‘lei/wan; I957 A Migration of the EXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION R. D. LEWIS. DIRECTOR. COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS IN COOPERATION WITH THE U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SUMMARY There were 1.156.000 people living on Texas iarrns in April 1956. This figure is not signiiicantli irom the 1955 estimate oi 1.141.000. I, Farm residents made up 13.2 percent oi the State's total population and 5.2 percent oi th iarm people in 1956. 3 An estimated 617.000 persons migrated irom Texas iarrns between 1950 and 1956. At the :1 276.000 moved to iarms. leaving a net out-migration oi 341.000 persons. A decided drop in oi people leaving iarrns has occurred since 1954. ' A net oi 910.000 persons migrated irom Texas iarrns between 1940 and 1950. a period du ‘A the net loss through migration was greater than ior the two previous decades combined. R out-migration between 1940 and 1950 were higher among youth between the ages oi 10 and 2.‘ any other age group. Out-migration rates also were consistently higher ior nonwhite pers - _ white persons at all age levels except between the ages oi 50-59 and 60-64. Larger proportions leit the iarm and at earlier ages than males. 1 Between 1940 and 1950. net rates ior out-migration among iarm people in Texas were high‘ economic areas 9. 14 and 8 (Figure 6). These areas are in the central part oi the State. covering; strip oi counties irom the Oklahoma boundary to the Guli oi Mexico. State economic areal Lower Rio Grande Valley. and la. the extreme western portion oi the State. had the lowest out-migration. Texas had a lower rate oi out-migration oi iarm people between 1920 and 1930 than the remaining states in the West South Central division—Arkansas. Louisiana and Oklahoma. however. the State's rate oi migration irom iarrns has been higher than in the division or in the"; ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This study is one oi a series on problems oi developing. improving and analyzing the elements‘. up annual estimates oi the Texas iarm population. These estimates are made cooperatively byi; Agricultural Experiment Station and the Agricultural Marketing Service. U. S. Department oi Agric Special acknowledgment is made to Margaret Iarman Hagood. chiei. Farm Population Branch. Agricultural Marketing Service. USDA. ior her cooperation in carrying out this project. also is expressed to Loyd B. Keel and Mrs. Sarita Marland ior their assistance in this study. PULATION CHANGES in any given area are the result of three basic factors: people are born, eby resulting in an increase in population; hers die, resulting in a loss in population; and ple migrate, resulting in either a population ease or decrease, depending on the direction of ir movement. PURPOSE ‘This report focuses attention on the third of he factors-Jrnigration-as it affects the farm ulation of Texas. The study of migration is cerned with the number and kinds of people o move in and out of an area or who change 'dence within it. The motives leading to ration are many and complex. Nevertheless, f movement of farm people is a continuous pro- s which is capable of causing the populations both rural and urban areas to change rapidly Ysize and composition. Each reshuffling of the population becomes important because it ects our agricultural, industrial, commercial, titutional and community life. ' CENT FARM POPULATION TRENDS There was little change in the size of the Texas population during the past 2 years. Accord- ,1 to estimates based on a state-wide survey con- cted cooperatively by the Texas Agricultural - eriment Station and the Agricultural Market- -: Service of the U. S. Department of Agricul- e, 1,156,000 people were living on Texas farms April 1956. This estimate is not significantly ferent from the estimates of 1,141,000 for April 55 and 1,126,000 for April 1954. The number of people residing on Texas farms 1956 was approximately 230,000 fewer than in 50. For the 6-year period, 1950-56, the farm pulation in Texas declined at a faster rate than , the nation, 16.7 and 11.2 percent, respectively igure 1). For the same period, the farm pulation declined more slowly in Texas than ‘ the other states in the West South Central 'vision—Arkansas, Louisiana and Oklahoma— here the loss was 20.1 percent. Even though the Texas farm population has mained about the jsame in the past 2 years, rm residents continue to make up an increas- espectively, associate professor, Department of Agricul- ral Economics and Sociology; and analytical statician, ‘ gricultural Marketing Service, U.S. Department of - griculture. l ‘gration of the Texas Farm Population i-R. L. SkfUbUIl8k and Gladys K. Bowles l’ ingly smaller proportion of the State’s total population. This is chiefly because the nonfarm population is growing more rapidly. The 1956 farm population comprised 13.2 percent of the State’s total residents, as compared with 13.3 percent in 1955 and 17.9 percent in 1950. In 1956, Texas had 5.2 percent of the nation’s farm people, as compared with 5.1 percent in 1955 (Table 1). The State’s share of the farm residents in the United States in 1950 was 5.5 percent. MIGRATION AND FARM POPULATION TRENDS Migration is one of the basic factors in the growth or decline of the Texas farm population. It represents more than just a movement of persons from one place to another since it breaks the bonds and institutional ties of the individual. It also invloves the transplanting of wealth, social values and economic production. In some cases, migration is a means of correcting the lack of balance between population and resources, at the same time causing the age and sex composition of an area to change. It affects the patterns of land use, the agricultural and general economy, the church, the school and other institutions and agencies in both the areas from which migrants are leaving and in the new places of residence. CONTENTS Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Acknowledgments . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3 Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Recent Farm Population Trends . . . . . . . . . 3 Migration and Farm Population Trends . . 3 Migration, 1950-56 . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4 Migration, 1940-50 . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4 Net Migration by Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Net Migration by Race and Sex . . . . . 6 Net Migration by State Economic Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 In Relation to the Nation and Region . . 8 I30 12° _ LEGEND TEXAS --—---~ WEST SOUTH CENTRAL m, _ --------- umrso STATES IOO g -u¢~.~. .- ls U- '''' I-_I\_\\\ 5 9o — "~ “~~ Q \_ “ ~ ~ _ _ __’__ _____ .... n: \- ----- -"' u \ 0- gx.‘ 8° .- ""~._,___._.._._..._.-._._._._ 7O '- 0 I l I l l l 1 I950 l95l I952 I953 I954 I955 I956 YEARS Figure 1. Farm populations ot Texas, West South Cen- tral division and the United States expressed as percentages of their 1950 farm populations. Data are from reports ot the Agricultural Marketing Service. the Bureau of the Census and the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station. issued sep- arately or cooperatively. Two types of estimates are used in this report for studying migration from the farm population. For the most recent period, 1950-56, estimates are available for the United States, regions, geographic divisions and Texas of movements (1) from farms to nonfarm areas, (2) t0 farms from nonfarm areas and (3) net change resulting from these two movements in opposite directions. These estimates are restricted to the number of migrants and do not provide any information as to the population characteristics of the persons involved. Since they are computed on an annual basis, and these annual estimates are summed to obtain estimates for the 1950-56 period, they may include children born or persons who have died during the period. Also, in the gross estimates of movements t0 or from the farm population, a person may be counted more than once if he moves TABLE 1. TEXAS FARM POPULATION AS PERCENTAGE OF THE UNITED STATES FARM POPULATION. 1950-56‘ Farm population by area Year United Texas t llilelgefrziztrgi states population (000) (000) 1950 25.058 1.387 5.5 1951 24.160 1.331 5.5 1952 24.283 1.346 5.5 1953 22.679 1.193 5.3 1954 21.890 1.126 5.1 1955 22.158 1.141 5.1 1956 22.257 1.156 5.2 ‘Data are from reports ol the Agricultural Marketing Service. the Bureau oi the Census and the Texas Agricultural Experi- ment Station. issued separately or cooperatively. ‘ 4 back and forth during the period. These I counts are canceled out in the estimates ‘ change. For the 1940-50 and earlier decades, e Q are available of the change in farm pop due to net migration of persons alive at u beginning and end of the-gspecificed decad estimates, therefore, do ndt include the mi of children who were born after the begin a decade, nor do they include estima migration of persons who were alive at e ginning of the decade, but who died bef end of the period. These net migration es are available for age and sex groups for . and also for color groups in the Southern In making comparisons either betwee or its constituent elements, such as age, .M race, those areas or groups with the hig lowest numbers of migrants may or K necessarily have the highest or lowest g migration. For this reason, two different; are used in this report. Net migration change in the rural farm population due to movement of persons alive at both the be and the end of the period of years un_ sideration. The term, rate of net migrati change in the rural. farm population due] net movement of persons expressed as . centage of the rural farm population alive the beginning and the end of the periodif consideration. -~ f MIGRATION. 1950-56 The rate of growth or loss of any pop group is determined by its birth and deat and by the balance of in- and out-migra, summary of these elements for the Tex _ population for 1950-56 is shown in Figur If there had been no migration eithe from Texas farms between April 1, 19 April 1, 1956, the State’s farm populationj have increased by approximately 110,000 c5 This is the difference between the nu, births and deaths that occurred during the‘; period. The number of births was almo times the number of deaths. " It is estimated, however, that 617,000 migrated from Texas farms during this; This is more than five times the natural if of the farm population. The net migratii farms was somewhat lower, since 276,000 moved to farms in the State. There g little change in the number of migrants i farms from one year to another since 1950. left the net out-migration figure for the v. 341,000 persons. MIGRATION. 1940-so A high degreeof mobility occurred g farms and nonfarm areas between 1940 an, The movement away from farms was greater than that to farms. This is th TOTAL TEXAS FARM POPULATION APRILI, I950 |,sa1,ooo MIGRATION TO AND FROM FARMS I950—I956 a IQmIousAuosI _FB_Q_M (THOUSANDS) é ARMED FORCES a €FARMS IN OTHER STATES NATURAL INCREASE AND DECREASE ‘BIRTHS DEATHS @ TOTAL TEXAS FARM POPULATION APRIL I, I956 |,|5s,ooo l Figure 2. Texas far population chang , 1950-56. So r e: Published and unpublished information of the Agricultural arketing Service and Texas Agricultu Experiment tibn. \. 8O O O RATE or NET unsmmou 5 3 O O IO 2O 3O 4O 5O 6O AGE _IN I940 Figure 3. Rate oi net migration irom the Texas rural -iarm population, by selected age groups, 1940-50. Source oi data ior Figures 3-6: Gladys K. Bowles. “Farm Population . . . Net Migration From the Rural Farm Population, 1940-50." AMS. USDA Statistical Bulletin No. 17B (lune 1956). reason for the rapid decrease in farm population in Texas between 1940 and 1050, wlth the migrants from farms outnumbermg by a Wide margin the migrants to farms plus the increase brought about by the excess of births over deaths. A net migration occurred from farms of approxi- mately 910,000 persons alive at both the beginning and end of the decade. The net migration rate for the decade was 45.6 percent. The magnitude of the migration from farms is important in appraising and planning different types of action programs. The composition of the migratory groups also is of primary importance to persons interested in problems of the utilization of manpower, the location of industry and social 8O .. \ WHITE I \ \ 9-04-04 NONWHITE 6O ' i‘ \.\>/7i O IO 2O 3O 4O 5O 6O AGE IN I940 Figure 4. Rate oi net migration irom the Texas rural iarm population, by race and age. 1940-50. 6 institutions and the inter-relationships 0f‘ culture and farm population. For this individual characteristics, such as age, se racial composition of the migrants from f are given separate consideration. Net Migration by Age Numerous factors work? singly or in c0 tion to influence people to leave the fa, different age levels. In Texas, youths betw ages of 10 and 24 migrate in larger numbe , Migration during the 1940’s from the § farm areas in Texas was the greatest those aged 15 to 19 (Figure 3). The net out-migration of this group was over 68 p The second largest net out-migration occ among people between the ages of 10 and 7 the beginning of the decade, followed by p l between 20 and 24. Their net rates of migi were 67.2 and 54.7 percent, respectively. After reaching their thirtieth birthday? sons are less likely to leave their farm than when they wereyounger. Their ne of out-mlgratlon remains relatlvely low f. remainder of their lives. However, a sli, crease in migration from farms takes place f’ people who are 60 years of age or older/i reflects the tendency for the older males to at this age level and for the female whose has died to move off the farm. ‘a Net Migration by Race and Sex The net rate of migration from farms in between 1940 and 1950 was consistently g so 7° /k‘\ I \ —i MALE i. l/ \\ —--—— FEMALE I so i‘ I \\ ,, l \ ' \ I z I \ 2 50 -‘ ‘t v- / \ l. < I \ m , 9 l/ \\ = 5 4o l/ \ \ 14;! ‘i’ / \\ 1/ ' u \ {x L o ~._-.---_/ E so ‘ \ é i . 2o no o o no 2o . so 4o so AGE m |94o Figure 5. Rate oi net migration irom the iarm population, by sex and age, 1940-50. " * nonwhite than for white persons. Rates for two groups were 53.5 and v 44.1 percent, pectively. Nonwhites had higher rates at every i level with one exception, that being between and 64 (Figure 4). The biggest differences in es between the two racial elements occurred tween the ages of 20 and 29, where nonwhites 1 migration rates around 18 percent higher p. whites. l The tendency for girls to leave farm areas in ger proportions and at earlier ages than boys rshown in Figure 5. The overall rate of net ration from farms for the 10-year period was .2 percent for all females, as compared with .1 percent for males. The only time that the i s of out-migration of males exceeded those of A ales was between the ages of 15 and 34. The gest differentials occurred between the ages 50 and 64, when out-migration among women eeded that of men by a comparatively wide rgin. The proportionately heavier net out- vement of females in the older age groups eals, to a large extent, the migration of widows o are more likely to leave the farms than are le operators who have lost their wives. . Both males and females in the nonwhite group d higher rates of net migration from the farm ween 1940 and 1950 than did their white 7 nterparts. The highest rate for all race-sex sses as a whole was among nonwhite females, - lowest among white males. ' Among whites, the highest out-migration rate ists among females between 10 and 14 years LE 2. NET CHANGE IN THE TEXAS RURAL FARM POPULATION DUE TO MIGRATION, BY STATE ECONOMIC AREAS. 1940-50‘ State Number of persons Rate of migration areas Total white nonwhite Total white nonwhite (000) (000) (000) (%) (%) (%) - 146.41 - s - s _ ~27.s —27.s _ 11» _ s _ s _ ~s2.9 —s2.s _ 2 - 2s - 2s ~ 1 —40.4 —40.1 —s7.9 s - 1s - 1s - —4s.s —4s.7 - 4 - 1s _ 1s - —2s.2 —29.s _ s 2s _ '24 - —s2.s —ss.0 _ sq es - ea _ —4s.a —44.s _ as - 12 _ 12 - ~42.2 442.1 - 7.. _ s2 - s2 _ —42.0 —42.0 _ vssn - 20 _ 20 — 1 —s7.2 —s7.1 —42.0 7c _ 21 _ 21 - —4s.s —4s.s - 6.0.13.2‘. _10a -1s4 ~ ss —s0.7 —49.s —s1.4 . is - s6 _ s1 — 2s —s4.0 —s0.a —ss.s 10 - 41 _ s0 — 11 —44.9 —41.s —s7.s 11m" - s0 - s0 ~ 2 —4s.s —49.1 —ss.s 12 -1a0 _11s — ss —4'/.s —4s.s —s1.2 1s - 4s - s2 — 1s —41.s —4s.a —49.s man - 7a _ s0 — 20 —s1.7 —49.a —se.2 1s - 17 _ 177 - ~27s —27.a r0141 _910 _1s1' —17s —4s:s —44.1 s53 lgures adopted trom: Gladys K. Bowles. “F arm Population . . Net Migration From the Rural Farm Population, 1940-50." S. USDA Statistical Bulletin No. 17B (Iune 1956) Table 8. 160. The figures are rounded to the nearest thousand 'thout being adjusted to group totals. of age (70.4 percent), with the highest point for males being between the ages of 15 and 19 (66.6 percent). Nonwhite males between 15 and 19 had the highest out-migration rate of all groups (78.5 percent). The next highest (76 percent) oc- curred among nonwhite females between 15 and 19. Net Migration by State Economic Areas State economic area 8 had the largest net change in rural farm population due to migration between 1940 and 1950 (Table 2). This area, which roughly corresponds to the Blackland Prairie, had a net out-migration of approximately 189,000 persons. The only other state economic area with a net migration from farms that exceed- ed 100,000 persons was area 12, in the north- eastern corner of the State, with a net of 180,000 persons. At the other extreme, state economic areas 1a and 1b, which occupy the extreme west- ern portion of the State, had a relatively small net out-movement of people from farms. They each registered net losses of about 5,000 persons. State economic areas with the smallest or largest net migrations numerically, however, did not necessarily have the highest net rates. State economic area 9 had the highest net rate of out- migration, 54.0 percent (Figure 6). Next highest were areas 14 and 8, with net rates of out- migration of 51.7 and 50.7 percent, respectively. All three areas are in the central section of the State, comprising a narrow strip of counties from the Oklahoma boundary to the Gulf of Mexico. State economic areas with the lowest net rates of out-migration were area 15 (27.3 percent), in the Lower Rio Grande Valley, and area 1a (27.8 percent), which occupies the extreme western portion of the State. ---- u nut g‘ g uuaarrnnu E] was nun 50.0 30.0 1o no E5315 30.0 ‘ro an 4o o ro 44.9 I 45.0 Y0 on I soc mu ovsn Figure 6. Rate of net migration from the Texas rural farm population. by state economic areas, 1940-50. TABLE 3. RATES OF NET MIGRATION FROM THE RURAL FARM POPULATIONS OF TEXAS, THE WEST SOUTH CENTRAL DIVISION_ AND THE UNITED STATES, 1920-30. 1930-40, 1940-50‘ Area Net migration rates 1920-30 1930-40 1940-50 Texas —l5.5 —22.0 —45.6 West South Central -—17.3 —19.9 -—44.0 United States —l9.3 e —-l2.7 —30.9 ‘Source: Gladys K. Bowles, “Farm Population . . . Net Migra- tion From the Rural Farm Population. 1940-50." AMS, USDA Statistical Bulletin No. 176 (Iune I956) Table l, p. 16. IN RELATION TO THE NATION AND REGION The amount of net loss through migration from farm areas in Texas increased steadily for each successive decade up to 1950. Between 1920 and 1930, there was a net loss of approximately 354,000 persons who were alive at both the beginning and the end of the period. In the next decade, the net loss through migration increased to 469,000. Between 1940 and 1950, rural farm areas lost more people through migration than during the two previous decades combined, the net loss being 910,000. Migration data for the farm“ population of Texas indicate that the outward movement was considerably greater in every state economic area during 1940-50 than during the decade. State economic area 15, in the i‘ Rio Grande Valley, had a net increase in, population through migration between 19 1940. In a comparison of migration trends f‘ farm populations of different areas, ra‘ migration may be more indicative than ~14 numbers. In Texas and the West South " division, the net rates of out-migration inc with each successive decade since 1920 (Ta q Such has not been the case, however, in the v as a whole. After a relatively high out-mi rate between 1920 and 1930, the movemen farms in the United States fell off consid‘ during the following decade. Then it wen up again between 1940 and 1950. =‘ Texas had a lower rate of out-migrat farm people between 1920 and 1930 than v West South Central division or the nation.._§~ that time, however, the rate of migration"? farms in the State has been higher thanf, division or in the United States. The of migration from farms in Texas dur" last decade was only slightly higher (45, cent) than in the West South Central D' (44.0 percent), but considerably higher the nation (30.9 percent). : a