strippers and some _' g was done on 9 out of 10 of these sample farms. Cus- _ 'pping was relatively common; 28 percent of the opera- rho owned machine strippers used them on one or more __44__ farms besides their own. Irrigation had little apparent ef-y fect on the extent of mechanical harvesting. Size of farm figured in the use 0f machine strippers, however, as the most extensive use of the equipment occurred on medium-size farms (125-250 acres in cotton), followed by large farms of more“ than 250 acres in cotton and small farms of less than 125 acres in cotton. In each of these size-groups, however, the tenure; of the operator proved to be the most significant factor in de-l termining the amount of stripping. Because of the inflex- ible nature of customary leasing arrangements, full owners, harvested mechanically between 2 and 3 times as high a pr0-‘ portion of their crop as did tenants. ‘ Labor turnover during the harvest, which is frequently costly to both employer and employee, was identified mainly with dissatisfaction over wage rates or earnings. Farmers r 1 ported that housing—now available on 77 percent of the farms in the area—no longer appears to be important in the decision of harvest crews to leave a farm before the end of the har-§ vest. Other reasons given for loss of crews included the de sire to put the children of workers in school, the desire to re; turn to regular employers and a number of personal reasons Since the Korean outbreak, about 15 percent of the regula hired workers on farms in the two counties have left for othe — farm jobs, the armed forces or nonfarm employment. Seve ‘ percent of the farmers reported they had sons who left th family working force during the same period. Because man of these regular hired workers and. sons of farmers were ex perienced machine operators, workers to replace them wer often hard to find. ' Wage rates for hoeing and chopping were fairly unifo w! in 1951 and did not seem to be greatly affected by such factor as irrigation, tenure or size of farm. Three-fifths of the o erators paid 60 to 65 cents an hour for this pre-harvest labor and most of the remainder paid 70 cents an hour. Startin rates for cotton pulling varied, however, from $1.25 to $2.2 and up per hundred pounds. Increases in pulling rates wer common during the season, especially among those who starte paying at the lower figures, although 7 percent of the farmer reduced their rates while the harvest was in progress. Th most common rate was between $1.75 and $2.10 per hundre pounds. A Farmers cited lack of labor as the chief problem conne _ ted with the 1951 cotton harvest. Other problems reporte included crowded gins, poor cotton, the child labor law and ad verse weather. The principal methods planned or anticipate __45_ ilcoping with these problems in 1952 were the increased use i‘ achine strippers, employment of foreign workers and, in fr cases, reduction of cotton acreage. i; This study was made in an area of transition. The High i, s may prove to be the first area in the Cotton South to ‘rhanize fully its production‘ of the nation’s number one la- ,-consuming crop. What does the High Plains have to con- q te to our knowledge of manpower conservation and use? a If, in a broad sense, the answer could be embodied in a le phrase, perhaps it would be the need for education. The analysis demonstrates that advancing technology _s for machine skills, and these can best be provided by con- us educational programming. It shows that mechaniza- j= will reduce, or eliminate, the need for a vast stream of ’ atory workers in cotton production, and it strongly sug- ~ occupational re-training of these workers to fit them other useful employment. It indicates that farmers them- es have an increasing responsibility on their own farms training and supervising their employees in the operation arm machinery and in the performance of other farm op- tions requiring skill and judgment. It shows that the econ- ‘es of mechanical harvesting are in part being lost by the 'tutional rigidities of the tenure system, a deficiency that "be overcome by vigorous and realistic farm-lease educa- i It reveals a lack of understanding of the values to be p ed through a wider use by farmers of public employment ‘i ices. The experience in connection with the “school law” erlines a basic need of long standing—an adequate pro- 3',| of elementary and high school education for the children I igratory workers. }. These are some of the educational approaches to improv- I anpower utilization suggested by findings of this study. are, no doubt, many other worthwhile steps that should considered. For example, in the research field, there are f1 possibilities for extending the benefits of labor-saving ces of proved efficiency; among other things, this means ioroughgoing analysis of systems of land tenure on the " h Plains and elsewhere in the South. Still another is the ingthening and enlarged support of public employment »' ces. '0 g But an acceleration of educational activity, much of it iagencies and groups already equipped for the task, prob- - offers the greatest rewards at the least cost. That such ‘p; ams would also be in accord with the general economic _46_ and social objectives of the State and the Nation provides th final affirmation of their Worth. And while these objective have been highlighted by the pressing demands of defens preparation, increased labor productivity remains through a i phases of economic activity a goal of the farmer, the worke and the public. I METHODOLOGY OF THE SURVEY The survey in Lubbock and Crosby counties was one o several farm manpower research projects carried on jointl? by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics and several land grant colleges. In other states, some studies were made i' areas which are usually identified with a labor surplus. T Texas High Plains, on the other hand, has long been regard as one of the Nation’s major labor-deficit areas at the heig . of the cotton harvest. Area sampling was used as a basis for selecting the fa i. ers to be interviewed. In the two counties, there were 62 sample segments, as defined in the development of the Mas y Sample of Agriculture, from which a geographically stra fied random sample» of 96 segments was selected. All cott farmers with their farm headquarters inside these segmen were interviewed. Farmers who owned land inside the se ments, but had their farming headquarters outside, were n included. Farmers who merely lived elsewhere, as in Lu‘ bock or other cities, but did not farm there, were counted ' the segment in which they had their farming headquarters.‘ The sampling rate was 15.3 percent (96 out of 626 Whereas the number of cotton farmers identified in the samp segments, 372, was 12.9 percent of the number of farmers r porting cotton in the 1950 Census. Part of this difference r sults from the fact that the sample was confined to the op country. Schedules were completed for 324 farms, or 87 pe cent of 372 farms identified as being in the sample. In expanding the sample figures to represent totals l the two counties, an expansion factor of 7.486 (626 + 96* 372 + 324) was used. One exception to this was in the c culation of the number of mechanical strippers. In so sample segments, all the cotton was blown out by windstor In these segments, no schedules were obtained, as no cot r harvest operations had taken place, although some of the o erators had mechanical strippers. It was assumed that the non-reporting operators had strippers in the same proporti _47__ j farmers. An expansion factor of 7.646 provided an 7*» figure for the total number of strippers in these two .= Expanded figures were used, however, only where “in lieved that county totals were possibly significant for ;'ng labor supply and turnover (See Tables 4, 5 and 9). ACKNOWLEDGMENTS authors are indebted to W. E. Paulson of the Depart- iof Agricultural Economics and Sociology and R. L. r_Jr., statistical supervisor, Texas Agricultural Experi- tation, for their valuable assistance in the technical I of the punch-card operation on this project, and to .. Wallrabenstein and Joe D. Herman of the Bureau of tural Economics, U. S. Department of Agriculture, for ce in formulating the schedule and in supervising the rations. Acknowledgment is made to the Farm Place- epartment, Texas Employment Commission, for per- to use the photographs appearing in this report, and g y Le Blanc, chief of the Farm Placement Department, 'ewing the manuscript and offering numerous helpful . Margaret J armon Hagood of the Bureau of Ag- iral Economics, and L. P. Gabbard of the Department of _ tural Economics and Sociology, were instrumental in 'ng for the study and served in an adivsory capacity hout its progress. BIBLIOGRAPHY OF RELATED MATERIALS aterials on the supply of seasonal farm labor in Texas ;. past have consisted largely of estimates prepared to dministrative needs in connection with public programs. " surveys have been made only during periods of labor ncy when it became necessary to take account of the fiwer resources available to harvest the cotton and other labor-using crops. On the other hand, a continuing f of studies has been made on labor requirements for all crops, operations and areas. While these have provid- ormation on significant changes in labor use, they have . lt with the volume of manpower supplies nor with the ft to which those supplies were utilized. ese materials, some of which are out of print, then pro- {a considerable volume of background data in regard to 1e of seasonal labor in Texas. For the High Plains cot- ea in particular a series of analyses is available which A with changes in costs and labor requirements, and in re- turns to the farmer as affected by the use of mechanized har- vest methods. t 1. _48_ The most recent of these include: “Economics of Mechanical Cotton Harvesting in the High Plains- Cotton Area of Texas.” M. N. Williamson, Jr., Q. M. Morgan, and Ralph H. Rogers. Bulletin 735, Texas Station. 1951. This publication summarizes the findings of the six listed below on the following subjects: extent of use of machine and hand harvesting, stripper performance and costs, comparison of returns from machine and hand harvesting methods. “Harvesting Cotton in the High Plains Area of Texas: Machine vs. Hand.” Troy Mullins. Texas Station. 952. Aug. 31, 1945. (Not available.) “Cotton Production Practices in the High Plains Area, 1947.” M. N. Williamson, Jr. and Ralph H. Rogers. Texas Station. Misc. Publication 37. Feb. 20, 1950. (Not available.) “Economics of Cotton Harvesting, Texas High Plains, 1947 Sea- l M. N. Williamson, Jr. and Ralph H. Rogers, Texas Sta- v son.” tion. Progress Report 1134. Oct 1, 1948. (Not available.) “Factors Influencing Cotton Harvesting Methods on the High 7 Plains.” D. L. Jones and Harold D. Lynn. Texas Station Prog- f ress Report 1029. Aug. 27, 1946. (Not available.) “Economics of Cotton Harvesting, Texas High Plains, 1948 Sea- A son.” M. N. Williamson, Jr. and Ralph H. Rogers, Texas Sta- = tion. Progress Report 1200. Dec. 4, 1949. (Not available.) “Waste in Harvesting Cotton with Mechanical Strippers on the i High Plains of Texas, 1947.” M. N. Williamson, Jr. and Ralph I Feb. 26, a Texas Station. Progress Report 1111. (Not available.) H. Rogers. 1948. Some earlier studies of mechanization of the cotton harvest in this area have been published. A few deal with the period when home-made sleds _ were used, the predecessors of the mechanical strippers. 8. 10. 11. 12. 13. “Requirements and Costs for Picking, Snapping, and Sledding; A. P. Brodell and. Cotton in Western Texas and Oklahoma.” M. Cooper, Bureau of Agricultural Economics. 1927. “Mechanical Harvesting of Cotton in Northwest Texas.” D. L. Jones, W. M. Hurst and D. Scoates. Texas Station. Circular 52. 1928. (Not available.) “The Mechanical Harvesting of Cotton.” H. P. Smith, D. T. Killough, M. H. Byrom, D. Scoates and D. L. Jones. tion. Bulletin 452. 1932. (Not available.) “Some Technological Changes in the High Plains Cotton Area of Texas.” C. A. Bonnen and A. C. Magee, Journal of Farm Economics, Vol. XX. 1938. “Mechanical Harvesting of Cotton as Affected by Varietal Char- acteristics and Other Factors.” H. P. Smith, D. T. Killough, D. L. Jones and M. H. Byrom. Texas Station. Bulletin 580. 1939. “Information Basic to Farm Adjustment in the High Plains Cot- ton Area of Texas.” odeaux. Texas Station. Bulletin 652. 1944. Progress Report v Texas Sta- ‘ A. C. Magee, C. A. Bonnen and B. H. Thib- ' _.49_. 14. “Factors Affecting the Performance of Mechanical Cotton Har- vesters, Extractors and Cleaners.” H. P. Smith, D. T. Killough and D. L. Jones. Texas Station. Bulletin 686. 1946. Publications of the Texas Employment Commission include a series of in-season reports as to the farm labor supply and demand situation in all major agricultural areas of the state, also‘ an annual review of the farm placement activities of the organization and the major prob- lems encountered in recruiting a.nd directing the labor supply. The fig- ures available from this source are operating data and may be considered as estimates made by expert observers rather than as data obtained either by complete enumeration or by sample surveys. They provide in- formed estimates in regard to changes in labor demands and labor sup- pies. 15. “Farm Labor Bulletin.” Texas Employment Commission. Pub- lished daily from the Cotton Control Center at Lubbock from September 4 through November 19, 1951. Present data on crop conditions, rate of harvest, immigration of workers, orders for workers, placements, needs for additional workers and wage rates. 16. “Texas Farm Placement Service, 1951.” Texas Employment Commission. Annual report includes estimates on labor sup- plies, mechanization, labor shortages and surpluses, the recruit- ment, direction and placement of seasonal workers. As a part of the day-to-day information in regard to the 1951 cotton harvest, the daily and weekly news items in the Lubbock daily paper have been valuable sources. 17. “Lubbock Avalanche Journal.” Especially the materials on the harvest labor situation as presented by W. J. Robinson of the Farm Placement Service and by K. N. Clapp of Anderson-C1ay- ton Company at Lubbock. During the period of intensive manpower analysis at the beginning of World War II, both statewide and regional estimates were made on the labor demand and supply situation. Materials dealing with the labor ‘situation in Texas are: 18. “Farm L-abor as a Factor in Agricultural Production Goals in Texas, 1942 and 1943.” Joe R. Motheral. (Unpublished paper) May 5, 1942. 19. “Labor Requirements to Harvest Texas Cotton, Peanut and Rice Crops, 1942.” Joe R. Motheral and A. C. Magee. Texas Sta- tion. Progress Report 786. July 1, 1942. (Not available.) 20. “Texas Farm Labor—an Analysis of Demand and On-farm Sup- ply in Four Major Types of Farming Areas, 1943.” R. W. Jones, John R. Wenmohs and Joe R. Motheral. (For administra- tive use only.) Texas Station. 1944. 21. “Use of Labor by Farm. Operators of Different Tenure Status in the Texas Black Prairie.” Joe R. Motheral. Texas Station. Progress Report 862. Oct. 21, 1943. (Not available.) 22. “Manpower on Texas Ranches,” The Cattleman. May 1943. 23. “Farm Labor Situation in Texas.” C. Hohn. In papers pre- sented at annual meeting of Texas Agricultural Workers’ As- sociation. Jan. 11-12, 1944. _5Q__ The activities of the Texas Employment Commission in handling labor needs and labor supplies in Texas have developed over a period of years. This development can be traced in several of their publications: 24. “Farm Labor Program in Texas, 1943-1947.” Texas Agricul- tural Extension Service. 1947. 25. “Hired Hands on Order.” R M. McKinley. Farm and Ranch 67: 8-9. June 1948. Studies dealing with mechanization of the cotton harvest in other parts of the United States also indicate the probable changes in labor require- ments. Some have also attempted to assess changes in the types of labor required for mechanized cotton operations. These include: 26. “Technology on the Farm.” Interbureau Committee and Bu-i reau of Agricultural Economics. 1940. 27. “Experiences in 1945 with Mechanical Cotton Pickers in Cali- fornia.” Cruz Venstrom, Bureau of Agricultural Economics. 1946. . 28. “Progress of Farm Mechanization.” Martin R. Cooper, Glen, T. Barton and Albert P. Brodell, Bureau of Agricultural Eco-‘ nomics. 1947. 29. “Economics of Mechanical Cotton Harvesting in the San Joa-_ quin Valley, 1949.” Warren R. Bailey and Trimble R. Hedges.’ Calif. Agr. Exp. Sta. Mimeographed Report No. 111. 1951. 30. “Changing Technology and the Demand for Seasonal Workers on Farms.” Glen T. Barton. Hearings before Subcommittee on Labor and Labor-Management Relations of the Committee; on Labor and Public Welfare. U. S. Senate, 82nd Congress; Second Session on Migratory Labor, Part 2. 1952. 31. “The Labor Supply and Mechanized Cotton Production.” Doro-i thy Dickins. Miss. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bulletin 463. 1949. 32. “Technological Advance and the Structure of American Agri- culture.” J. C. Ellickson and J. M. Brewster. Journal of Farm Economics. Nov. 1947. 33 “Technology Levels Seasonal Farm Work.” Agricultural Situ-aw tion. June 1947. * 34. “Machines in the Cotton Fields: Children in School.” L. W» Jones and B. F. MacLanin. School and Society. Oct. 6, 1951 35. “Impact of Mechanization upon Farm Workers.” Employmen Security Review. March 1950. Studies of types of farm areas and types of farm organizations in Texas provide overall information on the cotton farming areas in the State an their relationship to each other. They also indicate the relationship o cotton to other crops. l 36. “A Description of the Agriculture and ‘Type-of-Farming Area in Texas.” C. A. Bonnen and B. H. Thibodeaux. Texas Station. Bulletin 544. 1937. ' 37. “An Economic Study of Farm Organization and Operation ~. the High Plains Cotton Area of Texas.” B. H. Thibodeaux, C. A. Bonnen and A. C. Magee. Texas Station. Bulletin 568. 1939. n: ._.5]___ . “Use of Irrigation Water on the High Plains.” C. A. Bonnen, W. C. McArthur, A. C. Magee and W. F. Hughes. Texas Sta- tion. Bulletin 756. 1952. . “Irrigated Agriculture in Texas.” William F. Hughes and Joe R. Motheral. Texas Station. Miscellaneous Publication 59. 1950.