TEXASAGRICIJLTIIRAL EXPERIMENT smum AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL COLLEGE OF TEXAS W. B. BIZZELL, President BULLETIN NO. 32v February, 1925 DIVISION OF FARM AND RANCH ECONOMICS AN AGRICULTURAL ECONOMIC SURVEY OF ROCKWALL COUNTY, TEXAS A Typical Blackland Cotton Farming Area ¢ B. YOUNGBLOOD, DIRECTOR COLLEGE STATION, BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS STAFF (As 0f May 1, 1925) ADMINISTRATION B. YOUNGBLOOD, M. S., Ph. D., Director A. B. CONNER, M. S., Vice-Director A. H. LEIDIGH, M. S., Assistant Director CHAS. A. FELKER, Chief Cleric A. S. WARE, Secretary M. P. HOLLEMAN, JR., Assistant Chief Cleric J. M. SCHAEDEL, Executive Assistant C. B. NEBLETTE, Technical Assistant VETERINARY SCIENCE FRANCIS, D. v. M., Chief of Division H. SCHMIDT, D. V. M., Acting for Chief of Division V. J. BRAUNER, D. V. M., Veterinarian CHEMISTRY ‘G. S. FRAPS, Ph D., Chief of Division,‘ State Chemist S. E. ASBURY, M. S., Assistant Chemist WALDO H. WALKER Assistant Chemist J. K. BLUM, B. S., Assistant Chemist J. E. TEAGUE, B. S., Assistant Chemist VELMA GRAHAM, Assistant Chemist K. KITSUTA, M. S. Assistant Chemist ADAH E. PROCTOR. B. S., Assistant Chemist N. J. VOLK, M. S., Assistant Chemist HORTICULTURE A. T. POTTS, M. S., M. S. C., Chief of Division; Citricultwist . H. NESS. M. S., Berry Breeder RANGE ANIMAL HUSBANDRY J. M. JONES, A. M.,Chief of Division Sheep and Goats JAY L. LUSH, Ph. D., Animal Breeder (genetlcs) FRANK GRAYSON, lVool Grader ENTOMOLOGY F. L. THOMAS, Ph. D., Chief of Division; State Entomologist J. REINHARD, B. S., Entomologist E. HOBBS, B. S., Assistant Entomologist C. S. RUDE, B. S., Chief Foulbrooa Inspector H. S. CAVITT, B. S., Apiary Inspector AGRONOMY E. B. REYNOLDS, M. S., Chief of Division A. B. CONNER, M. S., Agronomist, Grain Sorghum Research A. H. LEIDIGH, M. S., Agronomist, Small Grain Research G. N. STROMAN, Ph. D., Agrongmist, Cotton Breeding C. H. MAHONEY, B. S., Assistant in Cotton Breeding R. H. STANSEL, B. S., Asst. in Crops PLANT PATHOLOGY AND PHYSIOLOGY J. J. TAUBENHAUS, Ph. D., Chief of Division FARM AND RANCH ECONOMICS L. P. GABBARD, M. S., Chief of Division B. YOUNGBLOOD, M. S., Ph. D., Farm and Ranch Economist V. L. CORY, M. S., Grazing Research Botanist (Sonora) ***T. L. GASTON, JR., B. S., Assistant, Farm Records and Accounts ***A. S. BRIENT, B. S., Assistant, Ranch Records and Accounts ***B. P. HARRISON, B. S., Collaborator SOIL SURVEY T. CARTER, B. s; Chief of Division H. W. HAWKER, Soil Surveyor E. H. TEMPLIN, B. S., Soil Surveyor BOTANY H. NESS, M. S., Chief of Division PUBLICATIONS A. D. JACKSON, Chief of Division SWINE HUSBANDRY - FRED HALE, B. A., Sivi-ne Husbandman DAIRY HUSBANDRY m, Chief POULTRY HUSBANDRY R. M. SHERWOOD, M. S., Chief of Division MAIN STATION FARM D. T. KILLOUGI-I, B. S., Superintendent STATE APICULTURAL RESEARCH LABORATORY (San Antonio) H. B. PARKS, B. S., Apiculturist in Charge A. H. ALEX, B. S., Queen Breeder FEED CONTROL SERVICE F. D. FULLER, M. S., Chief of Division S. D. PEARCE, Secretary J. H. ROGERS, Feed Inspector W. H. WOOD, Feed Inspector G. M. MORRIS, B. S., Feed Inspector- W. C. GAINEY, B. S.,, Feed Inspector C. D. WHITMAN, B. S., Feed Inspector K. L. KIRKLAND, B. S., Feed Inspector SUBSTATICNS No. 1, Beeville, Bee County, R. A. HALL, B. S., Superintendent No. 2, Troup, Smith County, W. S. HOTCHKISS, Superintendent No. '3, Angleton, BrazorialCounty V. E. HAFNER, B. S., Superintendent No. 4, Beaumont, Jefferson County R. H. WYCHE, B. S., Superintendent No. 5, Temple, Bell County A. B. CR N, B. S., Superintendent No. 6, Denton, Denton County, P. B. DUNKLE, B. S., Superintendent No. 7, Spur, Dickens County, R. E. DICKSON, B. S., Superintenednt No. 8, Lubbock, Lubbock County R. E. KARPER. B. S., Superintendent No. 9, Balmorhea, Reeves County J. J. BAYLES, B. S., Superintendent No. 10," College Station, Brazos County, (Feeding and Breeding Station) R. M. SHERWOOD, M. S., Animal Hus- Members of Teaching Staff in the School of Agriculture Carrying Cooperative Projects GROUT, M. S., Professor of Dairy G. W. ADRIANCE, M. S., Associate Profes- sor of Horticulture S. W. BILSING, Ph. D., Professor of En- tomology F. A. Buechel, Ph. D., Professor of Agri- cultural Economics W. E. GARNETT, Ph. D., Professor of Rural Sociology H. V. GEIB, B. S., Assistant Professor of Agronomy *Dean, School of Veterinary Medicine **On leave for one Year bandman in Charge of Farm L. J. McCALL, Farm Superintendent No. 11, Nacogdoches, Nacogdoches County, G. T. McNESS, Superintendent ***No. 12, Chillicothe, Hardeman County D. L. JONES, Superintendent No. 14, Sonora," Sutton-Edwards Counties E. M. PETERS, B. S., Superintendent D. H. BENNETT, D. V. M., Veterinarian V. L. CORY, M. S., Grazing Research Botanist . ***O. G. BABCOCK, B. S., Collaborating Entomologist O. L. CARPENTER, Shepherd No. 15, Weslaco-Mercedes, Hidalgo County W. H. FRIEND, B. S., Superintendent A. T. POTTS, M. S., M. S. C., Citricul- turist No. 16, Iowa Park, Wichita County, E. J. WILSON B. S., Superintendent Husbandry tural Economics E. O. POLLOCK, A. M., Assistant Profes- sor of Agronomy W. L. STANGEL, M. S., Professor of Animal Husbandry‘ (Swine) R. C. WHITE, M. S., Associate Professor of Rural Sociology _ ***l'n cooperation with United States Department of Agriculture V. P. LEE, Ph. D., Professor of Agricul- TEXAS AGRICULTURAL axvnnmm smmu AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL COLLEGE OF TEXAS W. B. BIZZELL, President February, 1925 BULLETIN NO. 32v DIVISION OF FARM AND RANCH ECONOMICS AN AGRICULTURAL ECONOMIC SURVEY OF ROCKWALL COUNTY, TEXAS A Typical Blackland Cotton Farming Area L. P. Gabbard . f. lfixglhfig ifillunq‘ L‘? _ullhlIqfikgigzmnllflfi;WIN‘M. iliiffl A“!fllfifiiliiiiiiiiiifiigfiiiiiiiiiiiillllii,1.~ a "iiiii" A Ali-i“ 5 .l!| 1' B. YOUNGBLOOD, DIRECTOR COLLEGE STATION, BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS ACKNOWLEDGMENT The author wishes to acknowledge the financial cooperation of the Division of Land Economics and the Division of Agricultural Finance, Bu- reau of Agricultural Economics, United States Department of Agricul- ture, in collecting the data. He Wishes especially to thank Dr. B. Young- blood, Director, for his encouragement and helpful suggestions from time to time during the progress of the study, and Dr. F. A. Buechel, Professor of Agricultural Economics, School of Agriculture, this institution, for his valuable assistance in reading and criticising the manuscript. He has also received valuable help from time totime in conference with a number of his co-workers on the Station staff. Mr. H. E. Rea, formerly an assistant in the Division of Farm and Ranch Economics, rendered valuable service in tabulating the data. Above all does the writer Wish to express his ap- preciation to the farmers, bankers, business men, and other citizens of Rockwall County who cooperated in furnishing the information used. (2) FOREWORD Up to the present time, the greater number of all the accomplishments of the research men working in our agricultural experiment stations have been in the field of the physical and the biological sciences. During the past few years, however, some of the stations have undertaken research of a new kind. Farmers and stockmen have long been interested in their marketing and other economic problems, local, state, and national, and the advent of studies in the field of the social sciences, particularly agricul- tural economics, i-s the result of the desire on the part of stockmen and farmers for such knowledge. The present bulletin is the fourth issued by this Station in the field of agricultural economics. It reports an agricultural economic survey of Rockwall County, Texas, made under the personal direction of L. P. Gabbard, Chief of our Division of Farm and Ranch Economics. In this work he had the most earnest cooperation of the entire citizenship of Rockwall County. The “survey comprises rather complete information from 500 farms out of a total of about one thousand in that county. The farmers seemed to be interested in the work because they desired scien- tific analysis of their economic condition. This bulletin should prove to g be serviceable not only to the farmers of Rockwall County, but to others who wish to better understand their economic problems. In attempting a new line of work of this kind, it is always well to begin with the survey, but the work should not end just here. The sur- vey should be followed up with actual records and accounts on repre- “ sentative farms and carried through a suflicient number of years that any averages drawn may prove dependable. This, Mr. Gabbard is now doing on 25 farms in Rockwall and Collin counties and a competent man visits the farms with regularity to see that the records are properly kept. In~ due time these records will be studied and interpreted, and conclusions will be published as a bulletin of this Station. If these studies prove helpful and profitable to farmers and others interested in agricultural economics, other studies of a similar nature may be made in other sections, covering different types of farming and stock- raising. . ' B. YOUNGBLOOD, May 1, 1925. Director. CONTENTS Page FOREWORD . . . . . . . . . . . . .- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 CHAPTER I THE SURVEY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 13 Its Aim and Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 13 Relation of the Survey to Agricultural Economics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 CHAPTER II DESCRIPTION OF THE AREA STUDIED . . . . . . . . . . 19 Geographic Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Location and Extent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ._ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Topography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Climate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Rainfall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Temperature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Wind Velocity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Vegetation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 CHAPTER III ORGANIZATION AND EARLY SETTLEMENT OF ROCKWALL COUNTY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 34 Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Transportation Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . ..'. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 36 Early Settlement . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 The Coming of the Early Settlers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 38 Land G'rants and Early Systems of Settlement . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 40 Utilization and Settlement of the Land . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 The Free Range of the Prairies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Early Attempts at Farming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 43 CHAPTER IV FARM LANDS ' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Land Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Land Classes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 47 Land Grades . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 47 Classification of Land in the Area Studied . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 49 Utilization of Improved Land . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 51 CHAPTER V SIZE OF FARMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 55 ‘The Term Defined . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Factors Influencing Size of Farms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 55 Physical Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 56 Economic Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 Political Factors . . . . . . . .~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Personal Factors . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Size of Farms in Rockwall County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 58 Trend of Size of Farms Since 1880 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 Relation of Size to Capital Investment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Relation of’ Size to Physical Production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 Relation of Size to Income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 64 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 CHAPTER VI FARM LABOR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 66 Hired Labor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 Regular Labor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Nationality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ._ . . . . . . . . 67 CONTENTS (Continued) 4 Page Nature of the Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _. 68 Rate of Wages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 68 Extra Labor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 69 Source . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . 69 Method of Securing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 69 Nationality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 Rate of Wages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 70 Farm Labor Organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 74 CHAPTER VII CAPITAL INVESTMENT IN FARMS . . . . . . . . .. 75 Classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Fixed Capital . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Movable Capital . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 75 Investent in Land . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 78 Investment in Permanent Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 Farm Machinery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 82 Investment in Various Types of Livestock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 83 CHAPTER VIII FARM CREDIT . . . . . . . . A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 85 Classification of Types of Credit Needed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 The Farm Credit Situation in Rockwall County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 86 Long-Term Credit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., . . P . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 Loans on Land . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 88 To Whom Loans on Land are Made . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 88 From Whom Loans on Land are Secured . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 Source of Loans on Land . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 Nature of Security Given . . . . . . . . . .‘ . . . . . . . . ._ . . . . . . . . . . 89 Length of Time for Which Loans on Land are Made . . . . . . 90 Rate of Interest Paid on Land Loans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 Short-Term Credit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 Principally Loans for Current Operating Expenses . . . . . . . . . . 92 Source of Short-Term Credit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 93 Purpose for Which Short-Term Loans are Made . . . . . . . . . . 93 Rate of Interest on Short-Term Loans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 Length of Time for Which Short-Term Loans are Made. . . 95 How Short-Term Loans are Secured . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 95 Merchant Credit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 Relation of Local Bank to Farm Credit Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 97 Summary and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 101 CHAPTER IX FARM INCOME . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 103 Source of Farm Receipts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 106 Source and Distribution of Current Expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 108 Miscellaneous Expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 110 The Range and Distribution of Farm Incomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 Some Factors That Influence the Farmer’s Income . . . . . . . . . . 114 CHAPTER X MARKETING FARM PRODUCTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 117 Some Fundamental Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 117 Local Marketing Situation for Rockwall County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 119 Where Cotton is Sold Locally . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120 Basis on Which Cotton is Sold . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .‘ . . . . . . . . . 121 To Whom Sold . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 121 When Farmers Sell Their Cotton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 122 Nature and Cost of Marketing Services Rendered Locally by the Grower 122 Suggestions for Improvements in Marketing Made by Farmers 124 Cooperative Marketing of Cotton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 125 (5) CONTENTS (Continued) Page Benefits of Cooperative Marketing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 125 Risk-Spreading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 126 CHAPTER XI LAND TENURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 131 ‘Systems of Tenure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 131 Systems of Tenure Defined . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 Historical Trend of Tenancy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 132 Factors Influencing Land Tenure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 134 Economic Aspects of Tenancy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 136 Relation of ‘Tenancy to Agricultural Production . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 136 What is to be Done About Tenancy? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142 CHAPTER XII FARM LIFE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 146 The Farmstead . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 146 The Farm Home . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 146 Function of the Farm Home . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148 Size of the Farm Home . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148 Condition and Surroundings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 148 Home Conveniences and Comforts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150 Barns and Other Buildings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 151 Orchard and Garden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 151 Life Insurance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .» . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 152 Rural Social Institutions .., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 152 The School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 152 Length of Term . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 153 Distance from Homes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 153 Parents’ Visits to Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ._ . . . 154 Attendance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 154 Suggestions for School Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . '. . . . . . 154 The Church . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 156 Lodges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 156 Other Social Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 156 Relation of Open Country to Towns and Cities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157 APPENDIX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 159 BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161 (6) TABLES Table Page 1. Precipitation data for Dallas, Texas, for 1914 to 1922, inclusive. . . . 26 2. Showing the total snowfall per year, the number of days during the year on which it rains, is cloudy, part cloudy, and clear, at Dallas Texas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., . . . . . . . . . . . 27 3. Mean, absolute maximum, and absolute minimum temperature for Dallas, Texas, 1914-1922 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. Killing frosts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 5. Wind velocities at Dallas for 1914-1922, inclusive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 6. Population of Rockwall County by years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 35 7. Acreage for cotton, corn, wheat, and oats in Rockwall County for the years 1880-1920, inclusive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8. Size of farms in Rockwall County classified by area . . . . . . . . . . . .. 59 9. Distribution by size of 500 farms in Rockwall County for 1922. . . .2 60 10. Average amount of capital invested per farm by size groupings.. 61 11. Average amount of capital invested per acre by size groupings. . . . 62 12. Relation of size to productivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 13. Comparison of size of farm with yield of lint cotton per acre . . . . . . 63 14. Income per farm by size groupings . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 64 15. Net income per acre for different size groups according to tenure. . 65 16. Amount of regular labor hired . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 17. Rate paid regular labor in Rockwall County, 1922 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 18. Rate paid for chopping cotton in Rockwall County, 1922. ., . . . . . . .* 70 19. Rate paid for picking cotton in Rockwall County, 1922... .~. . . . . . . 71 20. Value of farm property for Texas and Rockwall County for 1920, 1910, 1900 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 21. Investment in the various permanent improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 22. Investment in farm machinery . ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 23. Investment in the various types of livestock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 24. Summary of farm credit situation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 25. To whom loans are made . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 26. Source of loans on land . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 27. Security given for loans on land . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 28. Length of time on land loans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 90 29. Interest rate on land loans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 91 30. Summary of short-time credit situation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 31. Purposes for which bank and individual loans are made . . . . . . . . . . 93 32. Security of short-time loans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 33. Merchant credit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 34. Rank of various commodities as a source of gross farm receipts. . 106 35. Farm receipts from sale of crops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 36. Sources of farm receipts in percentages by tenure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 37. Summary of current farm expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 109 38. Current expenditures for labor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 109 39. Expenditures for repairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 40. Distribution of miscellaneous expenses according to importance... 111 41. Current farm expenses arrayed according to their importance. . .. 112 42. Range and distribution of net income of farm operators . . . . . . . . . . 113 (7) TABLES (Continued) Table Page 43. Where cotton is sold by farmers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120 44. Basis on which farmers sell cotton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .‘ . . . . . . . . . . 121 45. To whom farmers sell their cotton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 46. When farmers sell their cotton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 122 47. Classification of farm operators as to tenure and nationality . . . . . . 133 48. Average value of fixed capital invested per acre by tenure . . . . . . . . 137 49. Size of farm homes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 149 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. The 12 newspapers and magazines most commonly taken by farm- ers interviewed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150 Life insurance carried by 500 farmers, Rockwall County, 1922. . .. 152 Number of children per family in‘ school . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153 Distance of school from farm home . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 153 Parents’ visits to school . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 154 Lodge membership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 156 Other social activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 157 (8) ILLUSTRATIONS Figure Page 1. Bottom lands in the East Fork Valley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 2. A levee reclaiming about 1900 acres of fertile alluvial soils in the East Fork Valley, near Rockwall, Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 3. Typical topography of the rolling prairie which occupies about four-fifths of Rockwall County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 22 4. Orchard of J. A. Hanby on the hilly land overlooking the East Fork Valley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 22 5. Location and extent of the Black waxy belt of Texas . . . . . . . . . 23 6. Location and extent of the different soils in Rockwall County. . . . . 24 7. Annual precipitation at Dallas, Texas, for 1914-1922 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 8. Mean monthly precipitation at Dallas, Texas, for 1914-1922 . . . . .. 27 9. Native prairie utilized for hay production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 10. Buffalo grass pasture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 31 11. Cultivated land badly infested with Johnson grass . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . 32 12. Narrow fringe of woodland along the banks of the East Fork River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 13. Showing a small section of the rock wall which suggested the name of both the town and county of Rockwall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 34 14. Bankhead Highway leading west out of Rockwall across the East Fork Bottom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . 36 15. Concrete Viaduct crossing the East Fork River near Rockwall Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..'. . . .. 37 16. Single track concrete road in Rockwall County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 17. A photographic copy of a colonial certificate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 41 18. ‘The Houston black clay erodes badly if not protected . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 19. Terracing to prevent soil washing . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 48 20. Geographic distribution of the 500 farms surveyed . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 49 21. Classification of farm lands, Rockwall County and area studied compared . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 22. This shows a deep black waxy soil, which under favorable condi- tions is one of the most productive soils of the county . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 23. Hggization of improved land in 500 farms in Rockwall County, 52 24. Utilization of cultivated land on 500 farms studied . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 53 25. Sweet Clover on the farm of L. E. Edwards, Royse City, Texas. . . . 54 26. Farm Labor, present and potential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 68 27. A crew chopping cotton on a blackland farm in Rockwall County. . 70 28. Picking cotton on a blackland farm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 29. A group of “shacks” in which farm labor is housed, principally extra labor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 73 30. Distribution of capital in farm property . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 31. Trend of annual average price of farm land per acre in Rockwall County from 1847 to 1922 . . . . . . . . .; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 78 32. Farm livestock grazing on a small blackland pasture . . . . . . . . . . .. 83 33. Summary of farm’ credit situation . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 34. Summary of short-time credit situation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 35. Copy of statement required by Federal Reserve Bank . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 36. Relation of country banks in Rockwall County to the farm credit situation, 1917-1922, inclusive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 99 (9) ILLUSTRATIONS (Continued Figure Page 37. Gross farm receipts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 38. Farm receipts from sale of crops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 39. Some factors that influence the farmer’s net income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 40. Local cotton yard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 120 41. Cost of local marketing services compared . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 42. Cost of services rendered in preparing cotton for the market . . . . . . 123 43. Local cotton gin an important step in the preparation of cotton 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. for the market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 124 Seasonal trend of the value of a bale of cotton, 1909-1922 . . . . . . . . 127 Percentage of cotton ginned between dates specified, 1909-1922 . . . 128 Average monthly movement of cotton handled by the Texas Farm Bureau Cotton Association, 1922-1924 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129 Trend of tenancy in Texas, and the blackland belt_ and Rockwall County, 1880-1920 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 133 Relative distribution of land classes by tenure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 137 Relation of tenure to diversification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138 Crop index compared with cotton, corn, and oat index by tenure. . 139 Relation of production to value of land and machinery per acre... 140 Comparison of production per farm to crop acres by tenure . . . . . . . 141 A group of farm homes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 147 Open tank used for watering farm livestock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 149 Home orchard . . . . . . . ._ . . . . . . . . . . . ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151 A group of country school houses in Rockwall County . . . . . . . . . .. 155 (10) BLANK PAGE IN ORIGINAL SYNOPSIS This Bulletin is based on data secured by personal visits with 500 actual farm operators in Rockwall County, Texas, and is designed to cover the farm operations for the year 1922. The conditions herein described are offered as typical and representative of the blackland cotton farming belt. This study deals primarily with the economic phases or business as- pects of farming. It treats specifically such questions as land classi- fication and land utilization, land tenure, size of farm, capital investment in farms, farm labor, farm income, farm credit, and the marketing of farm products. The treatment -of these specific problems is prefaced by a discussion of the scope and nature of the study and a description of tlfle area studied both as to its geographic features, and as to its historical] settlement and development. It was found that 90 per cent of the land in the farms studied was improved and of this 93 per cent was devoted to crops, of which cotton made up 67 per cent. Legumes were almost entirely lacking in the crop- ping system, while gardens, orchards, and pa.stures received very ‘little attention, all of which indicates the lack of a well balanced farm program. The farms averaged 106 acres in size, while the typical group was found to be that from 50 to 99 acres. Small farms, or the group below 50 acres, showed little if any advantage over large farms in yield per acre, and a decided disadvantage in the production of a net income per farm. It is very evident from the facts gathered that this region has more to fear from farms becoming too small than from their becoming too large. Ninety-four per cent of the investment in farmpcapital was composed of land and permanent improvements, while only 6 per cent was devoted to machinery and livestock. Four hundred and fifty out of 500 farms, hired labor, spending an average of $346.38 per farm for this item. The farmers interviewed reported loans for various purposes to the amount of $712,371.31 or an average of $1,111.34 per farm. This is slightly more than 9 per cent of the total investment in the farms surveyed and relatively small compared with other industries. Seventy-one per cent of the amount borrowed was used for buying land, while the remainder was used very largely for making a crop and living expenses. The size of farm and the net income per acre were found to be important factors influencing the net income per farm operator. The net income per acre on the other hand was found to be closely correlated with a number of factors of which the yield of lint cotton per acre was important. The regular method of sell- ing cotton through the local buyer was the prevailing practice. In fact, the group of farmers visited were doing very little toward marketing their farm products cooperatively. The above isolated facts are in no way in- tended to give a summary of this survey but to illustrate concretely the nature of the facts treated. It is believed that such facts with their fur- ther elaboration as treated in this bulletin should be fundamental in plan- ning future research, and in the development of more suitable agricul-. tural programs. (12) CHAPTER I THE SURVEY ITS AIM AND SCOPE It is asked, and everybody who is interested has a right to inquire, just‘ what is meant by an agricultural economic survey-—hence this word of explanation. To begin with, such a survey concerns itself primarily with the eco- nomic phase, or business side of farming; some of the things we are con- stantly thinking about, reading about, talking about, and working at. More specifically, the survey aims to secure and analyze such facts as are avail- able relative to questions of land utilization, land tenure, farm organiza- tion, farm income, farm credit, and the marketing of farm crops. In short, such a survey attempts to collect data and from their intrepretation to pre- sent the fundamental facts and conditions underlying the business of farm- ing for a given type of agricultural enterprise. It is felt that if the eco- nomic features of these several distinct types of farming are ever developed, it must be done by a close study and analysis of each taken separately. Not that we hope to find new economic principles governing each of these groups, but that it is felt that the general laws of agricultural economics have a specific application to particular commodities which are characterized by similar conditions and common problems. The survey concerns itself first of all with conditions as they are and not as they ought to be. Never- theless, such information should point the way to certain improvements, and suggest, in so far as possible, the remedies to be applied. This survey deals with crop farming, and more specifically cotton farming in the blackland belt. Rockwall County was chosen as typical and representative of this region. Five hundred personal visits were made with as many actual farm operators and schedules filled out for each. In this connection it Would be well to arrive at an understanding of what constitutes a crop farm in contrast with other types of farming. Crop farming is here distinguished from other types of agriculture pri- marily by the nature of the products created. A crop farm is devoted to the production of cultivated crops for the market. In sharp contrast to it is the ranch, devoted primarily to the production of livestock, maintained chiefly on the native vegetation of the range. Another rather distinct type is that of the livestock farm, which is devoted both to the production of crops and of livestock. Livestock and livestock products are the principal products of such a farm and furnish a means by which the cultivated crops are marketed. More specific distinctions may be made and seem to be justified for purposes of detailed study and analysis. Crop farms, for ex- ample, may be divided into agronomic and horticultural, and these subdi- vided into the various kinds of crops, such as cotton, corn, wheat, tobacco, rice, sugarcane, orchard, truck, etc. Likewise all of the other general types of agriculture permit of a similar classification into specialized groups. In this, and similar studies, the survey method is being used. We are- (13) 14 BULLETIN NO. 327 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION mindful of its limitations, and do not wish to claim too much for it. As has just been said, it only hopes to show what the economic situation is for a par- ticular type of farming, restricted geographically to a definite area. A survey cannot hope to settle questions but it should and can raise them, un- cover them, and point them out. It should help to define more accurately such problems as may exist. It should clear up the field for more specific research, and lead to more definite and purposeful action on the part of society. In an effort to better utilize our land resources and to better organize and finance our farm operations, a number of problems must be met. In fact, it would be futile to try to find a time remote enough in the history of agriculture when those in the industry did not feel themselves confronted with serious problems. These problems have multiplied and become more acute, however, under our modern system of commercialized agriculture. Who then, may we ask, is responsible for the ills to which the farmer feels himself a prey? What is the origin and cause of his difficulties? Has any person or group of persons consciously and deliberately organized against him? Are his troubles to be found within the industry itself, out- side of it, or in a combination of both internal and external maladjustments‘! The blame has been variously placed. At one time complaint is made against a class commonly known as middlemen; again it is the capitalist- big money interests; the railroads have come in from time to time to share in a large way their part of the blame, nor have the exchanges escaped without severe criticism. Simultaneously a number of remedies have been offered. Too often, perhaps, these proposed remedies have been political medicines prescribed for economic ills. Immediate relief instead of perma- nent cure has been too frequently the dominant policy of those who would save the farmer. Economic soundness should be the test for any remedy adopted. This test might Well be applied to such proposals as the govern- mental control of prices, the cost of production plus a reasonable profit, an artificial increase in the supply of money, and the enactment of a general agricultural tariff which applies only in a few specific cases. This word of- criticism is not intended to minimize the great good which has been accom- plished through the many constructive agricultural measures of both our state and national governments. Neither is there any desire on the part of the writer to discredit the‘ merits of any proposals which have been offered. This study has no claims to justify or accusations to deny. It is made with the conviction that each type of agriculture has problems peculiar to itself, and that their most constructive solution is to be reached from a knowledge and understanding of underlying facts. It is an attempt to ex- amine from within as well as from without for symptoms of our troubles. It does not hope to say the last word or to make the final observation, but it wishes to show, first of all, what the situation is, what forces are operat- ing, to measure in a quantitative Way the extent of their operation, and to indicate the direction of their movement. It is candidly felt that great good AGRICULTURAL ECONOMIC SURVEY OF ROCKWALL COUNTY 15 will have been accomplished if through such studies an interest is created and a desire aroused in the farmer to know and do more about his own bus- iness. RELATION OF THE SURVEY TO AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS A work of this nature lies within the field of agricultural economics. For this reason a brief discussion will be given in an effort to show the re- lation of this and similar surveys to the entire field, and at the same time point out the emergence and development of agricultural economics as a science. The science of agricultural economics is comparatively new. Only re- cently have attempts been made to organize and systematize this body of thought into a separate science. Under a pioneer system of farming, when settlements were sparse, and land virtually free, where the farmer was both producer and consumer, economic relationships were simple and claimed but little attention. It was relatively easy under this domestic system of agriculture for the farmer to determine and satisfy the imme- diate needs of his family. The problem of disposing of a surplus did not exist. But with a growth in population resulting in a constantly increasing demand, inventions were made and machinery was gradually introduced in the factory and on the farm. From the very nature of the two industries, machinery was more rapidly and generally applied in the factory and conse- quently the difference between the two grew wider and wider. As a result, for many years much of the economic thinking and writing centered about and concerned itself with the problems of our big industries. The agricul- tural industry, aside from the problems of greater production, seems to have been taken for granted or largely ignored. The modern economic phase of agriculture did not appear till near the close of the last century. No attempt will be made to account for all the factors influencing this development, but evidently the application of the physical and biological sciences in agriculture, rendering the industry more productive and less hazardous, coupled with and stimulated by a very marked commercial and industrial development throughout the country, contributed in a vital way. The transition from a self-suificing to the modern commer- cialized system did not take place over night. It has developed gradually, and may be thought of as contemporaneous with the concentration of the industrial population in large cities, and with the settling of the western prairies, whose broad fertile acres were conducive to large-scale produc- tion. At least, it should be recognized that the viewpoint of the farmer has been fundamentally modified, if not completely changed while this transition was taking place. He no longer produces primarily for his household but for a market, and not only a domestic market, but quite often a world-wide market. Under this system it is profit rather than product he is looking for. The value or money aspect comes to occupy a very significant place in his operations. Physical product must be trans- lated into value, measured by prevailing prices. Here the element of spec- ulation enters in, and the need for adequate and dependable information 16 BULLETIN NO. 327 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION becomes more insistent. Both possible and probable prices must be con- -.s_idered. The price which the product will sell for and likewise the cost of the various factors entering into its production must be kept constantly in mind. This suggests the vital importance of forecasting, of projecting operations into the future, not upon the basis of present prices, but upon future anticipated prices, calculated by generally accepted statistical methods. It should be understood that the recent emphasis placed on the eco- nomic phase of agriculture in no way discredits the use of the physical and biological sciences in this field. In fact, it should point to a broader use and a more practical application of them. A better knowledge of the conditions which confront the farmer can be gained only when the physical, biological, and economic forces with which he deals are studied and de- veloped simultaneously. Dr. H. C. Taylor* says, “The physical and biolog- ical sciences, when applied to agriculture, have to do with the harmonious adjustment of the relations between the useful forms of plant and animal life and their physical and biological environment. Economics when ap- plied to agriculture has to do with the harmonious adjustments of the re- lations between useful forms of plant and animal productions and their human environment; also between the various people who participate in the production, transportation and marketing of farm products.” It is the function of the physical and biological sciences to furnish the technical knowledge covering the field and that of agricultural economics to select, combine, and apply this knowledge in such a way as to secure the maximum net returns to the industry and the maximum well-being to society and the nation. No argument, then, is made for placing less emphasis on the technolog- ical processes of the industry; but a claim is made for an increased develop- ment of the economic phases. This will necessitate a decided expansion in the conception of What activities the industry should include. Evidently ‘such a conception would no longer permit that agriculture be limited to the narrow sphere or lopsided aspect of the production of physical volume only. _Over against volume must be placed value. The industry produces values by rendering certain necessary and essential services. It is just as much a function of the industry to see that cotton is properly ginned, baled, graded, insured, stored, transported, financed, and marketed in an orderly manner, as it is to plant, cultivate, and pick the crop. It means that a more lib- eral and enlightened view of the entire field" of production should be taken. The product must be in a suitable form, in the proper place, at the right time and in the hands of those who have the keenest demand for it, if it is to bring its best price. All of the necessary steps taken and services ren- dered in bringing this to pass are productive. In one case it may be the act of assembling an economic unit for shipping, or on the other hand the service of furnishing sufficient and suitable credit for financing any or all *"The Place of Economics in Agricultural Education and Research," by H. C. Taylor, R_.easearch Bulletin No. 16, The University of Wisconsin, Agricultural Experiment Sta- tion, Madison, Wisconsin. AGRICULTURAL ECONOMIC SURVEY OF ROCKWALL COUNTY 17 of the several steps which must be taken before the product is ready for the ultimate consumer. Just how far the farmer should attempt to go in rendering these services should be determined pretty largely by the na- ture of the product under consideration. In all events he must know whether or not it is an individual or group problem. Too often he attempts to do as an individual what has been demonstrated to be most economically performed by a group. The growing of farm products may perhaps be done best by individual units, the family farm, but the further necessary steps may be carried out most economically by an organization of growers interested in a common commodity. In a discussion of this nature it is well to know that different view- points have been taken by nations relative to their economic policy in agri- culture. While some have emphasized the state or national point of view others have placed the prosperity of the individual farmer in the fore- ground. At no time, however, has either of these policies been adopted and practiced to the exclusion or neglect of the other. It has been the policy of German economists, and that of their government as Well, to defend the principle of national self-sufficiency. This policy found expression in their educational system, in their laws fixing high tariffs on agricultural pro- ducts, in the creation of institutions providing ample facilities of easy credit, both long and short-time, encouraging thereby a high percent of land ownership among operators. France, in contrast to Germany, has placed emphasis on the prosperity of the individual farmer. J ouzier*, prob- ably the leading exponent of the French point of view says, “Rural Eco- nomics is the branch of agricultural science which teaches how to organize the various elements which constitute the resources of the cultivator, whether in relation with one another or with respect to persons, in order to insure the greatest prosperity to the enterprise.” The policy of the United States cannot be said to have taken a very positive and definite shape. There is evidence and hope for believing, however, that we have in the process of development a policy for agriculture as an industry which combines and merges both the individual and national viewpoints. The economic problems of agriculture in the United States were first approached and studied from the individual isolated farm basis. The ex- ponents of this movement were primarily technologists in the field of ag- riculture and not economists. Nevertheless, a great deal of credit is due this group for calling attention to a much neglected phase of agriculture and for stimulating further interest and study. Somewhat later a small group of students of general economics became interested in the special field of agriculture and proceeded to apply the principles of general economics to agriculture as an industry. This was a decided step for progress in the development of the science. But before general principles, taken from in- dustries verylargely urban, can be accepted and applied to an industry characteristically rural, much testing will have to be done. For this rea- son specific field studies are necessary. Research of this nature is car- ‘Emil Jouzier, “Economic Rurale," J. B. Bailliere & Fils, Paris, France, 1920. 18 BULLETIN NO. 327 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION ried on with a view of perfecting our theory and improving our practice. By such methods it is hoped that true principles will be established, de- veloped, and expanded, while unsound ones will be discarded. At this juncture it should be explained that this study is one of a series. It is a continuation of the work begun by Dr. B. Youngblood and Dr. A. B. Cox in their recent publication, “An Economic Study of a Typical Ranching Area”*. The authors of this study present in a specific manner the extent and economic importance of ranching in Texas. Along with this a detailed, concrete, first-hand analysis is made of ninety-seven ranches in Sutton County. Every phase of ranching as a business is studied from the classification and utilization of land through to the marketing‘ of ranch products, with considerable attention given to social conditions and institutions. This survey is being followed up by more specific studies which it suggested. The present study hopes to do no less for the crop farming interests of the blackland cotton belt of the State. It is hoped that such research may be continued for other sections of Texas. In the end we should have developed a body of knowledge which should be of much service as we go ahead in an effort to build a permanent and lasting ag- riculture. "“An Economic Study of a Typical Ranching Area on the Edwards Plateau of Texas," by B. Youngblood and A. B. Cox, Bulletin No. 297, Texas Agricultural Experi- ment Station, College Station, Texas. AGRICULTURAL ECONOMIC SURVEY OF ROCKWALL COUNTY 19 CHAPTER II DESCRIPTION 0F THE AREA STUDIED GEOGRAPHIC FEATURES In no industry is a knowledge of one’s physical environment so im- portant as in that of agriculture. Much of the progress which has been made thus far has been characterized by a continuous struggle of human beings to adjust themselves through crops and livestock industries to their physical surroundings. This adjustment is nothing.more than a conscious or unconscious effort on the part of people to fit themselves into their sur- roundings so as to realize the greatest amount of satisfaction or profit from their situation. All economic activities and relationships are based upon and grow out of such human struggles. ‘To know that one owns a farm of so many acres has but little meaning till you are informed as to the exact nature of the physical forces and con- ditions which fix and limit the capacity and possibilities of those acres for agricultural production. This chapter will concern itself with the geographic features of Rockwall County and the surrounding region which influence the farming industry and farm life of its people. It will consider in a des- criptive way those physical forces and materials which as a composite whole go to make up land. The atmosphere, the rainfall, the sunshine, and the wind must be present in the most favorable amounts if the various plant food elements of which the soil is composed are to find their maximum expression in the production of the greatest crop yields. It is true, the farmer will not go very far toward changing climatic conditions, but by be- ing well informed in thisregard he is better able to organize his farm and plan his operations so as to take the greatest possible advantage of such forces. He does have it in his power to influence very decidedly the con- servation of his soils, and not only this, but by suiting his crops and prac- tices to both his soils and climate, may materially increase his productive efficiency. Location and Extent Rockwall County is located in what is popularly called North Texas. Geographically it lies somewhat east of the north central part of the State. It is in the third tier of counties south of Oklahoma, and immediately south of the thirty-third parallel of latitude, and crossed about midway by the meridian of 96° and 30’ of longitude. It is about 150 miles west of the eastern boundary of the State, and about 250 miles from Galveston, the nearest point on the G'ulf of Mexico. Rockwall County has the unique distinction of being the smallest county in the largest state of the Union. It is rectangular, almost square, extending thirteen miles east and west and scarcely twelve miles north and south, having an area of approximately 152 square miles or about 97,280 acres. The mean elevation is slightly above 500 feet. There are no extreme variations in altitude. The lowest elevation, 390 feet, is at the point in the 2Q BULLETIN NO. 327 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION southern county line crossed by the East Fork river, while the highest point, 620 feet, is in the north central part of the county just west of the town of Fate. The town of Rockwall, located on the hills overlooking the East Fork valley, has an elevation of about 600 feet. Royse City in the extreme northeastern part of the county has an elevation of 550 feet, while Chis? holm in the southeastern part has an altitude of about 500 feet. ‘The surface slopes in a general way toward the south. All of the streams flow in a southerly direction with the exception of Camp and Squabble Creeks, which take a northwesterly course. For the most part, the drainage is good. In the more hilly regions the water runs off so rapidly that the slopes are badly eroded, while the low bottom lands along the East Fork of the Trinity river suffer from floods and overflows if not protected by levees. The East Fork of the Trinity river is the largest water course in the county, and meanders in a southerly direction with an irregular, tortuous course through its western part. This stream together with its tributaries drains the entire county with the exception of a small area along the eastern boundary which is drained by Sabine Creek. The main channel is narrow and varies in width from a few feet to fifty or sixty feet. The adjoining bottoms vary in width from one-half to two miles, and are 50 to 150 feet below the level of the bordering upland. Topography There is not a great diversity in the physiography of the county, yet enough to redeem it from the monotony of a level plain. In a general way the surface may be grouped into three natural divisions, viz: the valley of East Fork, the western terrace, and the rolling prairie. O Figure 1. Bottom lands in the East Fork Valley. The large pecan trees are rem- nants of a once dense forest of mixed growth of oak, ash, elm, bois d’arc, hackberry, blackwillow, cottonwood, mulberry, honey locust, etc. The valley of East Fork extends across the western end of the county and is one to two miles in width. It is a flat basin with an elevation of 430 to 390 feet, and is subject to destructive overflows where not protected by levees. One levee reclaiming about 1900 acres of land has recently been AGRICULTURAL ECONOMIC SURVEY OF ROCKWALL COUNTY "21 constructed and other districts are in the process of being organized for this purpose. The soils are alluvial, deep, and productive. The chief crops are cotton and corn. Vegetables and hay crops do well here when given a Figure 2. A levee reclaiming about 1900 acres of fertile alluvial soils in the East Fork Valley, near Rockwall, Texas. chance. This constitutes the timbered area of the county. A report* of 1880 spoke of this area as being one to two miles wide, but since that time much of this timber has been cleared away and in many places only a fringe of trees along the banks of the stream remains. The western terrace is a narrow, irregular strip about eight miles long and varying in width from one-fourth to one mile. It is immediately west of the East Fork valley, and has an elevation of 465 to 4'90 feet, or about 50 to 7-0 feet above the valley which it borders. The surface is gently undulating except for the slope to the edge of the bottom, which is un- usually steep and quite often eroded. These soils, too, are alluvial but of a more remote deposit than the soils of the valley. They are very similar to the prairie soils and grow about the same crops-—cotton, corn, oats, Wheat, sorghum, etc. ~ The "entire county east of the East Fork valley, or about four-fifths of its total area, belongs to the division known as the rolling prairie. It is about 150 to 1'70" feet above the valley, which it skirts on the west. The surface is undulating. to rolling and hilly in the region ofEast Fork val- ley. The soils are for the most part black, stiff“ clays, belonging to the Houston and Wilson series, of which more will be said later. The chief crops are cotton, corn, oats, wheat, sorghum, and sudan. - Buffalo and Bermuda grasses do well in pastures and furnish excellent grazing for the greater part of the year. Fruits do well on the eroded slopes of the hills along East Fork. *Texas: Resources, Soil and Climate, Report of Commissioner of Statistics 1882, app. 266-267. BULLETIN NO. 327 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION 22 Figure 3. Typical topography of the rolling prairie, which occupies about four- fifths of Rockwall County. Soils Rockwall County lies in the Black Waxy Belt of the Costal Plains Province. This Black Waxy Belt is composed of two divisions, the Western, known as the Grand Prairie, and the Eastern, which includes Rockwall County and the belt in which we are here interested, designated as Black or This Eastern division extendsin a southerly direction Taylor Prairie? It is a strip approx- from the vicinity of Red River to that of San Antonio. Figure 4. Orchard of J. A. Hanby on the hilly land overlooking the East Fork Val- ley. Mr. Hanby has been most successful in growing peaches, plums, grapes, and the cherry-plum or “compass cherry.” Pears and apples he has found do only moderately well. He has gotten splendid results in budding improved varieties of persimmons on native stocks. *Soil Survey of Rockwall County. (MS) by H. v. Geib (p. 63.1922). Texas Agri- cultural Experiment Station and the Bureau of Soils, U. S. Department of Agriculture, cooperating. EAGRICULTURAL ECONOMIC SURVEY OF ROCKWALL COUNTY 23 imately 300 miles in length and averages 50 to 60 miles in Width. It com- prises all or a part of twenty-seven counties whose total area is almost 15,000,000 acres. While this is but 8.8 per cent of the total area of Texas, it might be of interest to know that since 1880 it has produced on an average of 43 per cent of the cotton of the State on about 43 per cent 0f the total cotton acreage of the state. This does not seem to indicate an advantage in yield, but it does show a very high concentration of cotton ADAP7ED FRO/“l- SOIL MAP 0F TEXAS PREPARED 5r — ozv/s/o/v 0F so/L JURI/E TEXA s Y, AGR/CUL TURAL EXPERIMENT STA I ION . N CCLLEGE FIGURE 5 i’ .... .. l LOC/lT/O/V AND EXTENT 0F THE BL/MK ____ '._ ~‘ ._.l_. WAX)’ BELT 0F TEX/IS .... .- .71“- “TTTJT. .0 //\ l ‘ /\. ') 5 s ' i - ;\\i - ,-. i/ks". .1 ~ 2 ~ ; r . l *- . a;:z:-' ,¢o0 000 ,.ao0 39% ‘no 0+0 '0 2i _, 0O‘ - '1 ~ /\ o _ ' l’ l‘ 2.. ‘i 2. ------ I- ...... zn acreage in this region. Further comparisons of area show this belt to be twice the size of Maryland, three-fourths that of South Carolina, and about equal, in'area to the state of West Virginia. The soils of the county are strikingly uniform. Those of the rolling prairie are for the most part, if not entirely, derived from unconsolidated calcareous sedimentary strata and belong in the Houston and 'Wilson series. The alluvial soils of recent deposit in East Fork valley and along the streams tributary to it belong to the Trinityseries, While the older, or terrace soils, are grouped under the Bell and Lewisville series. Almost without ex- ception the soils are dark in color, varying from black to lighter shades- of brown and gray. The soils are basically clay and very largely calcareous. 24 BULLETIN NO. 327 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION The subsoils are clay. There is very little siliceous material in them, so little that it would be indicated only by a chemical analysis. In the eastern part of the county the soils are brown to grayish in color and are known locally as “rawhide” lands. ‘ The surface soil here is lacking in lime, but a substratum of clay at the depth of two to four feet is darker in color and usually gives evidence of the presence of lime. All of the soils are residual with the exception of those alluvial soils found in the East Fork valley and its tributaries and in those of the western terrace. SOIL MAP 0F EDCKPVALL COUNTY, TEXAJ‘ Sea/c 1n ml/eJ J ~x<<< = "u" <\\\\\1\ - - ; , Q.'§’.,~;'" - W l " ‘ " -: O .32 Rx \»--*-'¢./ \\" .~\ // é I.‘ pp-"fv ‘\-// _ O A, ,- - Ego; u‘: \_-,,/ . 7 _ o . i» ,’__,. ‘ ‘ .\ z _ I p). '0¢'4::'$ H ' . . K \..—~— ' ‘I I ./ 0'0'0‘00‘ '. - .' 4 y$£Id . _ ‘ "I I- 05 "' I 0'0 A 0 o '3 Q31“ w ' I U . .s:1~:='¥:’-:1'$=:;*:/"=$> £5». .-~:*¢;~.-"" 4$&;$:~\ ' ' O$.O:O‘ Q a.‘ :0!0Y0?‘. h: 0 ‘z 0"“ . $6*.. ‘fig? fifiQf-‘ll: Q 500$‘? _ ‘.5 Q '5 ~ 5 : h. Q I 0 0 0 0.‘ Q. .0:0‘0f0:§‘\°0:§9; 9. 0 0 0. * 4 0. .00 0" g . O O cosg 0' 0'9 b¢.0‘. . O A.A.$§ . 0. '._ O O O Q. ‘Q g 0‘:"‘:‘: °Z~e2~’~ ‘ geé v 0 0 $0 ,0 ‘it: 3.5:. é ' - . ‘/ _ _' . -,- ~ 0/‘ \\ a .' '- -_ v“'~.' 0’4,0'/.’ '- \ ‘ .~ . I _ ' . _ ' - .-¢\':.-._,H "- 4 . _ . ‘ ._ x _/ " _ / l T. ' .' '4 "' :.- '0\' 00"" t \ i“ ' . l ‘ l \¢:;:0:0'::.5 .\‘0‘:9:':0:o‘. .7 ' ' ., - 3.0‘ . .'§:9:¢;0:0:0' .. Q ' 00000 g ‘.... " f‘: __ l o. '_-,f3.i.%-—_.-— LEEEND Wl/Jdfl Hay Iii-phi 4110' rrducod h.» m‘; VVI/S,” (In, [dam pre;|rf-d b’ 71-11.: lyrrru/furg/ . llfierlmznf Jfnf/nr; 1/; n-oberaf/nn ' WI/JO” fl”: ‘and’ Aflfl" w/H f/7e Bureau of Jul /_f|UI1I'Ed BB// f/d/ J/cfe.» Depnrf-nygn f nffijrlcu/furt, Zew/Jy/Ut t/ly 132.! Hau: fan b/arl c/ay r/au: fan z/ny _ Houxfon r/ay - hy/H (a/ore/ fi/Ine l 9% i973? Hnusfnf! clay ra/luv/a/p/Iaxr TrIn/f/ z/a] Figure 6. Location and extent of the diiferent soils in Rockwall County. Climate Rockwall County is intermediate between the most humid parts of the state and the drier or almost semi-arid sections. For the most part, the climate is mild and healthful, but at best, inclined to be erratic and ex- tremely variable. The winters are short, frequently interrupted by sudden AGRICULTURAL ECONOMIC SURVEY OF ROCKWALL COUNTY 25 and marked depressions in temperaturecaused by cold north winds, locally known as “northers”. The summers are long and subject to high tempera- tures, but on account of a rather low humidity and an almost constant breeze from the south, the heat is not so depressing as in lower and more humid regions. This section is to a certain extent subject to alternate Wet and dry periods which materially reduce the maximum yield of the principal crops. As has already been pointed out, the soils are characteristically heavy clays; thus a soil which is seemingly Well drained may become too Wet for its maximum production because of prolonged heavy rainfall. On the other hand, a drought may produce similar results in yield. Probably no one natural factor with which the farmers of this region must contend causes more anxiety and uneasiness than that of rainfall. Quite often heavy rains in late winter or early spring retard planting; the same may be said of late spring rains, which wash the uplands and flood the lowlands making it necessary to do much replanting. In both cases the crops are re- tarded and rendered more liable to insect and dry weather hazards. Some- times protracted dry spells occur in the fall and early winter, which not only render it difficult to seed small grain, but injure very materially any which may have been seeded. Fortunately these unfavorable weather con- ditions do not occur every year but they do happen and must be met as a part of the hazards of farming in this region. . Rainfall: Table 1 shows complete precipitation data for Dallas,* Texas, twenty-five miles west of Rockwall. It gives the monthly and annual precipitation for the years 1914 to 1922, inclusive. These data exhibit a fairly constant annual rainfall, yet the variations are wide enough to materially influence the production of agricultural crops. Of more signif- icance are the variations shown from month to month for the individual years which go to make up this table. The total rainfall for the year may be ample but because of its poor distribution may fall far short of max- imum results. ' - *These data on climate are given for Dallas because such records have not been kept for Rockwall. Dallas is 25 miles due west from Rockwall with an elevation of 512 feet. 26 BULLETIN NO. 327 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION FIGURE 7 A/V/Vl/AL PRECIPITATION A7‘ OALLAJ, TEX/hf FOR /.9/4—/.9ZZ l/VCHFJ‘ 5U 40_ MEAN MFA/V 30_ 2Q /Q 0.‘ .._. V 13/4 ISIS IJ/S l9! 7 /9/8 19/7 A910 /9.2/ I922 TABLE1 Precipitation data for Dallas, Texas, for 1914 to 1922, Inclusive* '3 u . . - . m - +5 , - . ~=psaé=f=a°p~~z~é § >3 é.’ 2 1 _a—-l-i- , '3 $o ____ UFiv-i _—*""_ _'_ j . wn-oo-wcoeom g Omwuv-iw o0; Z covol o {I10 g_—-—~~- <76 Q H3 goow-mwcaav fi 0 @COF'I¢v—IF-U@ OQHGF: vcocw Dd°“°w oooo r-l ‘ .5 . rr-cuvr-vcacvco "1 O comcooo E Z MNH u ~53 "S R177’? goormo >0 u» 0 . . _§ a omoomb-fifi women m“ gm»: mH-»-~ v-c O- voeomcoou: m0coc>c>c>c=| N mD m Q v-<2g i?! d) T6 ||||||Qi P-o-w - 0000000‘ ‘l5 °> HNm000| ‘Q El <1 Hm" 60 BULLETIN NO. 327 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION A more significant feature of the size is its distribution from the smallest to the largest. The 500 farms studied in the survey are grouped in Table 9 according to size with class intervals of 50 acres. This shows that 68 per cent of these farms fall between 50 and 150 acres, more than 50 per cent of them contain less than 100 acres while more than 80 per cent of them contain less than 150 acres. It may be said then that this region is practically free from large holdings and is characterized by rather small farms individually operated. The family size of 50 to 150 acres is typical. It has been observed that these farms fall within certain size groups with the number in each group varying widely. The question naturally arises as to what relation, if any, exists between size, as here expressed in area, and the utilization of the several factors of production in the farm operation. TABLE 9 Distribution by size of 500 farms in Rockwall County for 1922 Class [Total per Class] Percentage Total 500 100 0-49 63 12.6 50-99 207 41.4 100-149 134 26.8 150-199 50 10.0 200-249 24 4.8 250 and Over 22 4.4 Relation of Size to Capital Investment The relation of the size groups to the various types of capital in- vested is shown in Table 10. This not only gives a comparison of the ab- solute advantages for the several size groups, but a comparison within the same group of the importance of the different kinds of capital invested. It emphasizes the very high investment in fixed capital, and the compar- atively small investment in movable capital. A somewhat different em- phasis is made of these data in Table 11, where the capital investment per acre by size groupings is shown. The fact most apparent in this table is the uniform decrease in amounts invested in the various capital items with an increase in size groups. For example, the total average of movable capital invested per acre in the size group from 0-49 is $11.31, while in the group of 250 acres and over, it is $5.98. The fact, however, that the in- vestment per acre in these different kinds of capital decreases as the num- ber of acres increase does not necessarily mean a more efficient use of these factors. It may merely mean that such investments‘ are spread over a 61 AGRICULTURAL ECONOMIC SURVEY OF ROCKWALL COUNTY larger number of acres. It doestindicate for these farms that a more ex- tensive use is being made of such capital items as well as that of man- agerial ability. Jooumofifl 130B wBQ uflwzfifiwufl was huwcwsowza" 3.33m 3351a» mwamwfi" sdfiswfi 243a v5.2a“. $53.3» Qeewmwmm HHANLLJ. maasw; summed“ smai}. Z53; awsfixwfl mw.wwfi_m @9234 Sefiflmfi 21.34.. $53 mmamfiw sesame; Same“. weqfia 3.2K; 2Z3. Ssixfi» osmwed» fin? w m m”. mma u d 1 .Q.A m p 1 W N18 I s. wm aw *9 mw w s m 2S2. ‘seas; Hmamw e92» N“ 18.5 E8 3N H32. gain.“ 3.3a 3.3m 2.. . . . . .. autism 3.2m 32a mafia aasfi 3 . . . . .. aafifi: e52. Emmi. mafia» awe: e2 . . . . .. @353 Hwiw emdwm 3.53 M32. 2;. . . . . . .. 2-3 X33 e33» 232 agm E . . . . . .. 2i. $.23 >313 5.2.3 $.33 25 s qv w? v mm mu “WW Wm W XX. w. m. W om u. o m u J3 a $30 0 a m Va a a w A p. a S mmfimnouw wfim Mn flash mom v3 o>flm Win50 mo “E5054 wwwuw>< o H mama. 62 BULLETIN N O. 327 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION TABLE 11 Average Amount of Capital Invested per Acre by Size Groupings m +3 +7 .7 s s .. as H .-_ Class é) E- . *3 xx f-fig i; ,5 -v'r::.€ g gag’ .3: as sgg Hg‘ g gaze. v-qua Q) "-4 z .2§r=1 <:.q B5 £20 QH-l .4 em? I l 500 v $3 28 $5 13 > $3 59 I $ 8.41 $19.60 $113.53 $133.13 0-49 64 |i 3.88 7.42 II 4.49 f 11.30 30.86 133.73 164.59 50-99 206 ‘l 3.55’ 5.46 3.65 9.01 22.86 114.91 137.77 100-149 134} 3.27) 5.20’ 3.74 8.47 18.11 116.81 134.92 150-199 50’ 3.21! 5.26 l! 3.72 8.47 19.07 112.38 131.45 200-249 24| 3.08i 4.62J 3.57 7.70 19.08 102.96 122.04 250 and Over. 22 i 2.67 3.31 ' 2.55 5.98 13.36 103.56 116.92 I *Machinery and Equipment Plus Total Livestock. ‘i Relation of Size t0 Physical Production From a consideration of the relation of size to the utilization of the va- rious kinds of capital per farm and per acre let us next go to a brief con- sideration of the relation of size to the producing capacity of the farm. There is a popular belief that size naturally influences the yield per acre of crops grown. It is reasoned that more careful and intensive cultivation will be practiced on the small farms resulting in a larger yield per acre. This claim does not seem to hold true in the case of cotton farms. The table given in this connection shows the crop index* for each size group. This indicates that the farms ranging from 50 to 150 acres in size are slightly more efficient in the production of mere physical volume than the other groups. ' *l‘ndex of production as here used is the percentage for each class based on the average for all classes. Thus index of producation of cotton for size group 0-49 acres is 102.5, which is to say that cotton production per acre is 2.5 per cent greater in this class than for the average of all classes. From this the crop index is derived by weight- ing the index of production of each separate crop by the number of acres planted to that crop. To illustrate, the following is the method of calculating the crop index for size group 0-49 acres: Crops grown Index of production Acres planted to each crop Cotton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .102. x 1,500.75 : 153,826.88 Corn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 7 x 473.00 : 47,158.10 Oats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 90 8 x 97.00 : 8,807.60 Sudan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 51 3 x 11.00 : 564.30 Cane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 77 6 x 22.12 : 1,716.51 Millet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 78 8 x 2.75 : 216.70 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..2,106.62 212,290.09 212,290.09 : 100.77 Crop Index 2,106.62 AGRICULTURAL ECONOMIC SURVEY OF ROCKWALL COUNTY TABLE 12 Relation of Size to Productivity Class Crop Index 0-49 100.78 50-99 101.47 100-149 101.21 150-199 96.73 200-249 95.58 250 and Over 98.65 TABLE 13 Comparison of Size of Farm With Yield of Lint Cotton per Yield of Lint Cotton per Acre in Pounds 150 0 50 10o 20o 250 300 to to to to to to to 49 99 149 199 249 299 349 0-49 2 5 25 24 5 1 50-99 4 24 "15 s0 2o 3 100-149 14 39 53 21 7 150-199 2 11 19 14 3 1 U) § 200-249 1 4 11 5 3 <1 .8 250-299 3 4 2 1 0 .§ w 300-349 3 3 1 350-399 2 400-449 1 1 450-499 500-549 1 23 s7‘ 192 153 3s 5 1 r:-—.068i.030 Acre 63 134 50 24 10 smreg go JaqmnN 6 3 The influence of size on yield is measured and indicated more accurately perhaps in Table 13, where the size of farm is correlated with the yield of lint cotton per acre. Cotton is taken because it is the chief money 64 BULLETIII NO. 327 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION crop grown. The correlation as shown by “r” is negative and very insig- nificant. In other words, it may be said that the yield per acre for the 500 farms studied does not appear to have suffered from the fact that farms were too small or too large. Relation of Size to Income Table 14 gives the income per farm, size groupings and the number in each group. From this table it is very evident that the average net income per farm increases with an increase in size groupings. On the other hand in Table 15, where the average net income per acre for the sev- eral groups is shown, it is apparent that those groups having the larger acreage invariably show a less net income per acre than the groups having a smaller number of acres. But in no case does an increase in size seem to have taken place to the extent of causing an absolute decrease in a large- size grouping under that of the next smaller group. _It will be observed that tenant farmers in the several size groups almost invariably show a higher net income per acre than the corres- ponding group for owners. This, no doubt, is accounted for principally from the fact that many of the owners have outstanding mortgages against their land on which they are paying interest. This interest has been de- ducted as a part of their current expenses. Evidently it is cheaper to rent land than to own it but perhaps not always as satisfactory. I TABLE 14 Income per Farm by Size Groupings Owner Third and Fourth Half and Half 1 g o o C ass gs i g8 g8 L4 O 3.. a I-a O $4 H , O p 0 L‘ c6 ‘ Q C! d Q , G d Q Hg J Q Hm Q 5 Hm E 4.1 p E 4; a l 4-7 z: o c, , :1 o i; :1 , w f; Z Z n. l Z Z Q. Z i Z o. Average . . . . . . 165 i $ 752.05 p 262 } $ 818.13 73 $ 714.26 | :1 I 0-49 . . . . . . . . ..|| 20 233.03 21 411.05 22 397.90 50-99 . . . . . . . . . 59 570.89 114 579.98 34 736.90 100-149 . . . . . . . . .. 23 798.48 82 979.50 9 844.73 150-199 . . . . . . . . .. 22 932.71 26 893.41 2 1 800.75 200-249 . . . . . . . . ..| 11 | 1,386.23 9 1,358.41 4 1,208.01 250 and Over . . . . 10 D 1,433.81 10 2,375.66 2 1,148.18 AGRICULTURAL ECONOMIC SURVEY OF ROCKWALL COUNTY 65 TABLE 15 Net Income per Acre for Different Size Groups According to Tenure Owner- Third and l Half and Class All Fourth Half 0-49 $6.53 $9.46 $10.24 50-99 8.23 8.31 9.86 100-149.... 6.67 8.48 7.22 150-199.... 5.72 5.33 10.29 200-249.... 6.54 6.49 5.21 250 andOver 4.68 7.26 4.21 SUMMARY By way of a brief summary it may well be repeated that specific rec- ommendations relative to the influence of. size should be limited to a single type of farming and confined to a definite geographic area wherein the con- ditions are strikingly uniform throughout. Size represents a possibility. In large farms the possibility of either gain or loss is great, certainly greater than in smaller farms. The chances for gain, in so far as the facts here considered indicate, outweigh the chances for loss. This will be ephasized more particularly in Chapter IXon Income, where a correlation of size with income shows a positive and sig- nificant relation. ~ Small farms show little if any advantage over large farms in yield per acre, and a decided disadvantage in the production of a net income per farm. The average size for all farms is 106 acres and the typical group is that from 50 to 99 acres. This group among the owners makes the largest in- come per acre. All size groups above the 50- to 99-acre group show a de- cided gain in net income per farm. It is true that the income per acre de- creases as the number of acres increase, but this decrease in income per acre is more than offset by the increase in acres. This would seem to suggest 50 to 99 acres as the lower limit in size for this area. The group from 0 to 49 acres enjoys no advantage in the yield per acre; if anything it suffers a slight loss. This coupled with the small number of acres in the farm re- sults in a relatively small total income. On the other hand the groups above 50 to 99 acres enjoy a greater income per unit of organization or per farmer. On this basis it should be the policy to discourage operations of less than 50 acres and encourage the handling of as many acres as the ability of the farmer will permit. It is very evident that this region has more to fear from the possibility that farms will become too small than does from their becoming too large. 66 BULLETIN NO. 327 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION CHAPTER v1 FARM LABOR It is well known that manual labor has always been a very important factor in all types of agricultural production. It is especially important in cotton farming. Cotton culture is characterized by the heavy demand it makes on hand labor. The cotton grower is concerned not so much about how much he can plant and plow as he is about how much he can chop, hoe, and pick, and particularly how much he can secure labor to pick. It is in these operations which require a relatively large amount’ of hand labor that the size of the crop finds its greatest limitation. In this survey no attempt was made to determine the total amount of labor used by the 500 farms studied. Family labor and horse labor fur- nished by the farm are items which are very difficult to determine by the survey method and for this reason it was thought better to leave this information to be developed by a detailed farm-records-and-accounts study which is now being made for this section. To be more specific, there are a number of things about farm labor which one needs to know in order to so organize it as to insure its most effective and efficient use. It is well to know the relative amount of the labor furnished by the farm and that hired, but more especially do we need to know the distribution of labor throughout the year, its distribution to the various crops and different farm enterprises, and finally the amount of both man and horse labor re- quired for the several operations carried on in both crop and livestock enterprises. Not only the amount and distribution of both man and horse labor is necessary but the physical accomplishment of a given amount of labor for each of the several farm operations. This task can best be ac- ‘ icomplished by the detailed records-and-accounts method. An attempt was made, however, in the present survey to get at the amount of hired labor employed. This account is taken care of in the farmer’s credit arrange- _ments for the year and in the majority of cases he has pretty well in mind the amount of hired labor which he has used during the year. HIRED LABOR One would naturally expect hired labor to constitute a significant con- sideration in the operation of cotton farms, but is surprised perhaps to find it by far the,largest single item among those of current expenses. Of the 500 farms, 450 hired labor, either regular or extra, or both. These farms spent an average of $346.38 each. This constitutes 40.5 per cent of the current expenses. The next highest single item is $161.85 for in- terest on borrowed money, constituting 15 per cent of the current expenses. Hired labor will be divided into two main classes, regular and extra. By regular labor is meant that farm help in addition to the family which is employed regularly throughout the year or for the greater part of it. Extra labor is that farm help which is employed in addition to both family and regular help to assist with such farm operations as chopping and pick- AGRICULTURAL ECONOMIC SURVEY OF ROCKWALL COUNTY 67 ing cotton. The demand for this type of labor is seasonal and generally very keen. Regular labor makes up hardly one-fourth of all hired labor, while extra labor constitutes more than three-fourths of all hired labor. Extra labor is devoted almost entirely to chopping and picking cotton. These are operations which require hand labor and limit very decidedly the size of the crop to be grown. Extra labor is done by unskilled Mexicans and negroes, very largely by negroes. The majority of them no doubt have had previous experience in this kind of work but no special training has been given to better prepare them for the job. Regular Labor Table 16 shows the amount and distribution per farm of regular labor hired. From this it is observed that only 154 of the 450 farms hiring labor . employed regular help. These employed a total of 269 persons or an average of 1.74 persons per farm. One to two hands as the table indicates was the more usual practice. This would indicate very clearly that the farms in this section offer but a moderate opportunity for steady employment. On the other hand the seasonal demand for labor is very active at certain times of the year, especially during the p-icking season. TABLE 1 6 Amount of Regular Labor Hired Nfirennbgeff Number of Total Number Farm Farms of Men Total 1 5 4 2 6 9 1 9 9 9 9 2 8 3 6 6 3 7 2 1 4 8 .3 2 5 2 1 0 6 2 1 2 7 2 1 4 1 5 1 1 5 Nationality: The nationality of the regular labor is very largely negro. Of the 269 persons regularly employed, 212 were reported as negroes and 57 as whites. There was a decided preference for married regular help. Such help would undoubtedly be more dependable in that it would be less easy for them to leave the farm. It would be less trouble to house and board them since it would be done in their own family. Another reason for such a pref- erence might be the presence of their family, which would increase the available supply of extra labor. ‘a 1: I w. ~ 1 »;. i . r: i311 “,7 $51 . , h‘ Pf In m‘ l‘: n1, 1H1: fl Li? i?‘ W... "J y. i ," . w. ..‘@ 15' 4 2, : ,. i . v -- -~_~¢-jj~»_f~.~aa:-_..:wqllwtfqkg-arufa.rqpmmq..-_¢-~..-_...__...,-._~... 68 BULLETIN NO. 327 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Figure 26. Farm labor, present and potential. This group is enjoying the sunny side of the cabin on a Sunday afternoon. Nature of Work: The nature of the work done by the regular hand is not so different from that done by the extra help. The work of the regular hand is of course more varied, since it covers a longer period of time, but is often of the same nature as that done by extra labor. It consists mainly of plowing, planting, cultivating, chopping, hoeing, chores and general farm work. During the picking season the regular hand may and often does pick cotton along with the extra help and receives pay on the same basis as they. TABLE 17 Rate Paid Regular Labor in Rockwall County, 1922 Dollars per Day i Frequency Total t 159 .90 2 1.00 56 1.25 88 * 1.50 11 1.75 1 2.00 1 Rate of Wages: The rate paid regular labor in Rockwall County for . the year 1922 is roughly indicated by Table 1'7. A number of factors enter to cause the wide variation here shown. The type of laborer would cer- AGRICULTURAL ECONOMIC SURVEY OF ROCKWALL COUNTY ()9 tainly influence the amount the farmer is willing to pay him. If he is strong, industrious, and experienced he would be much more in demand and more likely to get higher wages than the laborer who was inexperienced and indifierent toward his work. Nearness to cities or industrial plants would very likely influence farm wages to go up. Also the laborer may and often does receive many considerations other than money from the farmer who employs him. In almost every case a house in which to live is furnished; wood and water are furnished in the majority of cases; and in not a few, credit or living expenses. Other items less commonly fur- nished are board, garden, a small cotton crop, and in rare instances cow feed and pasture are included. Local custom may explain to a slight de- gree the differences in wages paid. It is felt, however, that for similar’ considerations the rate paid for regular labor will be found to be remark- ably uniform. The most frequent occurring rate was $1.00 to $1.25. Amounts above or below this range were exceptional and not at all common. Extra Lab-or As a rule, the farmer did not remember the number of persons and the time for which employed in accounting for his extra labor. He always knew whether or not he had hired extra labor, for what it had been hired, the total amount and rate paid for it. According to the answers gathered 444 farmers out of 500 employed extra labor. Source: The principal sources for extra labor were local rural neigh- borhoods, nearby towns and cities, transient and out-of-state laborers. No very accurate information could be secured as to the relative number which came through these several sources. The farmer always knew that he secured his pickers from whatever source available. It was very seldom that all of them came from one source. At one time some of them were secured from neighboring farms and villages; for others he had made a trip to East Texas or Louisiana, or perhaps to Fort Worth or Dallas. Again much help migrates from other surrounding areas to this blackland belt to pick cotton. There seems to be an attempt on the part of cotton growers to keep as much labor as possible on the farm. The majority of the reg- ular hands are married. It is a common practice for them to work a small crop of a few acres on the half-and-half basis. This helps to hold them so that they and their family will be available for picking cotton and other special work. From the nature of the answers‘ given the greatest number of pickers came from local and nearby sources. Method of Securing: No special agency is relied upon for securing the farm labor needed. The chief method of securing labor was found to be personal solicitation. Out of 434 answers, 433 gave “personal soliciting” as the method by which extra labor was secured. One farmer claimed to have secured help through advertising. No doubt a considerable number of the laborers applied for work at the farm. No very great difficulty seems to have been encountered in securing help, since only 80 registered any complaint in this regard. 7Q BULLETIN NO. 327 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Nationality: The greatest number of the extra laborers were negroes. Of course a certain small percentage were White with a sprinkling of Mex- ican. I was informed that it was only recently that Mexican loborers had appeared in this part of the State. Farther south and west Mexican labor is much more common. Skill and training is not so essential in cotton picking as those farm operations which are paid for by the day. Cotton is paid for by the amount of seed cotton picked or pulled. It is piece work. If the operator does much, he is paid more. In other words the worker is paid for what he does and not for putting in so much time. TABLE 18 Rate Paid for Chopping Cotton in Rockwall County, 1922 Dollars per Day Ii Frequency I Total I 341 l 1.00 I 14 1.25 156 1.50 121 1.75 l,‘ 20 2.00 II 30 Rate of Wages: The rate paid for extra labor ranged higher than that for regular labor, and in the case of cotton picking showed a rather wide variation. This higher rate is not due to a difference in skill required. On Figure 27. A crew chopping cotton on a blackland farm in Rockwall County. This is one of the operations requiring a considerable amount of hand labor. The amount will vary with the nature of the soil and the season. AGRICULTURAL ECONOMIC SURVEY OF ROCKWALL COUNTY 71 the whole the regular farm hand must be more skilled and versatile than the extra laborer who chops and picks cotton. The difference evidently is caused by the relatively large amount of extra labor t0 be done. There is a certain amount of chopping or picking of cotton to be done with a lim- ited time in which to do it and a limited supply of laborers. Table 18 shows the rate paid for chopping cotton in Rockwall County for 1922. The rate, it will be observed, varied from $1.00 to $2.00, but the prevailing or most common rate was $1.25 to $1.50. Of the 341 farmers reporting on this item, 277 of them paid $1.25 to $1.50 per day for chopping. It was not unusual, however, to find a farmer paying $2.00 for chopping. It was noted that quite often in and around towns, even though they were small, the rate was higher. Competition with other demands for labor no doubt TABLE 19 Rate Paid for Cotton Picking in Rockwall County, 1922 -_ Dollars per Cwt. Frequency Total 405 .60 1 .75 23 .80 15 .85 18 .90 33 1.00 264 1.10 17 1.25 22 1.30 a 1.40 1 1.50 4 was the principal cause of this increase. The facts are presented in Table 19. Here again we have a very distinct prevailing price but at the same time significant variations both above and below the typical rate. The lower rates may be partially explained from the fact that at the begin- ning of the season pickers are relatively plentiful. By the time cotton picking is well under way the demand for pickers will have increased and the price for picking likewise. Toward the close of the season when the farmers are “scrapping”, the bulk of the pickers will have moved on to regions of better picking. By this time the cotton grower may have to pay his very highest price. He has but little cotton left, it is slow picking, and the pickers are relatively scarce. Rather than have it left in the field as a dead loss it is necessary for him to pay a much higher price than that paid for the greater part of his picking. ' i ‘i ) . ‘i ,1 i 1 i , . 1 . . - . l‘. - . " 1.» ,. i ;.. .. l I- i l l . i ~ ‘A . . Pl ~14‘ 5i. w; i l.‘ d? ._,. ' v‘. l . ii‘: . i", a f4 . H. a w’ . ‘.1 I !’:=‘ $51 . n, I17 I ‘.- ‘n. m‘ .,. 4i.‘ cf m; ‘n. 1:7’ ‘n: ’ i4. .5- ; in‘ J’. l ‘L V m" J‘ , n" i? ‘l .17 U; :4’! 3T5- y. ll; v s‘. ,i [l I li “" T“ "’_"‘.""' ". "f""’T.’“'_f‘f".Tflr'”.T‘fi“!'"T?-“9"‘i“f1"7" "P”.".'.‘.”_.‘. l v“ 72 BULLETIN NO. 327 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Figure 28. Picking cotton on a blackland farm. This operation must be done by hand and requires a great amount of labor. Assuming that the farmer hired 20 bales picked and the hands averaged 200 pounds a day each, it would take one hand 150 days or five hands 30 days to harvest his crop. Even though the demand for labor is keen at chopping and picking time only about 80 farmers spoke of having any difficulty in securing the help needed. Farmers may not have gotten all of the help at the very time desired but no one seemed to have suffered from being unable to se- cure help. There seemed to be more difficulty during 1922 in securing hands for chopping than for picking. The situation in this regard will vary from year to year depending upon the nature of the season. If it is un-" usually wet during the chopping season, then the farmer will get behind and find it difficult to secure help. During a nice dry fall cotton will stand for some time in the field without suffering any very great loss from not being picked, but weeds and grass must be removed from the crop promptly or the yield will be materially reduced. The nature of the work to be done will have much to do with the nature of the demand for help. One hundred and thirty farms out of 500 exchanged some labor. This was limited very largely to the threshing of small grain. In no case did I find an exchange in the major operations like cultivating, chopping, hoeing, and picking cotton. The cause for this is apparent since such operations demand immediate attention on all of the farms in the community at the same time. On the other hand, threshing is a type of work which may be postponed for a number of days or even weeks without any very great loss. Moreover, the crew for threshing is more than the average farmer can furnish and at the same time it is needed for a short duration only, per- haps a fraction of a day. It does not pay the farmer to get out and hire a full crew when an exchange of a few hours with a neighbor will take care of this job for the entire year. It was found to be the general practice for the farmer to furnish his 73 AGRICULTURAL ECONOMIC SURVEY OF ROCKWALL COUNTY ..~OQM~ mppxw mawnmucmpn dwmwon mw .323 5.3m £033 E zmxomzm: mo Qwouw 4 6m ouflwrm 74 BULLETIN NO. 327 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION extra help with a “shack” for shelter and in the majority of cases with wood and water. In a few cases (31 were reported) the farmer boarded his extra help. In a few instances he furnished credit for taking care of the necessary living expenses while at work. In rare cases help was hauled out and back from nearby towns. The housing and general care of special labor would impress one, es- pecially if not familiar with conditions, as being very meager. The “shacks” in which extra labor is generally housed are for the most part single rooms with board walls, floor and roof. Fortunately the great bulk of the extra farm labor is on the farm during the summer and fall months at a time when very little protection is needed against weather conditions. The standard of living of the majority of these laborers is such that it is a question as to whether more elaborate provisions would be appreciated and cared for. FARM LABOR ORGANIZATIONS No labor unions as such exist among the farm laborers of this region. The extra labor is furnished very largely by negroes, supplemented by a few whites and Mexicans. The need for labor is seasonal in its nature and is supplied by a migratory type of laborer. Laborers do not work in very large groups, neither do they work for the same person nor remain at the same place for a very long period of time. The regular laborers are more fixed relative to a job and place, but they are isolated on individual farms where the conditions and considerations are likely to vary consider- ably. Neither the type of laborer, nor the nature of the work is conducive to labor unions among farm laborers. A considerable number of farmers visited belonged to the Farm Labor Union of America, but this is a labor union neither in practice nor prin- ciple. According to their constitution and by-laws, it is as an organization “strictly and exclusively a business body”. It is a farmer’s organization interested principally in the problem of marketing his products. It is well to keep in mind in handling labor that it is a service which cannot be disassociated from the individual as a human being. The con- ditions under which the laborer works influence not only his health and his welfare, but that of his family. The ideal situation is one in which mutual respect, confidence, and consideration exists between the laborer and the farm operator. The laborer should be encouraged to take a real interest in the operation of the farm. This should be more easily accomplished among regular laborers than among extra help. Fortunately a very large part of extra help on cotton farms is paid for on the basis of actual work done. If one picker is able to pick 500 pounds of cotton while another is able to pick only 250, the first one receives twice as much for what he does. This is rewarding labor on the basis of accomplishment. All farm labor, how- ever, does not lend itself so well to such a scheme. AGRICULTURAL ECONOMIC SURVEY OF ROCKWALL COUNTY 75 CHAPTER VII CAPITAL INVESTMENT IN FARMS CLASSIFICATION The capital investment of the 500 farm units studied has been divided into two main divisions, fixed and movable capital. This classification is based more on the physical aspects of the capital goods in these two groups than on the function which they perform. Fixed Capital Fixed capital includes land and permanent improvements. Some of the aspects and characteristics of farm lands have already been treated in Chapter IV. The consideration here is one of value aspects as it relates itself to the total capital investment of the entire farm. Permanent im- provements are composed chiefly of the various types of farm buildings, fences, wells, tanks, and terraces. This classification includes along with the land all of those improvements which are more or less permanently fixed to and tend to blend with and become a part of the land. In fact, it is quite often difficult to evaluate land apart from these improvements. Es- pecially is this true in old settled regions where the land is in a high state of cultivation. Movable Capital Movable capital* as here used refers to that type of capital which is less fixed and more liquid than fixed capital. It is generally bought and sold independently of land and permanent improvements. It is quite com- monly spoken of as working capital and includes such major divisions as farm implements and machinery, work stock, other productive livestock, supplies and cash and credit for current operating expenses. It is that part of the capital outlay which lends itself more readily to shanges. One of the big problems of the farmer is that of securing the best proportioning of the several factors with which he must deal. His skill and ingenuity as a manager has its best opportunity for expression through the handling of movable capital. It is that part of the investment most subject to the influence of the human factor. Much. more freedom is offered here for expansion or contraction in response to the prevailing economic condi- tions than is true of land and permanent improvements. ‘The importance of movable capital varies greatly with the type of agriculture. In ranching, this type of capital comprises a very large part of the ranchman’s investment and the test of his ability to produce will be in the selection and utilization of those capital goods classified as mov- able. This is not so true of the cotton farmer. Almost ninety-five per cent of his investment is in land and permanent improvements and his chief concern is in the most efficient use of these, his most expensive factors. *B. Youngblood and A. B. Cox, “An Economic Study of a Typical Ranching Area on the Edwards Plateau of Texas," Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, College Station, Texas, Bulletin No. 297, Chapter X, p. 256. 76 BULLETIN NO. 327 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION There are good reasons for following the classification suggested above. In taxation the division of farm capital into fixed and movable is recognized. Fixed capital is generally designated as real property or real estate, while movable capital is considered personal property. In rental contracts be- tween the owner and the tenant a distinction is recognized between fixed and movable capital. It is invariably the practice for the third-and-fourth operator to furnish the movable capital and for the owner to furnish the fixed capital. It should be explained that in this survey it was found practically im- possible to arrive at a satisfactory figure which would represent the cap- ital outlay for current operating expenses. Much of such capital is bor- rowed for periods of time varrying all the way from a month to one year, while in the case of cotton picking and cotton ginning the expenses incurred are often taken out of the proceeds of the sale of the cotton and cotton seed. It is comparatively easy to ascertain the current expenses against the operation for the year, but this by no means corresponds to the amount of cash or credit necessary to meet such obligations. To derive a satis- factory figure for this item would require a detailed accurate analysis of the current expense account. For this reason only the tangible farm prop- erty assets have been included in the capital investment of the farms here given. The inventory of all farm property of the 500 farms surveyed shows an investment of slightly above seven and one-half million dollars. Of this amount 94.1 per cent is fixed capital, leaving 5.9 per cent remaining as FIGURE 30 DISTRIBUTION 0F CAPITAL IN FAR/V PROPERTY PER JEIVT TOTAL CAPITAL LAND PER/WINE IV 7 I/‘IPWVE/‘IEA/ ii TOTAL 1,527,065 xoo NALH/NERY LAND 6,057,519 00.x fifflmA/EA/f/fiflflfllffi)‘ /, 042.637 u. .9 mncm/vzny / 74, e49 z. I L/t/E 3706K . f__-Z=g movable capital. Figure 30 shows a more detailed dirision of the total capital investment into land, permanent improvements, farm machinery, and livestock. From this it is seen that land comprises four-fifths of the total, while permanent improvements, farm machinery, and livestock rank in the order named. Table 20 compares these items for Texas and Rockwall AGRICULTURAL ECONOMIC SURVEY OF ROCKWALL COUNTY 7"] County both absolutely and relatively for a period of thirty years. The‘ trend would be more forcibly emphasized if a longer period were taken, but the necessary data are not available. The facts given, however, show that in both areas land comprises the greater part of the total investment, and has made a decided increase both absolutely and relatively since and in- cluding 1900. Permanent improvements have remained relatively about the" same for the State, while in Rockwall County there was a big decline from 1910 to 1920. Farm machinery appears to have remained relatively about the same for both areas, while a relative decline in livestock is shown for both. This drop- was abrupt in Texas from 1900 to 1910‘ but only slight from 1910 to 1920, while in Rockwall County the decline has been marked and gradual, going from 12.8 per cent in 1900 to 4 per cent in 1920. This condition one would expect to follow asincident to a more complete de- velopment of a one-crop system. _ TABLE 20 Value of Farm Property for Texas and Rockwall County for 1920, 1910, 1900" Total Value Percent Item Year I Rockwall Rockwall Texas County Texas County I I 1920 $4,447,420,321 $19,055,149 100.0 100.0 All Farm 1910 2,218,045,154 0,088,812 100.0 100.0 Property 1900 962,476,273 3,122,058 100.0 100.0 1920 3,245,208,649 16,552,747 73.0 86.9 Land 1910 1,633,207,135 4,679,810 73.6 76.8 1900 591,550,802 2,235,670 61.6 71.6 1920 454,964,670 1,271,608 10.2 6.7 Far)“ 1910 _ 210,001,260 700,846 9.5 11.5 Buildmgs 1900 100,222,811 369,450 10.4 11.8 1920 154,320,996 448,730 3.5 2.3 Machinery 1910 56,790,260 144,435 2.5 2.4 i 1900 80,125,705 115,800 8.1 8.8 1920 592,926,006 782,064 13.3 4.1 Livestock 1910 318,646,509 563,221 14.4 9.3 I 1900 240,576,955 400,638 24.9 12.8 ‘U. S. Census Reports. b 78 BULLETIN NO. 327 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Investment in Land As has been observed, land constitutes four-fifths of the total invest- ment in the capital outlay of the 5-00 farms studied. The value per acre varied from $25 to over $200, with an average of slightly above $113. If an array be made of all the farms on the basis of value per acre the great- est number fall in the class of $125 to $149. ‘This would indicate that the farms falling in the classes of lower value have a larger acreage than those falling in the higher-valued classes. In getting at a figure for land value an attempt was made to ap- proximate as closely as possible the present conservative market value of the land. Where a farm had sold recently in the neighborhood it was used as a check. Care was taken to explain that it was neither the assessed FIGURE 3 1 AGRICULTURAL ECONOMIC SURVEY OF ROCKWALL COUNTY 79 value nor a high inflated value which was wanted, but the price for which the land would likely sell under the usual terms and conditions 0f sale. It is only more recently that land has reached such a high price and come to constitute such a relatively high per cent of the total investment. In Figure* 31 the trend of land prices for Rockwall County is graphi- cally portrayed over a period of seventy-five years. The trend is de- cidedly upward and exhibits some very interesting features in its course. Land values were uniformly low for the first twenty-five years, showing but little inclination to take an upward trend. Fluctuations, however, were relatively violent although absolutely small and insignificant. It is easy to understand how a slight absolute increase in the value per acre of land would register a relatively large increase when the average price per acre for the entire period from 1848 to 1872 inclusive was $2.41. Undoubt- edly permanent improvements such as buildings and fences made up the greater part of the value of farm land for this period. The second pe- riod from 1873 to 1897 inclusive exhibits a noticeable tendency for land values to climb. The average value of land for this period is $14.38 per acre as against $2.41 for the preceding period. This was a period of railway expansion in the State. It was during this time that important railways reached Dallas and furnished an outlet to the market as well as an inlet for people, barbed wire, and improved machinery. This was fol- lowed by a rapid development of cotton production in the blackland belt. Cotton production more than trebled itself during this period. The steepest incline in land values, however, appeared during the last twenty-five years. The peak of this period is exaggerated by the highly inflated condition of prices reached during the war and the abrupt decline which followed in 1920. This is the first time in the entire period that land values show an abrupt decline. In land we have the most fixed and durable of all types of capital in- vested in the farm. It has value because it yields products and services which ultimately satisfy human wants. This income both physical and psychic may be thought of as being perpetual and as having a direct ex- pression in the price paid for land. In other words the present value of land is the sum of an infinite series of future discounted incomes. For this rea- son a study of land values over a. long period of time should give a clearer understanding of these forces whose resultant has determined the trend taken, and should suggest in a measure at least, the behavior of future values. Undoubtedly much of the recent distress as well as other periods of agricultural depression among farmers has been caused by an altogether too optimistic view on the part of land purchasers. Quite often the immediate short-time view is taken and projected into the future with an entirely too low rate of discount. This means that there is a vital need for a more sci- entific and accurate method of forecasting land values. Dr. R. T. Ely, Di- rector of the Institute for Research in‘ Land, University of Wisconsin, em- *This graph is based on actual land sales as recorded in the deed records of Rockwall County. N0 correction for changes in the purchasing power of money has been made. The data are presented in the appendix table IA. 8Q BULLETIN NO. 327 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION phasized this fact in an address before the annual meeting of the Ameri- can Statistical Association, in Washington, D. C., December 28, 1923. Dr. F. A. Buechel in Bulletin No. 318, “Relation between Rents and Agricul- tural Land Values in Theory and in Practice,”* goes into a somewhat de- tailed discussion of the factors entering into land value and suggests a method of more accurately measuring it. Any effort to stabilize and place land values on the correct basis is fundamental in agricultural progress. Investment in Permanent Improvements Permanent improvements compose almost 14 per cent of the total value of farm property invested in the 500 farms considered. ‘The greater part of this is made up of the various kinds of farm buildings. Here as in land and to a much greater degree it is difficult to arrive at a separate and sat- isfactory value for such improvements. Where improvements had been made recently the cost of construction was taken. In the great majority of cases an inventory value was taken for the beginning and end of the year. In other words an attempt was made to arrive at the present value of improvements taking into consideration their original cost of construc- tion, present age, and state of repair. TABLE 21 Investment in The Various Permanent Improvements Items Number Iré/Zglgiiit IHVESEZIIGIIt Percentag‘ ' ‘ per Unit per Item °f T°tal Total . . . . . . . . . . $1,042,705.05 100.0 Owner's House . .' 172 I $1,810.27 311,366.25 » 29.9 Tenant's House. . 642 587.62 377,254.87 36.2 Shacks . . . . . . . . . 150 115.68 17,352.30 ' 1.7 Barn . . . . . . . . . . 569 341.53 194,330.98 _ 18.6 Smoke House. . . . 353 45.39 16,023.14 1.5 Granary . . . . . . . . 56 108.26 6,062.80 .6 Garage . . . . . . . . 221 ' 71.40 15,780.35 1.5 Poultry House. . . 210 24.18 5,078.09 .5 Other Buildings. . 157 48.89 7,676.11 .7 Fences . . . . . . . . 344 88.06 30,293.36 l 2.9 Wells and Cisterns 1,073 46.29 49,672.68 4.8 Open Tanks. . . . . 15 71.49 1,072.49 .1 Wind Mills . . . . . 43 249.80 10,741.63 1.0 “The Relation Between Rents and Agricultural Land Values in Theory and in Practice,” by F. A. Buechel, Bulletin No. 318, Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, College Station, Texas. AGRICULTURAL ECONOMIC SURVEY OF ROCKWALL COUNTY 81 The nature, the number, the average and the relative value for each group as well as the average value per unit are given in Table 21. A few outstanding features are emphasi-zed when these groups are compared. There are 172 owners’ houses as against 642 tenant houses. In addition to these there are 150 laborers’ “shacks.” The total value of owners’ houses is $311,356.25 while that of tenants’ is $377,254.87. The average value of the owners’ house is $1,810.27 as compared with an average value of $587.62 for the tenant. In other words, the owner’s house is valued on an average at three times that of the tenant house. The striking thing about this comparison is the meager provision made for farm laborers. The 150 “shacks” have an average value of $115.68. The majority of the laborers for this section are negroes and many of them are employed for a few Weeks during the chopping and picking seasons. These “shacks” are in use for a short time each year; consequently the owner puts no more into this type of improvement than is absolutely necessary. The question arises as to whether the value of the farm home should be included as a part of the total farm investment on which a money in- come is expected. The claim is often made that the farm home is not a production but a consumption good. It is further argued that the farmer has no more right to include his home as a part of the investment in his business than does a banker or merchant to include his home as a part of his business investment. Be this as it may, it cannot be denied that the farm home is peculiarly and intimately associated with farming as a bus- iness. The farm unit is not complete without the farm home. The pro- ductive efficiency of the farm would be materially impaired if adequate pro- visions for housing the farm family were neglected. The farm family furnishes the greater part of the farm labor. Regular and extra laborers are invariably housed on the farm and the houses and “shacks” in which they live are included in the farm investment as productive goods. In computing the cost of farm products family labor is generally based on the rate paid hired labor. It should follow then that at least that part of the home required for housing farm labor, whether it be family or hired, should be considered a productive good and as a part of the investment on which a money return is expected. Each farm should be treated as an individ- ual case. Adjustments should certainly be made for those farm homes in which the investment is in excess of the necessary requirements of the farm. The investment in barns, 18.6 per cent of the total in permanent im- provements, is low. Of course the need for expensive barns in a cotton section is small compared with that in a region where more diversified, or a more specialized type of farming like dairying is done. In a great many cases the barns were dilapidated, and gave ample evidence of neglect. The minimum requirement should be room sufficient for housing the farm an- imals and storing an ample supply of hay and feed. As a rule the build- ings other than the houses and barns were meager and quite often entirely lacking. Only 56 out of 500 had a granary, and only 210 provided any sort of a house for their poultry. There were more garages than hen houses. Fences, 32 BULLETIN NO. 327 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION cisterns, open tanks and wind mills form slightly above eight per cent of the total investment in permanent improvements. A casual observer passing through the blackland cotton belt is im- pressed with the absence of fences on the farms. The facts of the survey support such casual observation. Of the 500 farms, 344 reported fences as a part of the investment in permanent improvements. This represented an average investment of $88.06 per farm and if distributed over the 500 farms it amounts to 56.9 cents per acre. This condition is in sharp con- trast with that of the early settlement of the prairies. At that time the fence was a very necessary and important part of the farm investment. In fact, it was only after the coming of barbed wire that the prairies were rapidly cut up into farms. But with the rapid development of cotton and the decline of the cattle industry the need of fences came to be less felt. The livestock on these farms today is confined very largely to work stock, the milch cow, and a few hogs and chickens. . Farm Machinery Farm machinery in the Blackland cotton belt is a very small consid- eration in the total farm investment, being only 2.3 per cent of the total. Automobiles have been included to give this figure. The automobile is both a production and a consumption good but will be treated here as a pro- TABLE 22 Investment in Farm Machinery I Average 13218113518 Percentage Item Number Investment Investment of Total I per Article per Item Total . . . . . . . . . . . . I $174,649.58 I 100.0 I I I I Plows . . . . . . . . . . . “I 1,664 I $ 8.54 . 14,195.69 I 8. 1 Planters . . . . . . . . . . 852 15.00 12,776.33 I 7.3 Cultivators ... 997 I 17.35 17,208.12 9.9 Harrows . . . . . . . . . . 382 I 9.20 3,510.75 I 2.4 Stalk Cutters . . . . . ..| 274 16.81 4,605.67 I 2 . 6 Rakes . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 13.50 1,270.18 I .8 Balers . . . . . . . . . . . ..I 23 I 84.79 I 1,950.48 I 1.1 Mowing Machines. . .I 160 I 26.79 4,274.42 I 2 .4 Grain Drills . . . . . . ..I 88 I 59.20 I 5,178.72 I 2.9 Binders . . . . . . . . . ..|] 83 I 64.05 I 5,728.04 I 3.2 \Vagons . . . . . . . . . . .I 909 I 31.58 I 28,682.84 16.4 Automobiles . . . . . . . 314 I 138.00 43,644.62 I 24.9 Harness . . . . . . . . . . .| 1,045 I 16.21 16,934.26 9.7 I .65 I 733.07 .4 AGRICULTURAL ECONOMIC SURVEY OF ROCKWALL COUNTY 83 duction good. In detailed work an effort will be made to separate and prop- erly allot the two types of services. Plows, planters, cultivators, stalk cut- ters, and wagons make up the greater bulk of the cotton grower’s necessary equipment. The kind, number, value, etc., of these are given in Table 22. Farms which attempt to diversify must keep a greater variety of ma- chinery, and quite often such machines are used very little in proportion to their costs. This is an item often overlooked by those who would have the farmer of such regions diversify more and more. TABLE 23 Investment in the Various Types of Livestock _ A Annual KHldS of Number Invxégigierlt Average Percentage Livestock q per Head Investment of Total i; per Group Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . $272,989.34 100.0 Work Stock . . . . . . . 2,137 $89.49 191,243.00 70.0 Cattle . . . . . . . . . . . 1,189 24.43 29,032.00 10.6 Hogs . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,092 15.20 31,789.39 11.7 Sheep . . . . . . . . . . . . 165 7 .40 1,221.00 . 5 Poultry . . . . . . . . . . 28,193 .70 19,678.95 7.2 Investment in the Various Types of Livestock This division of the total investment like that of farm machinery is very small, being 3.6 per cent. Table 23 shows the nature of the invest- ment in the different groups of livestock. Work stock makes up the major part of this investment. The other animals are composed chiefly of milch cows, meat hogs, and the farm flock of chickens and turkeys. There are a few sheep, one-half of one per cent. One would easily predict this from Figure 32. Farm livestock grazing on a small blackland pasture. No cotton farm is complete without a few acres on whlch work stock, cows, and other farm livestock may be grazed. 84 BULLETIN NO. 327 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION a knowledge of the very small amount devoted to pasture and the character of the fencing which prevails. The fences are not only meager but poor. They generally consist of a few barbed wires for holding cattle and horses, and have all the ear marks of being temporary. In a very few cases are they suitable for holding hogs and sheep. It is not uncommon to find the few hogs which are kept confined in a pen or small lot. It seems to be rather common practice for the cotton farmer some time after killing his meat hogs to pick up enough pigs, say three or four, from an- other farm for making his meat the next year. Poultry constitutes a con- siderable part of the investment in livestock and could no doubt, under pres- ent conditions, be increased with less cost and more profitably than any other type of livestock. AGRICULTURAL ECONOMIC SURVEY OF ROCKWALL COUNTY 35 CHAPTER VIII FARM CREDIT No very great amount of wisdom is required to account for the recent rapidly increasing need for farm credit. It is an incident in the marked change which has taken place in agriculture during the past half century. This change has been characterized very largely by the passing of the self- suificing or domestic type of farming to a more industrial or commercial- ized type. The first step in this development was a rather universal im- provement in the technical processes of farming. This change called for more power and machinery both to replace and supplement man and horse power. This, along with an increased demand for farm products, has re- sulted in an increased demand for farm lands and consequently a rapid increase in the value of such lands. The use of better and more machinery, a higher grade of both seed and livestock, and higher-priced land have in- creased very materially the need for capital in the business of farming. With this increased demand for capital the need and importance of agri- cultural credit facilities have become imperative. In the creation of credit facilities for agriculture the aim should be not to make credit easier, but more adequate, better adapted to the needs of the several types of farmers and stockmen throughout the country. It is useless perhaps to remark that credit is an instrument in business to be used and not abused. A wise credit policy will render just as great a serv- ice by withholding credit when it is not needed as by granting it when needed. There are a great many farmers today who would be in a much better position financially if it had been less easy for them to have secured credit during the recent period of inflation. Quite often the advocates of some rural credit reform in their en- thusiasm will offer it as a relief for all of the farmer’s many troubles. It would be very unusual to find a case where the economic distress of farmers was due to a single cause and more unusual to find that cause due wholly to a lack of credit facilities. In the great majority of cases, dis- tress among farmers is due not to a single cause, but a combination of many causes and for this reason relief may not be expected from any one im- provement. Enlarged credit facilities offer only one of a great many requisites by which the farmer’s economic condition may be bettered. The all-important matter is that the farmer be able to secure the amount of credit needed, at the time and for the time needed, and at a reasonable rate. There is no disgrace attached to the use of credit as such. It is not uncommon, however, to sense an apologetic attitude among farmers relative to their indebtedness. This must be due primarily to the lack of a full appreciation of the function and purpose of credit. It is no disgrace for a farmer to find himself in need of more capital than he has been able to ac- cumulate. And it certainly is a compliment for him to be able to secure the use of this needed capital from those who have been fortunate enough to 86 BULLETIN NO. 327 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION have a surplus above their current needs. It is to the advantage of all that this capital be employed productively instead of remaining idle. It increases the efficiency of the farmer who borrows, gives a return to the lender, and contributes to the sum total of consumers’ goods. In other words, adequate agricultural credit facilities play a very important role in the financing of agriculture and no apology is due for their existence. The very fact that agriculture has remained very largely self-sustain- ing throughout the greater part of its history, both as to capital and labor requirements, and even at the present time operates on a relatively small amount of borrowed capital compared with other industries, accounts in no small way for this mental attitude among farmers. Such an attitude is disappearing and will become less and less evident as farming comes to be considered and treated more and more as a business not only by the farmers themselves, but likewise by the rest of the business world. CLASSIFICATION OF TYPES OF CREDIT NEEDED No fixed and rigid classification can be made of the types of agricul- tural credit needed. The classification made depends upon the basis of consideration. For this reason the kinds of credit may be divided into sev- eral groups. If one has in mind the economic function of credit it may be divided into productive and consumptive credit; if the time aspect is to be considered, then long-term, intermediate, and short-term are the usual di- visions made; or if it is wished to emphasize the immediate use made of the loan, it may be land loans, loans on livestock, loans on machinery, loans for making a crop, etc. Also the sources of the loan may be used as a basis of classification. At any rate, this brief treatment will suffice to indicate that no very fixed and rigid classification of the types of agricultural credit can be made unless properly explained. . It should be remarked in this connection that the type or types of ag- ricultural credit for any particular area should conform as closely as pos- sible to the needs peculiar to the prevailing type of farming for that area. The credit needs, as well as the credit possibilities of an area, cannot be satisfactorily analyzed unless such considerations as farm tenure, farm in- vestment, farm turnover, labor requirements, and marketing problems are kept in mind. For example, the kind and amount of credit needed by the ranchman of the Edwards Plateau is quite different from that of a farmer in the blackland cotton belt. To begin with, there are certain significant differences in the operators themselves: their investment, the nature of their product, the time of turnover, their labor requirements and marketing problems are widely different. THE FARM CREDIT SITUATION IN ROCKWALL COUNTY Before taking up separately the several types of loans used by the farmers in Rockwall County, it would be helpful to get a conception of their credit situation as a whole. A summary of the situation is portrayed in Figure 33. This groups all loans roughly as loans on land, loans from banks, loans from individuals, and loans from merchants. The loans on AGRICULTURAL ECONOMIC SURVEY OF ROCKWALL COUNTY 87 land represent the long-term credit, while those made by banks, individ- uals, and merchants represent short-term credit. Some of this credit, as will be seen from further analysis, is used for intermediate needs. TABLE 24 Summary of Farm Credit Situation l ' l Average Prevailing “ti-if a Wlrst. "f Argtzt. “f » Feast; "f l Amount of Ree of Loans I Interest l l l Total . . . . ..l e41 ‘l $712,372.31 ‘l 100 % l $1,111.34 l l Loans on I Land ll 115 508,230.00 71 . 34 4,464.02 8%; Bank Loans l 325 129,254.85 18.14 307.71 10 Individual l Loans. . . 57 47,080.35 6.60 825.97 10 Merchant l Loans... 144 l 27,807.11 3.00 193.11 l l l l FIGURE 33 SUMMARY 0F FARM C/‘FED/T t5/ TUA T/O/V .P£R cewr /00 707/41. LOANS 0/v LAND, BANK LOANS 01/155 0F 40/105 l AMOUNT Pm cE/vTJ 707741. l 7/2,: 72.31 /00.00J LOANS 0/1/1400 l 508,230.00 7/54 l ’”D”’D”A‘ ‘WW5 BAA/K 10,405 l 29,254.55 /2./.4 l ND/V/DUAL LOANS l 47.08035 6-60 l MRCMNT LOANS f/TCHAA/TLOA/Vé l 27,s07.//l 5.90 j As observed from the table accompanying Figure 33 the total amount borrowed by the 500 farmers interviewed for all agricultural purposes is, $712,372.31. This is a considerable sum when thought of alone, but when broken up into 641 loans or when compared with the total investment it is a relatively small amount. The total investment in land, permanent improve- ments, livestock and machinery of the farms surveyed is $7,527,930.05. The total indebtedness reported is 9.46 per cent of the total investment. Even though this is relatively small in amount, it is nevertheless a very important consideration in the farming operations of this section. In presenting the facts revealed in the survey loans will be treated under two main divisions: long-term, and short-term credit. Special em- phasis will be placed on the source, purpose for which used, nature of security, time, rate, amount, etc., of the credit used. 88 BULLETIN NO. 327 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION LONG-TERM CREDIT Loans on Land Long-term agricultural credit is roughly defined as that credit by which loans are secured for the purpose of purchasing land and permanent improvements. At present such credit is furnished almost entirely by private individuals, mortgage companies, Federal Land Banks, Joint Stock Land Banks, State and Trust Companies, and Insurance Companies. As shown by the summary of the credit situation, loans on land amount to 71 percent of all loans. Just here it is well to explain that the survey does not claim to show the complete amount of loans against the 500 farms, but rather the credit situation of the farmers who operate them. Evidently the loans on land would run considerably higher if the owners of all rented farms could have been interviewed and their indebtedness ascertained. This was hardly possible and not altogether necessary since our interest here and throughout the survey is centered primarily about the man on the land. It is very evident that this type of credit is important enough among operators to demand as thorough understanding of it as it is pos- sible to gain. This will be approached through a consideration of the borrower, the lender, the time, rate, and security of loans. To Whom Loans on Land are Made: One of the first things one would like to know about loans on land is the class or classes of farmers who are securing these loans. Table 25 groups operators as owners, part-owners, partnership, third-and-fourth, and half-and-half. From this it is seen that 99 of the 115 who borrowed were either owners or part-owner operators. These two groups borrowed more than 87 per cent of the total amount on land. A relatively small number of tenant operators attempt to borrow money for purchasing land. In fact, only 15 out of 335 renters reported outstanding loans on land. As will be seen later, the bulk of their credit transactions are for current operating expenses to supplement their capital investment in teams and tools. TABLE 25 To Whom Loans Are Made Class l Numb" °f Amqogtifll of Per Tgent of i L°ans Loans Amount Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 i $508,230 , 100 l I Owner . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 i 282,418 55.6 Part-owner . . . . . . . . 30 f 162,432 31 .9 Partnership . . . . . . . . . II 1 7,000 1 . 3 Third and Fourth. . . . .1 12 48,380 9.5 Half and Half . . . . . . . 3 8,000 I 1.6 l AGRICULTURAL ECONOMIC SURVEY OF ROCKWALL COUNTY 89 From Whom Loans on Land are Secured: At present there seems to be ample sources from which to secure loans on land and permanent im- provements. First mortgages or first lien notes on good, well-improved farm land offer an attractive and safe type of investment. A great many private loan companies have been organized to handle this type of credit alone. Private individuals having surplus capital seek this form of invest- ment. The Federal Farm Loan Banks recently established by Congress are public institutions which make it possible for farmers to secure loans on land at a relatively low rate of interest, for a long term of years with a very satisfactory repayment plan. It is not the aim of these banks to take the place of all other sources of land credit, but rather to supplement and influence all other institutions through their operation. Source of Loans on Land: The chief sources of land credit utilized by the farmers of Rockwall County are shown in Table 26. The relative amounts are likewise given. Private loan companies rank highest both for number and amount of loans. This classification also includes life in- surance companies which make a business of handling this type of loan. Individuals account for no small part of the capital furnished for financ- ing such loans. Loans from this source are to be encouraged in so far as reasonable rates, a suitable length of time, and a satisfactory repayment plan can be had. TABLE 26 Source of Loans on Land Source of Loan Number ‘ Amount T021111? er Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 1 $508,230 l 100 ___ I Private Loan Co . . . . . 70 i 315,740 l 62.01 Individual . . . . . . . . ..|I 33 II 152,690 ll 30.04 Federal Farm Loan. . . II 12 l] 40,400 l‘ 7 .95 At first one is at a loss to explain the small amount furnished by the Federal Farm Loan Bank, but when it is remembered that this is a young institution and that it was recently involved for months in litigation, it is less difficult to understand. The low rate of interest, the long-term feature, and the amortization plan of repayment which is provided by this system make it a very attractive source of land credit. Nature of Security Given: The prevailing type of security for loans on land in this area is either a first mortgage or a first lien note. The re- sults of the answers given are shown in Table 27. No attempt has been made here to distinguish between the two since they are essentially the same. The safety of both depends upon the size of the margin of the conservative market value of the property over and above the outstanding loan. It is easy to see that if the amount of the mortgage approximates very closely 9Q BULLETIN NO. 327 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION that of the market value of the property given as security that such paper will suffer greatly during periods of depresssion in land values. For this reason it is the policy of institutions handling land loans never to make loans for more than 5O to 75 per cent of the appraised value of the land. TABLE 27 Security Given for Loans on Land : Mortgage or Lien Sources of Loans First Second _ i . 7% _i__ Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 I 8 i _ Private Loan C0 . . . . . . . . .. 67 l Individual . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 8 Federal Farm Loan Bank. 12 E I Out of 112 reporting onithe nature of security only eight reported sec- ond liens. These were taken by individuals. In the majority of cases such security is held by the individual who has sold a farm and is intimately acquainted with all the conditions and circumstances involved. Individuals and institutions are not looking for such paper as an opportunity to invest their capital. During the recent period of deflation in land prices a number of persons holding such paper found it to be worthless. The writer’s at- tention was called to more than one case where second lien notes taken against land when at its peak price were later found to be practically worthless. Such security is good so long as there is adequate collateral behind it and no longer. ‘Length of Time for Which Loans on Land are Made: Table 28 exhibits the different institutions from which land loans are secured and the usual time for which such loans are made in each case. The majority of loans TABLE 28 Length of Time on Land Loans l i . I Federal Length of Time Individual j 122x36?) Farm Loan ' Bank l -_ . I L i I _ Total Number of Answers 30 " 68 I 12 I I I | | Under 5 years . . . . . . . . 19 [I 1 I 5-9 years . . . . . . . . . . . 10 If 1T g 10-14 years . . . . . . . . . . 1 I] 49 II 15-19 years . . . . . . . . . . I] I] l 1 12 20 years and over . . . . AGRICULTURAL ECONOMIC SURVEY OF ROCKWALL COUNTY 91 made by individuals are for less than five years. Not infrequently such loans were secured by a series of first lien notes made for a period of one, two, three, four, and five years. The more common period among private loan companies was ten years. Only one out of 68 loans was given for as long as twenty years. The period from 15 to 19 years is blank. The Fed- eral Farm Loan Bank is the only institution all of the loans of which are made for a period of over twenty years. To meet the need of farmers for a longer time on land loans is one of the express purposes of the Federal Farm Loan system. Rate of Interest Paid on Land Loans: The rate of interest paid by farmers for loans on land varies between a minimum of 5 per cent and a maximum of 10 per cent. The prevailing rate for loans made by both in- dividuals and private loan companies is 7 to 8 per cent, the more common being the latter rate. In no case was the rate charged by the Federal Farm Loan Bank more than 7 per cent, while the more recent loans were reported at 61/2 per cent. Table 29 gives the distribution according to rate paid for the three groups reported. ' ‘The opinions of farmers were solicited as to what they considered a fair and reasonable rate on well secured long-time land paper. There were 326 answers given. None of them mentioned a rate higher than 8 per cent, only 49 a rate. higher than 6 per cent, while 277 mentioned a rate of 6 and lower. TABLE 29 Interest Rate on Land Loans Number of Loans at the Various Rates Rate Individual 1.53382. Ffififliiln Total . . . . . . . . 27 69 10 5 . . . . . . . . . . 1 6 . . . . . . . . . . 1 6 1/; . . . . . . . . 6 4 7 . . . . . . . . . . 3 1 6 G 71,5 . . . . . . . . 1 7 8 . . . . . . . . . . 17 3 4 8 ‘A . . . . . . . . 1 9 . . . . . . . . . . l0 . . . . . . . . . . 5 4 92 BULLETIN NO. 327 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION SHORT-TERM CREDIT Principally Loans for Current Operating Expenses Short-term agricultural credit is roughly defined here as consisting of those loans which are secured and utilized for the purpose of meeting the current operating expenses for the growing and the marketing of agricul- tural products. The intensity of the need for this kind of credit varies with the different types of farming. For example, in regions where diversifica- tion is practiced, or among dairymen whose labor requirements are rather uniformly distributed and whose receipts are coming in regularly through- out the year, the operator is in a better position to meet the bulk of his ob- ligations as they arise. This cannot be said of cotton farming With its high demand for seasonal labor which must be met at the time employed, and with the bulk of receipts coming in over a single period generally of short duration. The majority of growers depend on credit almost entirely for meeting their current need for extra labor. In fact, it would be a poor policy even though the farmer had sufficient. means, for him to keep money on hand and idle for the purpose of meeting a temporary need. It would be much better business to invest his money for the year or for a longer period and borrow for the three or six months needed. This would not only be better for the individual, but better for society in general, since it would make more capital available for productive purposes. FIGURE 34 JUMMAFRY 0F 5/10RT T/Mf CRED/ 75/7114 770/1/ PER CE/VT v /0 TOTAL BAN/f LoA/vs uvo/v/o m1. 1.041% MERCHANT LOANS The amount of short-term loans is relatively small compared with the amount on land, but it is by far the more significant when the number of loans are considered. There were only 115 loans on land, but 526 short- term loans. This is an average of more than one loan to each farmer. The summary of the short-term credit situation for the year 1922 is indicated by Table 30. This groups the loans into three classes based on the source from which they were secured. This, however, does not show what the actual short-term credit situation for the time given above, since it does not include something over $150,000 which had been carried over from previous years like 1919 when the boll worm completely destroyed AGRICULTURAL ECONOMIC SURVEY OF ROCKWALL COUNTY 93 a great many crops in this county just previous to harvesting, and 1920 when the ruinous drop in price made it practically impossible for farmers to pay their debts. There was nothing to be done by the banks, but carry these farmers over and hope for improved conditions. By the close of 1922, farmers were beginning to pay off these old debts. Bankers inter- viewed in this regard stated that they seldom suffered a loss from such risks. As a class, farmers do not go into bankruptcy and will pay if given sufficient time. TABLE 30 Summary of Short-Time Credit Situation»- No. Amount Per Cent Av. No. Prevailing Class Loans Borrowed 1922 of Total Months u Rate l I Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 526 $204,142.21 100 Bank Loans . . . . . . . . . . . 325 129,254.85 63 6.9 10 Individual Loans . . . . . . . . . 57 47,080.35 23 7 . 8 10 Merchant Loans . . . . . . . . . . 144 27,807.11 14 3 . 7 Source of Short-Term Credit: The chief sources of short-term agri- cultural credit for this area are the local banks, individuals, and merchants. The local banks furnish considerably more than one-half of the total amount of all loans. More will be said in regard to the relation of the local bank to the current farm credit problem later in this chapter. Purpose for which Short-Term Loans Are Made: Table 31 gives the purposes, as answered by farmers, for which short-term loans were used. Such classifications ‘as making a crop, general farm expenses, and living ex- penses are not distinct and overlap considerably. Each, however, has a meaning peculiar to itself in the mind of the farmer. Under the term ‘making a crop, he includes such items as feed, labor for chopping, hoeing TABLE 31 Purposes for Which Bank and Individual Loans are Made Purpose Bank Individual Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 338 55 Making a Crop . . . . . . .. 246 40 General Farm Expenses 45 2 Living Expenses . . . . . 31 6 Purchase of Livestock. 8 1 Purchase 0f Machinery.| 7* 1 Purchase of Land . . . . . 1 5 *Exclusive of Automobiles. '_..;;;»...‘_§.- 112;‘: .:.'_:;. .-_ L}. F)’: 'i-“..';;-- w ‘--v-“renPd$t1ge Expgggailture Per Cent Total . . . . . . . . . I $769.94 $384,971.96 99.97 Labor . . . . . . . . . 450 I 346.38 155,874.77 40.48 Interest . . . . . . ..I 376 I 161.85 60,858.13 I 15.80 Fuel . . . . . . . . . 494 74.32 I 36,714.73 I 9.54 Taxes . . . . . . . . . 450 70.61 I 31,773.92 I 8.25 Ginning . . . . . . . 491 61.20 30,049.50 7.80 Feed . . . . . . . . . ..I 270 91.88 I 24,807.35 6.44 Repairs . . . . . . ..I 419 41.19 17,262.65 4.48 Seed . . . . . . . . . ..| 350 34.52 12,082.48 3.14 Threshing . . . . . 248 I 21.16 I 5,248.94 I 1.36 l'nsurance . . . . ..I 97 36.32 I 3,523.09 I .92 Baling . . . . . . . . ..I 93 I 23.89 I 2,221.90 I 58 Veterinary Bill. . .I 200 I 9 .71 I 1,948.01 I W50 Twine . . . . . . . . ..| 326 I 5.08 I 1,655.43 I .43 Breeding Fees .. 69 7 . 12 I 491.00 . 13 Sundry . . . . . . . . 11 42.27 I 465.06 I .12 THE RANGE AND DISTRIBUTION OF FARM IN COMES A frequency table showing the range and distribution of farm in- comes by types of farmers shows a number of interesting things. Taking them up in the order given in the table’, the owner groups show the widest range of possibilities. There is slight evidence of their possibility of mak- ing a higher income than their closest competitors, the third-and-fourth group, and very good evidence of their sustaining greater losses. This is to be expected since owner operators have more invested in the operation and are taking a much heavier risk. The comparatively high number of owner operators showing a minus income is due very largely to the large amount of interest paid on loans for purchasing land and especially for those farmers who had purchased while land was unusually high. Cases were found where farmers had paid as much as $300.00 per acre for land and were paying 8 per cent interest on the loans against it. This was the equivalent of $24.00 cash rent per acre. Yes, even more, for in addition to paying interest on the loans he must also pay taxes on the same land. A number of owner operators are renting money instead of land and AGRICULTURAL ECONOMIC SURVEY OF ROCKWALL COUNTY 113 where purchases were made on the peak of land prices they are paying dearly for the privilege of ownership. The observations in the case of the partnership group are too few to warrant conclusions. 0 The range of possibilities among tenant operators is not so wide as that l among owner groups. In the case of third-and-fourth farmers, the pos- a‘ TABLE 42 Range and Distribution of Net Income of Farm Operators .9: 1 é T5 "é 5 Class ‘g i) {g g i“ ‘g: 5 E5 £3 E3‘ i5 roan . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 113 42 5 232 73 500 $3750 and Over . . . . .. 2 1 3 3500-3749 . . . . . . . .. 1 1 2 3150-3499 . . . . . . . .. 1 1 3000-3249 . . . . . . . .. 2 1 3 2750-2999 . . . . . . . .. 1 1 2 § 2500-2749 . . . . . . . .. 4 3 7 3 2250-2499 . . . . . . . .. 1 1 3 3 E1 2000-2249 . . . . . . . .. 2 2 2 1 7 ' 1750-1999 . . . . . . .. 5 1 12 1 19 1500-1749 . . . . . . . .. 35 2 9 4 21 1250-1499 . . . . . . . .. 3 2 1 13 3 23 1000-1249 . . . . . . . .. 3 3 1 23 9 47 750-999 . . . . . . . . .. 13 5 42 3 33 500-749 . . . . . . . . .. 13 3 43 17 39 250-499 . . . . . . . . .. 21 3 1 53 23 109 0-249 . . . . . . . . .. 14 4 1 31 4 54 - 1-250 . . . . . . . . .. 4 4 3 14 - 251-500 . . . . . . . . .. 5 2 7 - 501-750 . . . . . . . . .. 4 4 - 751-1000 . . . . . . . .. 3 1 4 -1001-1250 . . . . . . . .. 2 2 -1251-1500 . . . . . . . .. 1 1 -1501-1750 . . . . . . . .. -1751-2000 . . . . . . . .. 1 -2001-3000 . . . . . . . .. 1 1 114 BULLETIN NO. 327 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION sibility of making a high income is as good as that of owner groups, but there is less chance of this group’s suffering a“loss. The possibilities of the half-and-half group are much more restricted. Out of 73 farms ob- served, none sustained actual cash losses. At the same time, however, none of them made very large incomes, and the majority of them made rel- atively small incomes. This group of farmers has very little, if any, cap- ital invested in the farm operation. The owner furnishes all capital in land, permanent improvements, teams, tools, and feed for teams. The op- erator furnishes planting seed, labor, and pays all hired labor necessary. His income is essentially a labor income for himself and family. One is probably surprised to find such a wide variation in income among 500 farmers grouped within such a limited area where the climatic and soil conditions are so similar. It is not always easy to account for all of the forces which have operated to cause this variation. Some of these forces which we know are present are hard to measure. For example, no satisfactory method has been determined for measuring the influence of the human element, or managerial ability, on the farmer’s income. But there are certain factors which may be measured quantitatively. Some of these factors we shall consider in an attempt to indicate their relation to the farmers income and the intensity of such influence. Some Factors That Influence the Farmer’s Income No attempt is made in this connection to measure all of the factors which influence the farmer’s income. The- data available are not ade- qua-te. The attempt here is to show the direction of the relationship, that is, which factor influences the other and whether the effect is negative or positive. Is the influence significant, and if so, what advantage can be taken of it by the farmer? , Twenty-two relationshipsi‘, eight for owners, and seven each for the two tenant groups have been calculated from data collected in an attempt to indicate an answer to the above question. This information may be more clearly presented in the form of a diagram. It is thought that one diagram, that for owners, is sufficient since there is a striking similarity in all groups for the same factor. The only exception to this is the incon- sistently high correlation of size in acres to the net income per acre among half-and-half operators. I see no apparent reason why this should be. There is a possible explanation in the small size of the number of ob- servations. In diagram Figure 39 a triangular relationship of net income per farmer, size of farm in acres, and net income per acre is shown. From this it will be observed that size has a positive, not high, but a significant relation to the net income of farmers interviewed. It does indicate that the chances of increasing the farm income lie in the direction of increased farm acreage, rather than reduction of acreage. And even *Table 2A appendix. AGRICULTURAL ECONOMIC SURVEY OF ROCKWALL COUNTY 115 FIGURE 39 50/115 64C T0R5 TH/l T //vF/_ I/ENCE THE FARMERS N57 nvca/wi (0 W/VEF? 6) NE T M/COME PE R FARMEF? 6/25 - ACRES A/r: 13/1; i; .051 6 A/E T 01/60/145 PEI? FARM PER AcIRE :0 ll _l i» . .1” 7/540 0F U” T NVfSTMEA/T w l § Pffl/m/VENT <~ coTTo/vffn ACRE MPROVEMENN #405 or LAA/o uRRE/vTH/Pi/vsc P£R ACRE PH? ACRE though it be true that size represents a range of possibilities, possibilities for losing and possibilities of gaining, it remains equally true that the chances for large incomes are better -with an increase in size. On this basis it would be safe to recommend an increase in size of farms in so far as managerial ability will permit. The possibility of changing the factors discussed should be kept in mind. The element of size may be a highly fixed factor and more espec- ially so for the owner group. Whether significant, or not, the degree of correlation is higher for the third-and-fourthi‘ group than for the owner, and considerably higher for the half-and-half than for the third-and-fourth group. This would seem to indicate that the tenant has a better oppor- tunity of matching his ability and equipment with a correct amount of land than does the owner. In the case of the half-and-half operator a con- scious effort is made on the part of the owner to furnish him with a suit- able number of acres to be associated with the teams and tools used. A second important factor having a high relation to the net income per farmer is the net income per acre. The influence Qf this factor is much more intense than that of size. The question naturally arises as to the in- fluence of size on this factor. The relationship is shown to be very small, certainly not significant. This can be interpreted to mean that size and *See Table 2A appendix. 116 BULLETIN NO. 327 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION net income per acre are related to the net income per farmer almost en- tirely independently of each other. On this assumption let us inquire through which does the farmer have his greatest opportunity of influence. Which factor furnishes the greatest possibility of human control? Size, as has already been observed, is highly fixed for any one year and for a long period of time may show very little variation. With net income per acre, however, it is different. Net income per acre is the composite of a great many influences. Most of these respond readily to human control and for this reason offer ample opportunity for the operator to give expression to his ingenuity and abil- ity as a farmer. The factors considered in this connection are: yield of lint cotton per acre, the value of land per acre, investment in permanent improvements, and current expenses per acre. The yield of lint cotton is taken because cotton is the main money crop for this area. The correlation noted here is positive and high enough to be significant. It means that, for the farms considered, a high yield of lint cotton per acre is generally associated with a high net income per acre and from what has gone before that a high net income per acre is closely re- lated to a high net income per farmer. This relationship has a practical bearing for the farmer. Out of it comes both his problem and opportunity of economically increasing his yield of lint cotton per acre. How can it be done? How can the farmer take advantage of this very apparent relation- ship? A number of possibilities may be suggested. The big problem of soil improvement is immediately involved, and includes such possibilities as terracing, ditching, draining, fertilizing and the growing of leguminous crops, or any other practices which will build and maintain soil fertility. It is in this connection that good cultural methods find their greatest ex- pression. The importance of selecting and developing a high yielding va- riety both for quality and quantity should not be neglected. For example, if a grower can by a change of variety get the same amount of lint, but a longer staple, he may thereby materially increase his net income per acre. As stated, at the beginning of this brief discussion on net income corre- lations, no attempt has been made to account for all the factors involved. Aside from the factors which influence the efficient growing of crops, the net income per acre and ultimately that per farmer would be modified by the system of marketing employed. More data are necessary for measuring this factor. This brief treatment will be considered Well Worth while, if it conveys the idea that some factors influence the income of the farmer a great deal more than others, and not only this, but that of the factors most closely correlated some are much more subject to the farmer’s control than others. A much more complete development of this idea can be attained when data based on detailed records and accounts are available. AGRICULTURAL ECONOMIC SURVEY OF ROCKWALL COUNTY 117 CHAPTER X MARKETING FARM PRODUCTS SOME FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES Before attempting to present the local marketing situation of the area studied a brief statement of some of the fundamentals of any system of marketing farm products will be offered. Attention has already been called to the possibility of the farmer’s increasing his income through efficient marketing. This follows from the fact that marketing is the process through which farm products are con- verted into farm price. It is the economic mechanism through which phys- ical products must pass in order to have them transformed into money value. The final result or value realized is conditioned very largely by the na- ture and quality of the product, the kind of machine used, and the effi- ciency with which it is run. No machine however skilfully handled, can turn out its best product from inferior raw material. Neither can the most perfect marketing system with the best management possible ac- complish its best results without the most suitable product both as to quantity and quality. To furnish this is the primary function and indi- vidual problem of the grower. No less care and judgment should be ex- ercised in the selection of a marketing machine, and especially should those types which are antiquated, clumsy, and wasteful be avoided. And finally if this machine is to function properly and do the work for which it was designed, it must be intelligently run. It is very essential that farmers both individually and as groups un- derstand that in order to take advantage of any economies to be realized in marketing certain services must be rendered. It costs something to render these services. It costs in time, equipment, and brains. Such invest- ments involve risk and responsibility; in fact, the entire economic basis of marketing is involved, and those who offer to render such services should be familiar with this basis, since in it the possibilities and limitations of any improvement through marketing are fixed. These services may be thought of abstractly as the creation of certain utilities or values, such as form, place, time, and possession. In other words, a commodity must be in the desired form, at the proper time and place, and in the possession of those whose demand is keenest for it if the best possible price is to be secured. These values are created by performing certain concrete services*, such as assembling, grading and standardizing, packaging, processing, stor- ing, transporting, financing, distributing, and risk-taking. The significant fact to be kept in mind is that these services begin with the grower and end with the ultimate consumer and must be rendered regardless of how or by whom they are done. Farmers may come together and do them for them- selves and turn back to their business any profits made or sustain any losses suffered. Some one has said of the farmer that he plows in hope, ‘Macklin Theodore, “Efficient Marketing for Agriculture," Chapter l'I. 118 BULLETIN NO. 327 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION plants in faith, harvests in prayer, and markets by accident. Whatever this means, we do‘ know that the great majority of farmers turn over the problem of merchandising farm products pretty largely to a third group -—the middleman. The responsibility, authority, and control of the farmer with regard to his product end at this point and even though he felt ever so keenly the need of improvement he is in a weak position to exert an influence so long as the job of marketing is turned over to an outside party. Whatever the system of marketing farm products employed, the in- terests of two large groups are involved, the producer and consumer. It should be the aim of the marketing mechanism, within the bounds of phys- ical and economic limitations, to create an orderly, unobstructed flow of commodities from the one group to the other. The greatest reward such a system may hope for is the margin determined by the economic and not the manipulated forced action of the law of supply and demand. The ideal aimed at is to so adjust the program of production to that of demand that excessive losses and undue fluctuations will be avoided. The movement of products from the farm to the consumer might be thought of as forming an immense stream with many ramifications. Under the prevailing system the flow of this stream is regulated by a third party, the middleman. His services are necessary, but too often his practices are hard to justify. There is a temptation to construct a dam across some of the branches feeding this stream or even divert a portion of the main stream, producing a temporary scarcity and creating an artificial demand. The best interests and greatest welfare of both producer and consumer require that the channel be kept open and that the flow of this stream be kept steady, feeding the market, neither starving nor flooding it. False and impossible hopes are too often heldiout to the farmer from various sources. Quite often the office seeker is extravagant in his promises when soliciting the farmer's support; likewise some of our farmers’ organizations have been anything but pessimistic in their effort to induce the farmer to sign on the dotted line. It is not unusual to hear a speaker proclaim that the farmer is entitled to the cost of pro- duction plus a reasonable profit. To make an income ‘sufficiently large to cover all costs of production and have a reasonable profit left is a laud- able ambition for any farmer, but it is ridiculous to attempt to fix or force a price which will do this for all farmers. Such a philosophy is monopolistic and economically unsound. Instead of bringing the farmer nearer the real solution of his problems it gets him farther away. The more hopeful and possible attitude is that the farmer is entitled to any price he wins through his superior organization both for the growing and merchandising of his product. In this connection it is very much worth his while to know his production costs in so far as he is able to calculate them. Such knowledge should serve him not as a basis for price fixing, but as a basis for more efficient production. At this point it is well to remember that all production is called into existence through the demand of the consumer expressed in price. No amount of economy and effi- AGRICULTURAL ECONOMIC SURVEY OF ROCKWALL COUNTY 119 ciency in either growing or marketing, or both, will guarantee a profit to the farmer if this demand is badly overestimated. It is still worse when favor- able natural conditions combine to aggravate the situation by giving a bumper crop. N0 successful scheme has thus far been perfected whereby the depressing influence on price of a surplus product can be avoided. Nor has there been any way discovered whereby the consumer can be made to take and pay for more of a thing than he wants at a given price. Such a de- vice would be a panacea for all of our economic ills. Cotton is the chief source of income for the farmers not only of Rockwall County, but of the entire blackland belt. The extent to which this is true is indicated by the survey, in which it is revealed that almost 90 per cent of the total gross receipts are from the sale of cotton and cotton seed. This means that marketing for these farmers is limited very largely to that of cotton. Poultry and dairy products, and especially poultry, are sufficiently large to require special attention. This means that the problem of marketing in this region is more simple than in those areas of general farming where a considerable variety of products is put on the market. Cotton is a product for which there is a world-wide demand and market. It is classified as non-perihsable and does not require any very technical processing before entering the main channels of commerce. The grades are very well fixed and standardized. It is not subject to extreme or very wide local fluctuations in price. The more recent trend has been to make its handling more direct and at the same time to standardize the practices. These facts evidently help to ex- plain the reluctance on the part of cotton growers to unite in a cooperative eifort for improving their marketing situation. The absolute necessity has not and does not exist in this crop as it does in the case of those which are more perishable, more limited both as to time and place. This does not argue, however, that in the marketing of cotton the farmer's opportunity for improvement is small. There is ample room for improve- ment provided farmers as agroup arewilling to pay the“ price and take the risk and responsibility. ~ - » i- LOCAL COTTON MARKETING SITUATION FOR ROCKWALL COUNTY In this survey an attempt was made to secure data as to where, how, to whom, and when cotton was sold; also the nature, volume, and costs of the concrete services rendered by the farmer in preparing his cotton for the local market. Among these services have been included such items as picking, hauling to the gin, ginning, hauling to the market, weighing and yardage, and insurance. Iniaddition to these inquiries growers were asked to offer suggestions as to improvements which they thought might and should be made in the marketing of cotton. It is thought worth while to give the findings in considerable detail since the conditions and practices of this area are taken as representative and typical of the blackland belt, and in some particulars of a much wider range. 12Q BULLETIN NO. 327 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Where Cotton is Sold Locally The answer to the question as t0 where farmers sell their cotton is very well indicated by the accompanying Table 43. It will be seen at once that the great majority sell on the street. The term might be mislead- ing to those not familiar with the practice which it is designed to cover. There was a time when it was the common practice for the grower to drive his bale of cotton from the gin on to the street Where local buyers took samples and made bids for the cotton. This custom still prevails to a limited extent at some local points. Selling on‘ the street as here used refers to the general practice of growers in this section who haul their cotton to the yard, have it weighed, secure a sample, and carry this sample to the local buyer or buyers whether it be on the street or in an office. A few farmers ‘sold at the gin. In such cases it was often purchased by the ginner. The absence of warehouses or rather the failure to use them is clearly shown. Figure 40. Local cotton yard. TABLE 43 Where Cotton is Sold by Farmers I Number Place | Selling Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 496 _ I Gm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l 41 Street . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .l 438 Warehouse . . . . . . . . . . . .l 2 Street and Gin . . . . . . . . l4 I Street and Warehouse. . AGRICULTURAL ECONOMIC SURVEY OF ROCKWALL COUNTY 121 Basis on Which Cotton is Sold The attempt here is made to find out on what basis the farmer makes his sales. D0 the majority of them sell on the basis of merit as expressed by the grade and staple of their cotton or for a flat price offered by the local buyer. As a result of this inquiry it was found that 461 used sam- ples, 224 had their cotton graded, and in the case of 94 the staple was taken into consideration. The growers who belonged to the Farm Labor Union had their cotton graded by their local grader-salesman. A great many, in fact the big majority of growers, confess that they do not know _ how to class and staple their cotton. It is easy to see that the seller is at a decided disadvantage if he does not know the grade and price of the product he is oifering for sale. TABLE 44 Basis on Which Farmers Sell Cotton HOW Sold Number of Answers Total ....." . . . . . . . . . . .. 435 Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244 Grade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Sample, Staple . . . . . . . 22 Sample, Grade . . . . . . . . .| 1240 Grade, Staple . . . .' . . . . . 17 To Whom Sold All of the farmers visited with the exception of one sold either through private local buyer or a local cooperative agency. Out of 497 reporting, 400 sold exclusively through local buyers, 63 sold to local buyers and through their local cooperative agency, and 34 sold through the cooperative alone. Rockwall County is hardly typical in this respect. It is known TABLE 45 To Whom Farmers Sell Their Cotton Sold to Number of Farmers Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 497 I Local Buyer Exclusively. . . . . . .I 400 I Local Buyer and Cooperative. . .| 63 I Cooperative Association Only. 34 122 BULLETIN NO. 327 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION that a number of counties in the blackland belt market a considerable amount 0f their cotton through the Texas Farm Bureau Cotton Associa- tion, which is a highly centralized cooperative organization. When Farmers Sell T-heir Cotton It is very generally known that under the prevailing method of mar- keting the farmer sells his cotton along as ginned. Very little if any con- certed effort is made to distribute sales throughout the year. Quite fre- quently the obligations of the grower are such as to demand an early sale of his cotton. Table 46 given here shows the numbers out of 408 selling during the different months from August to March. And even though cotton began to move into the market as early as August and continued 5s late as March, by far the larger bulk of it moved during the months of September, October, and November. A summary of these answers shows that six farmers sold during one month, 75 over a period of two months, 266 three months, 56 four months, and 5 over a period of five months. TABLE 4s When Farmers Sell Their Cotton Month Minerals August . . . . . . . . . 35 September . . . . . . . 295 October . . . . . . . . . 302 November . . . . . . .' 226 December . . . . . . . 52 January . . . . . . . . .'I 14 February . . . . . . . . 0 March . . . . . . . . . . 1 Nature and Cost of Marketing Services Rendered Locally by the Grower There are a number of services rendered by the grower in preparing his cotton for the market. Such services are rendered almost exclusively by the grower whether he sells in the local or a more distant market. They are: picking, weighing in the field, hauling to gin, ginning, hauling to market, weighing and yardage, grading and selling, and insuring. Such services as picking, weighing in the field, and hauling to the gin have been included since they are more closely associated with marketing than with the growing of the crop. From diagram Figure 41 and accompanying data, definite informa- tion is given as to the volume of service for each item, the total cost, cost for each service, and the cost per pound for each service. In the case of picking, only that cotton which the farmer hired picked was considered. AGRICULTURAL ECONOMIC SURVEY OF ROCKWALL COUNTY 123 FIGURE 41 C057 0F LOCAL M/lH/(E 7'//V6 SLIRV/CLTS COMP/IRE!) C f/V 7'5 P51‘? POUND O 1% / 3 4 5 T0 7Z4L C05 T P/C/U/V6 HAL/L M/6 7' 0 G/A/ G/A/N/NG OT/IL 605T fi/fll/L //V6 7'0 Mflq/Tfi T 85 GRADING 8 SELL/NE Wf/Gf/l/YG 8r YARDAGE ‘WE/GH/NG l/V F/fLD l/VSURANCE All of the cotton grown was considered in hauling to the gin, while in ginning only that paid for by the grower was taken into account. A rel- atively small amount of the cotton had grading and selling charges. This item is accounted for by the members of the Farm Labor Union, who paid a flat rate per bale for the services of their local grader-salesman. Very little cotton had a separate charge for Weighing, in the field and very few farmers insured their cotton. As has already been pointed out the greater FIGURE 42 6W7‘ 0F SERV/GES RENDERED /N PREP/IRI/Vé éflTTfi/V FOR THE MARKET PER 651V?’ 50 TOTAL 606T P/CK/N6 HAL/LING 7'0 G/N 6/N/V/N6 HAL/LING 7'0 NflRKET eR/J D/Né ANO SELL IN6 | ' s rm/I/rr HP """"" '"" T0741. aosr [R 54w ll_ML= l] 7am 9n /gg P/6K/N6 85, 23.9.28 6L8? WE/6H/N6 A N0 VA RDAGE‘ u rmuz. mas 7'0 60v / a, 741*. 35 /J.5.9 ‘6/NN/N6 27,227.47 /.9. 75 fWUL/A/é 70 MARKET 2,608.92 L39 wz/aH/Na l/V F/EL 0 amp/M AND JEL u/vé /, 045.05 . 76 WE/GH/lw/IND YARDAGE Z, 6 95. 3.9 1.96 ‘WE/GHI/Vé IN F/fLfi 44150 .03 HVJUR/A/g _ I940} .14 124 BULLETIN NO. 327 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION part of the cotton was sold along as ginned and since the farmer is not holding the cotton there would be no need of his going to the expense of in- suring. Insurance would come high because of the lack of adequate ware- housing facilities. A comparative cost of the different services rendered is emphasized by diagram Figure 42. Picking is by far the largest single item of cost among those studied, while hauling to the gin and ginning are the two next highest. These three make up the greater part of the total cost of the local marketing services rendered by the farmer. Suggestions for Improvements in Marketing Made by Farmers The farmers interviewed were asked to make suggestions for im- provements which might be made in the marketing of cotton. The replies were varied and interesting. Some were satisfied with the present situation, others did not know, a great many felt that something should be done but Figure 43. Local cotton gin an important step in the preparation of cotton for the market. had not given the matter enough thought to enable them to make definite recommendations, while 222 offered definite suggestions. Of these, 169 thought that some form of cooperative marketing whereby selling would be made more direct would help, 42 mentioned the need of some system of official grading, while 11, were of the opinion that some method of price fixing either by farmers or by governmental control should be established. It is very apparent that this group of farmers were giving thought to their problem of marketing, much more, no doubt, than their suggestions indicate, but it is equally apparent that they have come to no common agreement as to what should be done. AGRICULTURAL ECONOMIC SURVEY OF ROCKWALL COUNTY 125 COOPERATIVE MARKETING OF COTTON This chapter would be incomplete without some word on cooperative marketing. Much has already been said on this subject and the writer has no desire to merely add to what has been said. He feels that a great deal must still be said and much more done before the real spirit and phi- losophy of cooperative marketing is understood and accepted universally among farmers. It should not depend on propaganda methods of organ- izing; in fact, it cannot exist for a very long while on such methods. There should be good sound economic reasons as the basis for all cooperative marketing activities. In a system of private marketing as has been described for this area, the farmer relies, must necessarily rely upon the other person. He him- self is not in, and a part of the system; therefore, he is in no position, even though he has the desire, to improve his marketing conditions. He has no responsibility, no authority, no control—hence is practically helpless. The question is, how can he become responsible, gain authority, and assume con- trol in the merchandising of the product which he has grown. Successful cooperative marketing should furnish this opportunity. Through it the farmer becomes responsible individually and as a group. Through it he gains authority and assumes control. He becomes responsible for doing his own business and knows where to place the blame when not satisfied with the results obtained. Along with this responsibility, authority, and control is the obligation to perform the services undertaken as well or better than if done by some other group. In order to get into the game and do marketing, the farmer must get into possession of the machinery of marketing. And not only this,-he must know how to run the machine once it is in his possession. This involves the need of capital, intelligence, experience, training, and information. A cooperative marketing system, however perfect, can serve the farmer only in so far as he is able to use it. If not intelligently managed it may become a liability instead of an asset. Benefits of Cooperative Marketing At best what can cooperative marketing accomplish for a group of farmers‘? Too often it has been advocated as a panacea for all the farmer’s ills, as the only way out of the woods. The farmer who becomes a member of a cooperative marketing association with this idea in mind is likely to be disappointed and become dissatisfied. For this reason it is very essential that he have pretty definitely in mind the benefits which may be expected from a successful cooperative marketing association. The benefits of successful cooperative marketing in cotton may be grouped under two main heads: (a) immediate, or tangible, and (b) ulti- mate or less tangible benefits. These groups may be best illustrated by a brief statement of the benefits included under each. First of all, it is very apparent that cooperatively owned and operated associations give profits, if there be any, to those who own and operate 126 BULLETIN NO. 327 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION them. It is well to observe, however, that profits are not always what the public thinks them to be. It is not unusual for the grower to note the wide difference between the price he receives. for his product and that paid by the consumer and hastily conclude that through cooperative effort this wide margin, or much of it, can be turned back to him as profit in the form of an increased price for his product. This may be a confusion of gross and net profits. In this the grower needs to know the nature and the cost of the services which must be met in the marketing of his crop whether done- by private or cooperative agencies. It means that his outlook and vision need to be broadened on the complete movement of products from the grower to the consumer. ' A second immediate benefit of successful cooperative marketing is a reduction of marketing costs. These costs may be reduced by increasing the volume of business, by making marketing mechanism more efficient in the services which it renders, or by both. A third and very apparent benefit is that which comes through an im- provement of services. Specifically these are realized through the develop- ment and standardization of grades, selling on the merit of the proudct, elimination of the speculative motive, by risk spreading, etc. Some of the ultimate ‘or tangible benefits incident to successful coop- erative marketing may be enumerated as the readjustment of production, creating confidence in the marketing system, finding and developing leaders, and enlarging the conception of agriculture. Briefly, a readjustment of production is an organized recognition of marketing conditions and an at- tempt to direct production accordingly. Confidence in the marketing sys- tem is evidenced by a belief in it and a strong conviction that the prices secured by it are the best possible under the conditions. It appreciates’ the fact that what is put into the marketing machine determines very largely what is to be gotten out of it. Leadership is found and developed through team work, through a democratic policy which is positive and con- structive in content. Successful cooperative marketing enlarges the con- ception and expands the field of agriculture for the farmer. Farming to him is no longer the mere growing of products but includes also the mer- chandising of these products. It gives greater challenge to his ingenuity and ability by increasing his responsibility, authority, and control in the industry. Risk Spreading Risk-spreading is a feature in cooperative marketing which should be better understood. The opportunity will be taken here to_ illustrate the advantages of risk-spreading in the marketing of cotton. The term may be roughly defined as a process of averaging and pooling. It raises the specific question, would the farmer’s chances of getting a higher price for his cotton be increased if sold throughout the year instead of during two or three months? Would it be better for the grower if a part of his cotton went onto the market 300 days out of the year instead of all of it going onto the market during a very limited number of days? By way of illus- AGRICULTURAL ECONOMIC SURVEY OF ROCKWALL COUNTY 12"] PIR(I/Yf all II W H 17E M )0 6 Z I K Q Y! f’ é I , \ ) \ i l _ _§,=.- \ \\ \\ ' g \ ‘ E \\ A / g Q ‘k \ i? ,\ X f? /'1 1‘ __\_ _ _ _, } >14 “l R . i? i / i \ k ‘X 3*» éég \ 5 g 3:; \ \ / ma," w. “l? $1545 \ \ ‘g Eé ~13 D % 2 m F‘ \ i’ fA/VS COTTU/V / - vfllh SEASONAL TRF/Vfi 0F THF VALUE 0F A BALE 0F 60TTO/V (mm NEl/V0-- _““' TA“ _‘"“"_‘ ‘l; \ \ a ' l \ I _ I \ é A lL/é Pffi eta/v J1 1w 9o ma - 70 40 15o r40 uo 120 c u v a 7a u tration the monthly value of a bale of cotton, upland middling, has been compared with its yearly average for the period from 1909 to 1922 in- clusive. This comparison is graphically portrayed in Figure 44. In this the heavy solid line at 100 is the average for the year whatever it happens to be. The lighter solid lines show the relation of the value for each month to the average for that year. The heavy dotted line indicates the trend for the entire period When an average of the monthly percentages is con- sidered. The year 1920 was left out of this average since it may easily be considered as abnormal and for this reason would exert an undue in- fiuence on the trend for the entire period. a 126 BULLETIN NO. 327 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION them. It is well to observe, however, that profits are not always what the public thinks them to be. It is not unusual for the grower to note the wide difference between the price he receives. for his product and that paid by the consumer and hastily conclude that through cooperative effort this wide margin, or much of it, can be turned back to him as profit in the form of an increased price for his product. This may be a confusion of gross and net profits. In this the grower needs to know the nature and the cost of the services which must be met in the marketing of his crop whether done- by private or cooperative agencies. It means that his outlook and vision need to be broadened on the complete movement of products from the grower to the consumer. ' A second immediate benefit of successful cooperative marketing is a reduction of marketing costs. These costs may be reduced by increasing the volume of business, by making marketing mechanism more efficient in the services which it renders, or by both. A third and very apparent benefit is that which comes through an im- provement of services. Specifically these are realized through the develop- ment and standardization of grades, selling on the merit of the proudct, elimination of the speculative motive, by risk spreading, etc. Some of the ultimate or tangible benefits incident to successful coop- erative marketing may be enumerated as the readjustment of production, creating confidence in the marketing system, finding and developing leaders, and enlarging the conception of agriculture. Briefly, a readjustment of production is an organized recognition of marketing conditions and an at- tempt to direct production accordingly. Confidence in the marketing sys- tem is evidenced by a belief in it and a strong conviction that the prices secured by it are the best possible under the conditions. It appreciates the fact that what is put into the marketing machine determines very largely what is to be gotten out of it. Leadership is found and developed through team work, through a democratic policy which is positive and con- structive in content. Successful cooperative marketing enlarges the con- ception and expands the field of agriculture for the farmer. Farming to him is no longer the mere growing of products but includes also the mer- chandising of these products. It gives greater challenge to his ingenuity and ability by increasing his responsibility, authority, and control in the industry. Risk Spreading Risk-spreading is a feature in cooperative marketing which should be better understood. The opportunity will be taken here to illustrate the advantages of risk-spreading in the marketing of cotton. The term may be roughly defined as a process of averaging and pooling. It raises the specific question, would the farmer’s chances of getting a higher price for his cotton be increased if sold throughout the year instead of during two or three months? Would it be better for the grower if a part of his cotton went onto the market 300 days out of the year instead of all of it going onto the market during a very limited number of days? By way of illus- AGRICULTURAL ECONOMIC SURVEY OF ROCKWALL COUNTY 12"] WRLIN? k 8 Q i ° * i ~ z ~ * * s 3 5 f\ s s Q a g s 3 t m‘ ‘s 2 C? ‘*4 I . E1 k1 E m E i. ‘E w ’ Y g QQW _, ‘w; sis pg m L9‘? n: EWI 7-‘ ‘(g E >m§ é in W“g E \> W ‘J ‘s i ‘ g L“. Q’ é § g '\ u, i ‘Y, 2 5. E \ ‘k L3 Q v» \ \ l l ‘>-\ § PER c§~J$ ma 19o u 70 a0 15a 1M 1J0 /20 c a 2c u tration the monthly value of a bale of cotton, upland middling, has been compared with its yearly average for the period from 1909 to 1922 in- clusive. This comparison is graphically portrayed in Figure 44. In this the heavy solid line at 100 is the average for the year whatever it happens to be. The lighter solid lines show the relation of the value for each month to the average for that year. The heavy dotted line indicates the trend for the entire period when an average of the monthly percentages is con- sidered. The year 1920 was left out of this average since it may easily be considered as abnormal and for this reason would exert an undue in- fiuence on the trend for the entire period. 3 128 BULLETIN NO. 327 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Xwuxxhz‘) mmmvkmvm Q \ QNQEM>QQ mQTWWQK UQ N. mmmthkmmw Q m< $\ W Q h. L / Q\ / m? QN mm- __ 3 III+II _ w _ Qéwmfi 5:55 m? M .... J qéuen wmrébyv» . A _ _ Q‘ . A 1 :I||f.ir::Fiisiisl ._ L wswéwu Wlk kg L M“ E IIIL 3» swuwmfi “Gk v5, Qwk§6” 3 ikwQ _ m NM? 1 vs? L QMQGMQw hud xm W m _\<\Qm \k\<\w \<_&.k k mu 16 mm wk émuqmk m 2. HgUFm AGRICULTURAL ECONOMIC SURVEY ‘OF ROCKWALL COUNTY 1-29 It is at once apparent that for the majority of years in the period taken that the price for the months of August, September, and October is below the average for the year; this trend is more readily seen if the average for each month during the entire period is considerd. In which case the price for August, September, and October falls below the average for the year, while for the remaining months the price is higher than the yearly average and gradually increases. Going back then to the question raised above, the answer is at once apparent, at least in so far as the data offered are adequate. Evidently the grower’s chance for obtaining a better price for his cotton would be increased if it were sold so as to give him the-ben- efit of the average price for the year. The question of what it would cost him to take advantage of this opportunity immediately arises. No at- tempt is made to say what it costs to market cotton. The costs and mar- gins in cotton marketing would make an excellent study for research. We know in a general way that such costs vary greatly depending upon the efiiciency with which the services are rendered. It is very generally known that by far the greater part of the cotton crop is put on the market by the grower along as it is ginned. The na- ture of this movement is well illustrated by Figure 45, in which the per- centage of cotton ginned between specified dates is given. At a glance it is observed that the greater part of the crop, not less than four-fifths, is ginned by November 1. Comparing this with Figure 44, it is very evident that the cotton farmer is putting most of his product on the market at the time when he is likely to get the least price for it. Under such a FIGURE 46 .76‘ 50 gnaw 7/16 y N0 VEMF/YT w an; £6 I323 — INTO 0U?‘ 0 ' 1.954 ‘ ' uuc 532 x66 A06 /5,6x6 .2, mo sz/r 440/6 6/19 067' 44, 2/ 7 9,32 a /v0v 15, 2 07 .29, 059 40 ‘O fi m 666 7,760 4.502 i” E Q " 4.4m 4,507 6,920 g LL r66 926 8,356 ‘l s m»? 523 mp6s g g APR 4o 13,426 5 2 NA)’ l4, 00a g g "’ 6339 if‘? g Q q k E //////6 § ‘I. I x Q 1 " s s \ \ -- _ s x s m aux. AUG srflr oar NOV 0E6 JAN FEB rum APR m AvER/Jaf NO/WHLY Nm/ENF/VT 0F COTTON INTO AND 01/7" 0F WARF — H0055 fiAn/flLffi 6y THE TEXAS FARM BUREAU 6077b” ASSOC/AT ION I982 - A924 // ///////////////////// $- //////// 1 ///// aw ‘< (Solid barzmovement into warehouse) (Cross hatch z movement out of warehouse) 130 BULLETIN NO. 327 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION system his bargaining power must necessarily be weak and his opportunity for merchandising practically nil. It is felt that this weakness may be remedied through sound coop- erative effort. The result of the policy pursued by the Texas Farm Bureau Cotton Association for the seasons 1922-23 and 1923-24 is a good ex- ample of a cooperative marketing association which is spreading the risk over the entire year and attempting to give the grower the benefit of the average price for the year instead of that received under the prevailing method where sold over a relatively short period of time. This is con- cretely illustrated by Figure 46, which compares the average monthly move- ment of cotton into and out of the warehouse. From this the peak of receipts is very much in evidence and in sharp contrast with it is the more regular and extended movement of cotton out of the warehouse as indi- cated by actual bales sold. It is not argued, however, that a fixed amount of cotton should be sold each month in an effort to spread the risk. The amount offered should necessarily be governed by the facts of supply and demand, and economic conditions in general. AGRICULTURAL ECONOMIC SURVEY OF ROCKWALL COUNTY 131 CHAPTER XI LAND TENURE The question of land tenure becomes more and more vital as our popu- lation increases and good farm land becomes more scarce and higher-priced. Year by year it becomes increasingly difficult for one to climb the ladder of tenancy to ownership. This means that the problems of land tenure are intensified and present a greater demand for an impartial, accurate, and careful analysis and intrepretation. Unfortunately this is a subject which lends itself admirably to the use of generalities unhampered by facts, and too often conclusions reached are highly colored by sentimental bias. The brief treatment offered here hopes to avoid such elements of weakness in so far as is possible. It seeks to know what the situation is, how it came to be, and what, if anything, may be done about it. This inquiry is not concerned with the general aspects of land tenure, but deals more particu- larly with the economic aspects as related to the blackland belt of Texas, and specially with the facts as exhibited by the 500 farm schedules taken in Rockwall County. Those who wish to become better informed on the broader aspects of the subject and especially on that of farm tenancy will find that much has already been written. Dr. W. B. Bizzell in his “Farm Tenantry in the United-States“ has given an able treatment of the subject. His is a study of the historical de- velopment of farm tenancy and its economic and social consequences on rural welfare with special emphasis on conditions in the South and South- west. Dr. B. H. Hibbard, Department of Agricultural Economics, Uni- versity of Wisconsin, has a very keen appreciation of the tenancy situation in the United States. One would do well to read his articles, “Tenancyin the Southern States,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, Volume 76, No. 70-9, April 1917, and “Tenancy in the Southern States," Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1913, Volume 27, page 482-496. SYST-EMS OF TENURE The systems of tenure encountered in this survey divide themselves into two large groups, that of ownership, and that of tenancy. A third, but smaller group will be designated as partnership arrangements. This group is essentially that of ownership. For the purposes of a more de- tailed analysis the ownership and tenancy groups will be subdivided; owner- ship into owners and part-owners, and tenancy into third-and-fourth, and half-and-half tenants. Of the 500 farms here included, 118 were operated by owners, 42 by part-owners, 5 by a partnership arrangement, 262 by third-and-fourth, and 73 by half-and-half tenants. Systems of Tenure Defined Before taking up the more specific terms employed in the survey it is ‘Dr. W. B. Bizzell, "Farm Tenantry in the United States,” Bulletin No. 278, Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, College Station, Texas. 132 BULLETIN NO. 327 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION thought well to have in mind a working definition at least of such gen- eral terms as land tenure, tenancy, and tenantry. N0 fine distinctions will be drawn. Land tenure will be defined as the system by which land is occupied and operated. Tenancy is the system by which land is occupied and operated by persons other than the owners. It is commonly known as a system of renting, and refers here to the renting of land for agricultural purposes. Tenantry refers to the people in a system of tenancy, the tenant. The specific terms used are, and will be defined as follows: The owner system of land tenure is that in which the farm is owned and operated by the owner. The part-owner is a system wherein the owner rents and operates as a unit additional land to that owned. Partnership is a system in which the operator furnishes his own labor and management and one-half of the work animals, productive livestock, tools, feed, and extra labor. All products grown are shared equally. ‘The third-and-fourth is a system in which all of the land operated is rent- ed on the share basis of one-third of the grain and one-fourth of the cotton grown. In this system the owner of the land furnishesthe land and per- manent improvements, while the operator furnishes the teams, tools, labor, and most of the supervision. There exists in practice slight modifications of this system. For example, a tenant who plants a few acres in sudan or sorghum for hay often pays a cash rent per acre instead of a share of the crop. This is quite common in the case of absentee owners. In a few cases a cash rent is paid for pasture land, especially when there are several acres of pasture in the farm. The half-and-half system is that in which the operator rents both land and equipment. The land, teams, feed for the teams, and tools are furnished against the labor and such managerial ability as the tenant may possess. As a rule the products grown are shared equally. Here as in the third-and- fourth system slight modifications exist in practice. In a few cases the owner received all of the cotton seed and one-half of the lint cotton. Greater restrictions as to livestock kept and crops grown is exercised by the owner. This group of tenants is recognized by the U. S. Census as croppers, defined as share tenants who do not furnish their work animals. Such a consideration does not distinguish between half-and-half tenants who operated independently and those who share the crop from a few acres of cotton and receive cash wages for the major part of their labor and the labor of their family. It is felt that such a distinction is necessary and im- portant especially for this area where the half-and-half system forms a dis- tinct and significant group and seems to be increasing. Historical Trend of Tenancy Figure 47, in which the relative trend of tenancy is shown for Texas, the blackland belt, and Rockwall County for a period of 40 years reveals some very interesting features. It will be readily observed that the per AGRICULTURAL ECONOMIC SURVEY OF ROCKYVALL COUNTY 133 FIGURE 47 TREND or TEN/INC)’ m TEX/I s, m: BL/Ié/(LA/Vfl BEL T, ANfl ROCKWALL aou/vry, I880 - xazo” PERce/vrgc g5 PIRHEWT —-'—T£'XAO‘ ’°" —=<—a1..nc/ moo vW/YER 2,5 7a. 5.; a 7 _ ,0 PART-OWNER 1.2.5.2 04 as MRTA/ERJH/P .312 4- 7 .35 he; 1.1.04": fawn‘. ass: .35 as l1 03 - ~93 7 4 500 Z0 tcitants, but noticeably’ low for the half-and-half group. This would seem to indicate ‘that the owner groups make no better _use of their land and equipment than the tenant groups; in fact, they may not use them as- efficiently. 142 BULLETIN NO. 327 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION More light, and from a somewhat different angle, is thrown on the question of the relative efficiency of tenure groups when the production per farm is taken as a unit of comparison. In Figure 52 the average value“‘ of all products per group and the average crop acreage per group are graphed. This shows the part-owner group to stand highest in the pro- duction of value, relative to actual crop acreage. The partnership group is lowest. The owner and the third-and-fourth groups are about on a par, while the half-and-half group is relatively higher than all groups with the exception of the part-owner group. This again seems to substantiate the conclusion just reached that the tenant groups are just as efficient in production as are the owner groups. What Is to Be Done About Tenancy? Evidently the first thing to be done about tenancy in Texas and par- ticularly in the blackland belt, is to become intelligent to it. An important step in this direction is to divorce and isolate the problem in so far as pos- sible from the propaganda of political and social reformers. Bring it down from the heights of rhetoric and the rarified atmosphere of generalities to the earth and consider it in the light of what is actually happening in daily life. Tenancy is not an institution to become alarmed about. It is a na- tural product of our system of private ownership in land, and is peculiar to certain types of agriculture and economic conditions. Tenancy is char- acteristically high in those fertile regions well suited to an annual single- crop system. This is well illustrated by the blackland cotton farming belt. For such areas the per cent of tenancy is likely to remain high. In other words, tenancy in some form is a permanent institution and the task be- fore us is not to fight it but to understand and make the best of it. It has both good and bad features. The attitude taken here is to encourage the good features and to discourage, and in so far as possible, eliminate those which are undesirable. The aim should be to remove those obstacles which obstruct the free and full expression of the capacity of the tenant for both economic and social progress. This leads to a consideration of means and methods by which this ideal may be approached. Quite often it is proposed to legislate directly and absolutely against tenancy. Too often these proposals are nothing more than an attempt to apply a counter-irritant, which at best can do no more than give temporary relief. The ideal, however, is not an impossible one. A number of possibilities suggest themselves. One of the most practical and timely opportunities for improvement is offered through landowner-tenant relationships. The chief aim should be to develop a mutuality of interests both on the part of the owner and the ‘Quotations as of December 1, 19223 Product Market Price Cotton ... ..Dallas . . . . . . . . 24.30 Corn . . . . . ..Kansas_City .. . . .73 Oats ...-....Kansas City .42 Wheat . . . . .Kansas City . . . . 1. 19 Hay . . . . . “Local . . . . . . . . . 15.00 AGRICULTURAL ECONOMIC SURVEY OF ROCKWALL COUNTY 143, operator. Concretely such interests should find expression in soil improve- ment, crop and livestock improvement, better methods of marketing, and in fact all activities which will help to improve the farm and farm life. It is not the hope to develop a relationship which will detract from the desire of the tenant to become a farm owner. On the contrary such a re- lationship should aim to oifer ample opportunity and encouragement for the tenant farmer who is industrious and capable ultimately of becoming a landowner. Ownership should be the final goal. This should be an incentive and inspiration to the ambitious tenant to do his best. In the possibility he should find a satisfaction akin to that expressed by Browning when he said, “What I am not but aspire to be, comforts me.” Ownership is some- thing to strive for and the tenant who labors to make his rented farm like the farm he wants to own is much more likely to reach his goal. The underlying principle of the landowner-tenant relationship sug- gested here is that of a partnership, one in which the parties concerned share in the profits made on the basis of what is contributed by each. The half-and-half arrangement is thought of as a good starting point. Under this agreement the owner as first party agrees to furnish land, workstock, machinery, productive livestock, seed and material for all improvements. The operator as the second party agrees to furnish the labor for all ordi- nary farm operations and repairs. In addition he would supervise or assist in the construction of any new improvements. The products grown are to be shared equally. The opportunity should be provided in the agree- ment for the operator to furnish a part of the workstock, productive live- stock and machinery, and thereby increase his opportunity of increasing his income. In case the operator furnishes half of all livestock, ma- chinery and supplies then his share should be increased to about three-fifths of the products grown. Where the operator furnishes everything then the share might well be one-fourth of the cotton and one-third of the grain and hay. The operator should have the privilege of keeping livestock; in which case he should have the use of all pasture lands, and all hay and grain fed to productive livestock should be furnishedin the ratio of two to one. All livestock and livestock products should be shared two-thirds to operator and one-third to owner. No attempt has been made to offer a detailed form of partnership agreement. Only the basis of the agreement has been suggested. The par- ticulars would best be worked out for each individual agreement. Compensation for unexhausted improvements leading to a greater security of tenure should help to lessen the objectionable social effects of tenancy. Compensation for unexhausted improvements offers opportu- nity for the tenant to turn his labor during the dull season to making cer- tain improvements on the farm which the owner may not be financially able to make. Such permanent improvements as terracing, ditching, water tanks for stock, implement sheds, and the like, might better be handled by the tenant with a definite understanding that a certain compensation will be due in case the tenant is forced to move before the end of the period at which the tenant would have used up services from the improvement 144 BULLETIN NO. 327 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION sufficient to pay for the initial labor and construction costs. For ex- -ample, it miglit be agreed that if the tenant constructed a terrace and alived on the farm for a period of 15 or 20 years no compensation would be due him. The nature of the improvement would determine very largely what period of time should be fixed. It has been claimed that the tenure of the tenant may be made more secure and consequently this element in the population be made more fixed and permanent by the employment of a longer term contract. This is rather doubtful. En-gland has a long-time tenure, but a one-year contract. Permanency and stability are to be secured through the terms of the con- tract rather than through a mere expression of time. If the terms are such that mutual benefits will be enjoyed the time element will take care of itself. Cases were found in Rockwall County where tenants had lived on the same farm for as long as 28 and 33 years. A number of proposals have been made in an effort to discourage large holdings and make the private ownership of land more universal. Among the proposals, here are a few of the more important. First, sell land to no one but farmers. This is on the face of it illegal and absurd. Second, limit the amount of land one may own. This would meet with a great deal of opposition and before it could be applied a complete classification of land would have to be made. Such a law exists in New Zealand. This country had come to have too many gentleman farmers using their large farms in an exclusive way when it was needed in a higher use. A pro- gressive tax has been advocated by some. This would be a gradual pressure which would tend to break up farms into smaller units. .It would dis- courage big estates. Big estates, however, do not account for a great part of the tenancy of the country. More than 50 per cent of the owners of rented farms own but one farm. Again it is proposed that the state should own land and take part in the handling of real estate. This is in regard to lands on the margin or unproven territory. Such lands have often been settled up too rapidly, in which case not only the farmers on these but on farms in general have suffered from an over supply of certain farm pro- ducts. The most absurd‘ and ridiculous proposal is that of land nationalization or the application of the principles of the single tax on land. This prin- ciple applied in full would mean that the value be taxed out of land and pass to the state in the form of a revenue. The right of private owner- ship would in reality be abolished and the state would become the sole landlord. It would not abolish tenancy, but make it complete, universal, and perpetual. The advocates of this reform are unanimously agreed as to its being the panacea for all ills, but they differ as to how it may be accomplished. The big problem is how to transfer land from a system of private ownership to that of public ownership. Land makes up one-half to. one-third of the value of the country. It has formed the basis of pri- vate property for thousands of years. Not only would the agricultural industry be affected but the entire industrial fabric of the nation would be upset. Mortgage loans, insurance companies, and all loan associations AGRICULTURAL ECONOMIC SURVEY OF ROCKWALL COUNTY 145 wherein land forms the principal type of security would be absolutely worthless. There was a time when the advocates of such a reform reduced the solution to absurd simplicity; in fact, too ridiculous to be seriously treated. They reasoned that the final and absolute title was with the state and that all that was necessary to be done was for the state to step in and claim its right of ownership and notify the present owner to quit. Action of this nature was justified on the claim that the original owners stole the land. They did not go to the trouble to locate the culprit. With their assumption it was immaterial since it was stolen. This method of trans- ference has been abandoned and a more modern method of gradual com- pensation offered in its stead. This it is claimed could be accomplished in a generation or two without any very serious disruption. Such reasoning is about as logical as to propose that the supports upholding a bridge may be removed so gradually that the bridge will not fall. 14G BULLETIN NO. 327 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION CHAPTER XII FARM LIFE This survey has purposely stressed the business side of farming, not altogether because this is one of its most neglected phases, but because of the ultimate effect of the economies to be made. Through better farm or- ganization and management, resulting in more efficient production, the sum total of human satisfactions derived from agriculture should be in- creased materially. A larger farm income is desired because it will enable the farm family to have more of the worth-while things of life. Not only should it mean more satisfactory arrangements for food, clothing, and shelter, but it should also give more leisure and capacity to enjoy educa- tion, music, art, literature, and recreation. Just here it is opportune to point out the need for further research. We know very little in a definite way about the goods and services furnished by the several types of agriculture. This raises the question, “What standard of life is furnished by the farms of the several types of agri- culture in the State?” In the measuring of this kind of life both phys- ical and spiritual well-being must be considered. It does not stop with the physical well-being secured through food, clothing, shelter, and equip- ment, but considers satisfactions derived through education, music, art, literature, health, and recreation. These spiritual satisfactions will nec- essarily have to be measured quantitatively by the money expended on them, and the time devoted to them. Information of this kind is not collected to satisfy an empty curiosity but to serve as a basis for a con- structive rural life program. To know where we are should help us along the way to where we want to be. Furthermore, it should serve as a stake from which future progress may be measured. Bulletin 423, “The Standard of Life in a Typical Section of Diversified Farming,” by E. L. Kirkpatrick, Cornell University, Agricultural Experiment Station, Ithaca, New York, is an illustration of this type of research. This chapter aims to give snapshot views of the farm life of the group studied. A more specific and detailed analysis will be left for fu- ture study. THE FARMSTEAD The farmstead must occupy a prominent position in any attempt to picture farm life, and the farm home must necessarily form the central figure in the group. The farmstead is roughly defined as that area occu- pied by the farm home, other farm buildings, lawn, garden, and orchard. It is not only headquarters for the family but is the point at which teams, tools, and other operating materials are assembled. Such specialized en- terprises as the home garden, orchard, and poultry are important ele- ments in this unit. The Farm Home The farm home is the central figure in the farmstead group. Its lo- cation determines pretty largely that of the other units about it. A 147 AGRICULTURAL ECONOMIC SURVEY OF ROCKWALL COUNTY -m m UHQNWW ion-on 8.3m uc 38a 4 148 BULLETIN NO. 327 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION home is peculiar to farming in a way not so of any other industry. In fact, the word “farm” to a farm folk is a synonym for home. This pro- vision for a home no doubt appeals to many and is a force which attracts and holds them on the land. Almost without exception the farm homes visited were located on or near a public highway. This is just the reverse of what was found to be true of the location of ranch headquarters*. The explanation, however, is very evident. The major, if not the only enterprise of the ranch is live- stock and to have a public highway passing through the headquarters would greatly interfere with the handling of the ranch livestock. For the farm and especially the cotton farm it is different. Cotton must be hauled to the gin and to market and equipment and materials must be brought to the farm. The nearer and more convenient the road the better. Of the 500 farm homes visited, 457 were on graded roads, 36 on concrete roads, and 7 on second-class or ungraded roads. ‘The average distance from the nearest railway point is shown to be 4.2 miles. Only a very few farm homes were farther_than 8 miles from a railway point. Function of the Farm Home: The primary function of the farm home is to provide shelter, sufficient room, warmth, light, and sanitation to take care of the comfort and health of the family. The farm home, however, is more than a shelter for the family. It is a place where friends are re- ceived and entertained; consequently, it should provide for this necessity. Likewise, it is the business headquarters for the farm and should make provision for the preservation of valuable papers, also records and ac- counts which the farm operator may wish to keep. Provision should be made either through the construction of a cellar or store room for storing home supplies of various kinds. This feature is almost entirely lacking for the homes of this region. Size of the Farm Home: Therelis a wide variation in the size of farm homes for the area. This is very well illustrated by Table 49. Of the 474 reporting, only two had as few as two rooms and only 77 had three rooms. The greatest number for a single-size group was 138 in the four-room group. In only two cases were homes found having more than 10 rooms. There were a few exceptions where farm homes were evidently too large. The tendency, however, was for them to be small and crowded. Condition and Surroundings: The condition and surroundings of the farm home are not to be overlooked. They are pretty good indicators of the character of both the farmer and kind of farming. The farms here considered were classified as good, fair, and poor, depending upon the con- dition of the roof, walls, floor, etc. A house was classified as good whose roof did not leak, whose outer walls were weatherboarded and carried a reasonably good coat of paint, whose inner walls were ceiled, and whose *Bulletin No. 297, Dp. 414-415, “An Economic Study of a Typical Ranching Area on the_Edwards Plateau of Texas," by B. Youngblood and A. B. Cox, Texas Agricultural ex- DGPJTIQTIt Station, College Station, Texas. AGRICULTURAL ECONOMIC SURVEY OF ROCKWALL COUNTY 149 TABLE 49 Size of Farm Homes Number of Rooms Number of‘ Houses (‘J l l 2 3 ' 77 4 g 13s s l‘ s9 a i a1 7 4s s 1 20 , 9 '1 8 10 l 9 11 l] 1 12 a 1 floors were tight. Qn such a basis 345 houses were graded good, 76 fair, and 79 poor. The classification as to surroundings noted the presence or absence of grass on the lawn, shade trees, shrubs, and flowers. There is an almost universal lack of effort on the part of farmers in this region to beautify the homeby the use of grass, trees, flowers, and shrubs. Fifty- nine were classed as good, 271 as fair, and 170 as poor. There is a sufficient number of exceptions to demonstrate what can be done to beautify and improve the appearance of farm homes in this area. Figure 54. Open tank used for watering farm liyestock._ Farm of John Reavis. Rockwall, Texas. A number of farmers have found this a satisfactory method of pro- viding water for their farm livestock. 150 BULLETIN NO. 327 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION The bare black earth may be covered with the native Buffalo grass through a little time and effort. Beautiful lawns of this grass will be seen here and there, but they are far too rare. Trees, flowers, and shrubs can be had for a small outlay of time and care. Home Conveniences and Comforts: Sixty-one of 500 farms reported having running water, 37 bathing facilities, 6 septic tanks, 34 lights, and 58 kitchen sinks. The problem of an ample water supply is a real one for many blackland farms. During a dry fall like 1922 when the survey was made it was not unusual to find the farmer hauling water a considerable distance to supply both his family and livestock. Automobiles were quite common among farmers. There were 313 out of 500 who had an automobile. These, when included, constituted 25 per cent of the total amount invested in farm machinery. It may be further observed that 84 per cent of all owner-operators, 74 per cent of part- owners, 80 per cent of partnership, 59 per cent of third-and-fourth, and 32 per cent of half-and-half operators owned automobiles. ~ The telephone, the radio, and a daily mail service have done much to add to the convenience of the farm home. Two hundred farmers had tel- ephones, 490 had daily mail service, and 43 had a radio set. The number of radio sets has evidently increased very considerably, since at that time the radio was just being introduced on the farms. Reading material in the home was checked as shown by the number of homes having a library, and the number and kind of newspapers and mag- azines kept. This inquiry showed that 414 took newspapers, 248 subscribed for some sort of magazine, and that 68 had a home library, generally small. TABLE 50 The 12 Newspapers and Magazines Most Commonly Taken by Farmers 1'nterviewed Newspapers Magazines Name ll No. Name ‘ i No. Locals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 336 Farm and Ranch... .. .. .. .. .. 124 Dallas Morning News . . . . . . . . .. 135 Holland's Magazine . . . . . . . .. 53 Dallas Evening Journal . . . . . . . . 78 Progressive Farmer . . . . . . . .. 42 Dallas Times Herald . . . . . . . . . . . 69 Comfort . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 34 Dallas Semi-Weekly Farm News 68 Country Gentleman . . . . . . . . .. 33 Farm Labor Union News . . . . . . . . 23 Ladies’ Home Journal . . . . . . . . 14 Dallas Dispatch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 McCalls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Dallas World . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 The American Magazine . . . . . . 10 St. Louis Globe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Saturday Evening Post . . . . . .. 10 Ft. Worth Star-Telegram . . . . .. 2 Literary Digest . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9 Houston Post . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Baptist Standard . . . . . . . . . . 9 St. Louis Post Dispatch . . . . . . .. 1 Woman's Home Companion. . .. 7 AGRICULTURAL ECONOMIC SURVEY OF ROCKWALL COUNTY 151 Table 50, giving a list of twelve each, will indicate the nature of the ma- jority of papers and magazines taken. There were many others but quite often taken by only one family. As expected, it will be observed that news- papers are more localized in character than the various magazines taken. Barns and Other Buildings The need of repair quite evident in the case of farm homes was much more evident in the case of barns and other farm buildings. Leaky roofs, dilapidated walls, and a total absence of paint were the glaring signs of this need. It was unusual to find painted barns and other farm buildings. Not only were the buildings on the farm in need of repair but often there was a scarcity or lack of buildings adequate to meet the needs of the farm. For example, sheds for housing machinery and shops for re- pairs were scarce. Ninety-seven farms had sheds, 13 had shops, and 11 had sheds and shops, while 379 made no provision for either. The other buildings making up a part of the farmstead were the smoke house, garage, and poultry house. Of these, there were 353 smoke houses, 221 garages, and 210 poultry houses. There were more garages than poultry houses, and three times as much invested in such buildings. A number of farmers kept chickens with little or no provision for housing them. Orchard and Garden Home orchards were by no means universal; only 118 out of 500 made any attempt to have an orchard. Sixty of these were owners, 49 third- and-fourth, and 9 half-and-half operators. Grapes, pears, peaches, plums, and persimmons seem to do well in this area. Apples seem to be more subject to root rot. Home gardens are much more common than orchards, Figure 55. Home orchard. H. A. & W. B. Peck, Rockwall, Texas. Peaches, pears, plums, grapes, apples, persimmons, etc., are grown in this orchard. Every farm in the blackland section should have at least a few fruit trees. 152 BULLETIN NO. 327 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION but these could be profitably increased both in number, size, and the variety of vegetables grown. Out of 5-00 farms, 471 had some sort of garden. These varied a great deal in value, according to estimates made by the farmers, from $5 to $200. The total value of the 471 gardens was estimated at $19,592 or an average value of $41.49 per garden. LIFE INSURANCE At this point a brief mention and summary will be made of the life insurance situation as revealed by the 500 farmers consulted. Life in- surance has a significant relation to the standard of life of a given group of people. Its general distribution, amount and nature are an indication of the ability, desire, and effort on the part of the individuals ‘to protect them- selves and families against abnormal conditions, sickness, old age, and death. A summary of the situation is presented in Table 51. By far the greater amount of this insurance is carried by old line companies. Thereis, however, a considerable amount of fraternal insur- ance and some local mutual ‘life insurance. TABLE 51 Life Insurance Carried by 600 Farmers Rockwall County, 1922 l Amount ; Average i Class Number T of ! Amount of T°ta1 Average e ; Policy i Policy Co“ 9°" I Total . . . . . . . . . . . . 275 $783,945 $2,850.70 $21,369.50 $ 77.70 l il' Owner . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 i 272,300 4,004.41 7,516.81 110.53 Part-owner . . . . . . . . 22 I 87,700 3,986.36 2,728.31 124.01 Partnership . . . . . . . .|| 4 II 19,500 4,875.00 444.33 111.08 Third-and-Fourth . . . .| 149 359,805 2,416.80 9,577.09 64.29 Half-and-half . . . . . . 32 44,640 1,365.00 1,103.52 34.48 RURAL SOCIAL INSTITUTIONS The social institutions with which this survey concerned itself were the school, the church, and lodges. The attempt is made to show roughly to what extent these are used by the farm people. The School Table 52 shows the distribution of children in school, by families grouped according to the number of children in school. From this it is ob- served that the average number of children per family in school is 1.7. By far the greater number of children in school are from families which send two to five children. Less than one-half of the families furnish more than four-fifths of the children in school. One is doubtless surprised to find. such a large number of families, 177, which have no children in school.‘ AGRICULTURAL ECONOMIC SURVEY OF ROCKWALL COUNTY 153 This is partially explained in the fact that 57 of the 500 families have no children at all and a rather large proportion of the tenant farmers are young and had no children of school age. Length of Term: There is a wide variation in the length of the term. Each school district may have a different tax levy to supplement state funds. In some places a special tax is levied, which may be as much as $1.00 on the $100.00 assessed valuation, while in another it may be no more than ten or twenty cents on the same amount. For this reason there is no uni- formity in the length of the school term of country schools. Distance from Homes: As will be seen from Table 53, the majority TABLE 52 Number of Children per Family in School Children per Number of Children per Family Families Group __i._..--_-i.. I ici._-_-.___.. I Total ‘I 500 II 850 O & 177 E 0 1 74 ll '74 2 97 II 194 3 I 71 213 4 49 196 5 23 115 6 5 30 7 4 28 TABLE 53 Distance of School From Farm Home Distance to Number of School Homes Less: than one mile 67 1 118 ' 2 81 3 35 4 6 5 1 6 7 2 8 2 154 BULLETIN NO. 327 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION of families were located at a distance of two miles and less from the school. Those families sending children a distance of four to eight miles were in most cases taking advantage of the high and graded schools in towns like Rockwall and Royse City. Parents’ Visits to Schools: If the number of visits paid by parents to the schools which their children were attending is a good indication of their interest in this institution, the situation is not altogether encourag- ing. Thé number of visits are shown in Table 54. This reveals the fact that there were 232 families who made no visits to 101 families who vis- ited their‘ schools one to twenty-eight times. Attendance: From the reports secured one would judge the attendance to be fairly good in so far as the families interviewed revealed the true situation. There were 111 families who reported children absent one to seven days. The chief reasons assigned as a cause for such absences were bad weather, sickness, help with work, and distances. To help with Work was the most common reason given. Suggestions for School Improvements: Each farmer interviewed was asked to make suggestions as to how his local school might be improved. The response to this question was very meager. Two suggested vocational training, 15 thought they should have better buildings, three mentioned con- solidation, one expressed the opinion that the school should be a social center, while one other ventured the assertion that the cooperation of par- ents would bé helpful. No attempt was made to check on the equipment of schools such as desks, blackboards, charts, maps, and libraries. If, however, the external appearance and surroundings were indicative of the quality and quantity of equipment inside, it would be far from ideal. There seemed to be little or no effort to beautify the school grounds. This can be shown better by some pictures of school buildings taken at random than it can be described in words. TABLE 54 Parents’ Visits to School Visits Made béifioii’ 10°; ¥LZtil1etS° Number of Families Having School Making Visits Children " 0 232 1 14 2 24 3 26 4 15 5 5 6 4 7 6 8 2 9 1 12 1 15 1 w: I 1 28 I 1 .,v_-,..1.--. v qwsmm-awwrrn. v.‘ 1.! ' l=~ -<:->-\- 155 AGRICULTURAL ECONOMIC SURVEY OF ROCKWALL COUNTY QSGSOO _ fimbwxoom 3 mmwuos Hooaum hwpflnoo we 9.3m 4 o m wawmwm 156 BULLETIN NO. 327 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION The Church No attempt is made here to give a complete survey of the rural church but to suggest briefly the services which it is furnishing to its people and the extent to which advantage is being taken of these services. There were 282 farmers who reported regular services and 35 who re- ported as not having regular services, 128 had a resident pastor, while 179 did not. The attendance at church services was reported as follows: 87 did not attend any, 81 attended one, 100 attended two, four attended three, and 133 attended four per month. Of those belonging to a church denomination 154 were Methodist, 174 Baptist, 46 Church of Christ, 15 Presbyterian, and four Catholic. From the answers given, the churches attempted to sponsor very few social activities. Six reported having attended church picnics, 15 box sup- pers given by the church, and two having attended pictures given by the church. Lodges The lodge membership of this group of farmers is indicated by Table 55. From this it is evident that a relatively small number are members of any lodge. In addition to their regular meetings two reported having attended a lodge banquet, and 13 having attended suppers given by their lodges. Other Social Activities In addition to social entertainment offered by the schools, churches and lodges, Table 56 indicates a rather wide range of activities, some of which, for example, picnics, barbecues, dances and parties are attended by a suf- fieient number to be significant. There is no organized effort in this area to provide for rural recreation. The towns of Rockwall and Royse City have small parks which are open to the public for picnics and gath- erings of various kinds, and to tourists for camping. TABLE 55 Lodge Membership Lodge | Members ___ fg| _ I Masonic . . . . . . . . 79 w. 0. w. . . . . . . 4'1 Odd Fellows . . . . . 14 K. P. . . . . . . . . . . 4 M.\V.A. 10 Other Lodges . .. . 3 AGRICULTURAL ECONOMIC SURVEY OF ROCKWALL COUNTY 157 TABLE 56 Other Social Activities Activity l Farmers Answering I Picnics.............| 196 [Tarbecues . . . . . . . . Hi 32 Dances . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Parties . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Baseball and Football l0 Radio at Rockwall. . ‘J Fishing . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 RELATION OF OPEN COUNTRY TO TOWNS AND CITIES Our country and city people are equally important parts of our popu- lation. Both contribute largely to our present civilization and in this con- tribution have much in common out of which should develop mutual, har- monious, and helpful relationships. Farm folk are the chief producers of raw materials in foods and fibers. v The surplus in these products flows from the individual farm to villages, towns, and cities for further processing and distribution. This makes it necessary for these centers of population to provide facilities for handling these products. In a cotton country these facilities would find expression in such enterprises as cotton gins, cotton buyers, banks, warehouses, compresses, oil mills, and cotton mills. The farmer exchanges the income derived from the sale of his surplus products for a great variety of goods and services used in satisfying his wants. The village, town, and city undertake to make these goods and services avail- able and accessible. To meet this demand calls into existence the bank, the various kinds of stores, the garage, medical service, hospitals, legal advice, etc. All of these, it will be observed, are economic in character, but the relationships of country and town are not confined to the economic alone. With the development of good roads, with the marked increase in the use of automobiles, and with the further creation and use of other commu- nication facilities, the social contacts between the country and town will continue to increase. The country people come to these centers not only for amusement and entertainment, but quite frequently for religious wor- ship. The latter is more especially true in the case of villages and small towns. The more we know about the factors which go to make up the relationship of country and town, and the better we understand the contri- butions made by each group, the sooner will petty jealousies and misunder- standings disappear. Too often these differences have been fostered and magnified to the hurt of both groups. Here again it is well to point out the urgent need of more facts. We need to know more about the relations of ' country and town as expressed through the services rendered. Such infor- mation can best be secured through adequate research. 158 BULLETIN NO. 32': TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Questions were asked each of the farmers visited where he bought gro- ceries, hardware, feedstuffs, clothing, and when needed, where he went for a doctor and for hospital service. The purpose of this inquiry was to in- dicate, if possible, the availability and accessibility of such goods and ser- vices. To answer such a question to a degree of certainty would require a more detailed study and analysis. The answers given, however, do roughly indicate that groceries are more accessible than any of the goods men- tioned. No cross-road store is so small but that it carries some of the more staple commodities of human food, such as flour, sugar, coffee, meat, lard, and various kinds of canned goods. The trade in feedstuffs, hardware, and clothing is confined to the larger towns and cities. Doctors were located at but threc points in the county, Rockwall, Fate, and Royse City. A con- siderable number of families secured medical services in Terrell, Forney, and Wylie, nearby towns in other counties. No hospital facilities are avail- able in the county. The group interviewed secured such services princi- pally at Dallas, Forney, Terrell, and Greenville, Texas. The nearest of these to the county seat is Forney, fourteen miles away. Dr. C. J. Galpin, Bureau of Agricultural Economics, United States De- partment of Agriculture, in an address before the annual convention of the Association of Land-grant Colleges, Washington, D. (3., November 12, 1924, said: “The convertibility of farm profits into family goods is limited at the point of availability and accessibility of desirable goods. Of the twelve elements which enter into family living, desirable good food (in part) good clothing, and good housing (in part) which are made available in the United States to farmers by country cross-road stores, hamlet stores, vil-- lage stores, as a regular thing; supplemented, to be sure, by distant town and city stores, are decidedly difficult to obtain in return for profits; due to the fact that the methods or retail distribution of such goods to farmers are archaic,——as archaic in fact, in many rural regions as the ox is archaic for rapid transportation.” The writer is not able to say to What extent this criticism applies to the area under consideration and that of the entire black- land belt. Evidently the farm people are not entirely satisfied with the pro- visions made for making desirable goods available to them. There were 273 out of 500 families who claimed to have made purchases through mail order houses. No questions were asked as to why such purchases were made. Undoubtedly such considerations as price, quality, and convenience would be among the determining factors. Be this as it may, it is felt that it is a problem common to both country and town to make desirable goods available and accessible so that the farm family may have an opportunity of converting his farm income into the greatest amount of human satisfac- tion. AGRICULTURAL ECONOMIC SURVEY OF ROCKWALL COUNTY 159 APPENDIX TABLE IA Land Sales of Rockwall County as Taken From Deed Records 1848-1922’ l l I l ' 2 ; 3 g .. ; £2 .. i E; *3 35 j 33 l s ~ *3 35 l 3E s ~ c: w: = a3 l <1 3. c: w: l e63 <1 3 1922 746.37 $ 88,597.07 $119.02 1884 11,295.07 $155,398.58 $12.75 1921 1,232.35 163,196.50 132.43 1883 2,902.83 39,672.25 13.66 1920 2,008.31 299,906.95 151.52 1882 2,718.45 25,715.93 9.46 1919 2,651.21 451,807.67 170.42 1881 2,372.13 21,673.55 9.13 1918 3,501.91 385,816.41 110.17 1880 3,360.08 24,258.91 6.22 1917 2,432.16 240,205.46 98.76 1879 3,449.58 25,550.73 7.40 1916 1,863.92 185,805.90 99.68 1878 3,487.12 24,905.25 7.14 1915 2,062.83 199,747.60 96.83 1877 3,905.97 25,289.50 6.47 1914 2,169.27 202,045.36 93.14 1876 4,026.76 22,438.48 5.57 1913 2,526.31 233,421.82 92.39 1875 5,676.35 23,735.07 3.18 1912 2,680.96 179,899.60 62.63 1874 5,300.62 19,637.25 3.70 1911 2,637.12 153,982.13 58.39 1873 9,865.62 38,851.22 3.93 1910 2,470.21 141,023.87 57.09 1872 12,095.64 33,653.50 2.78 1909 2,284.64 134,823.74 59.02 1871 3,930.40 17,155.00 4.86 1908 2,484.47 132,282.50 53.24 1870 5,189.00 17,942.50 3.46 1907 2,302.77 120,321.00 52.26 1869 1,746.20 6,710.00 3.84 1906 2,039.37 100,878.95 49.46 1868 2,483.00 12,760.50 4.14 1905 2,062.52 97,330.46 47.19 1867 3,206.00 10,780.00 3.36 1904 4,234.47 143,679.45 33.93 1866 4,944.67 15,803.00 3.20 1903 2,089.80 89,119.40 42.64 1865 3,540.75 6,580.00 1.85 1902 1,758.06 71,437.75 40.63 1864 1,044.00 2,640.00 2.53 1901 2,462.44 72,843.95 29.58 1863 1,126.80 5,078.50 4.50 1900 2,561.73 77,958.50 30.43 1862 4,642.00 18,421.50 3.97 1899 2,551.57 72,929.83 28.58 1861 3,456.46 7,083.09 2.05 1898 2,307.22 62,587.50 27.11 1860 2,846.27 8,339.50- 2.93 1897 2,395.35 62,924.10 26.27 1859 19,430.75 25,434.50 1.30 1896 2,098.63 52,395.10 24.96 1858 2,534.75 8,412.72 3.32 1895 2,516.36 61,529.25 24.46 1857 6,564.50 6,552.00 .99 1894 3,238.88 70,064.47 21.63 1856 1,784.50 4,748.82 2.66 1893 2,974.00 58,378.30 19.63 1855 2,482.00 3,056.00 1.23 1892 2,853.30 62,212.71 21.80 1854 1,040.00 2,525.00 1.43 1891 2,966.30 72,724.40 24.52 1853 2,402.00 2,870.00 1.20 1890 2,587.78 51,985.00 20.09 1852" 165.00 282.00 1.70 1889 2,867.22 55,949.85 19.51 1851 1,353.50 2,302.50 1.70 1888 3,640.20 67,017.40 18.56 1850 3,070.00 4,755.00 1.55 1887 2,873.80 51,138.38 17.90 1849 3,085.00 1,000.00 .32 1886 2,841.03 45,249.38 15.92 1848 1,280.00 150.00 .11 1885 3,125.24 49,074.50 15.70 _ ‘For those years in which more than thirty sales were made only thirty were taken at random, but where less than thirty sales were made all of them were taken. "2214 acres selling in a body for the sum of $100.00 has been left out since it seems evident that this is not a full consideration. 160 BULLETIN NO. 327 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION ..0. 03 000000000000 000000 037$ 0000000 .0. 00.0 003M 00000 000R. :.00030000000 0000000 03 00003 m6 0000000 0.0 0 0H 00C 00000000 S0 30 0000000000 0n 30000000 00030000000 00.3 m6 0003 0000 00 0 0H 003 0:00.00 0000030000 00 00000 03000000 003 000003 0000 00H 000 .030003000 00030000 0 00 00030000000 00 00000300000 003 000000 0000000000 003 m0 00.30 003 00003 M00 0003 00000 00 0 .30 0N0 .00030000000 m0 000003000 00 00 00003 00000 0000000000 003 00003 0000 0.3 0 .30 0: 00000 03000000 003 03 0030000 030 03 M00 -000000 00030000000 00 3000030000 003 .30 00030300000300 003 00.0 00000 00033020.“ 003 003m 003M: 030000000000 0003 0000000 .00 0000 :.0003000 -304 03 0030030 0.0 0030000: 000006 J0000000m 003000000 030.3 0H 00000 0000000000 00003 00 300000 003 00 300000 00300000300 000 03 300 000 003m 00 030030000 000E .00000 03000000 030 >00 0000 00000 03 0000000000000 00 3000000000000 0030000000 003 3003 00300 003 =03 3.0.2. 0000.3 0000000 0 000003 30 00000? 000300030000 003 m0 030000300 00.3 0000000000 03 0030000 3000 00 00000 00030 0003 00 .0300 0030000000 00H. .0>30w000 00 00030000 0n 00003 000.0300? 0000000030000 0000: 000030000 03 0030000 30000 .0. 300002000 -00 0030000000 000B .0000: .30 0003000 00>000 00.5 0030000 003 3003 30000000 003 30 000003 00000 00000 0000 .0. 0300 0030000000 000B... momo.Nm...m0.l 0 ........0004 000 0000000 3021...... 03000000000003 3000000000 00.._.¢.N0.m0...0.| W0000..H00::0. 000.0..H0000. 0 _...............0004 000 0000000 30Z........0004 000 0000300000060 0000.0 w0vo.Nwcom. Wbmfiiflwiw: 0.00.¢.H0$~. 0 .......0004 000 00330O 303G .30 0000M ...........0004 000 000.0 00 0000> 059N003. .w¢0.o.Nm@0.0. 039N030. 0 000 0000000 30Z............0004 000 000A 00 00000» 0.000.Nm0._.0i 0000000200. 20.0.0003. .20 . . . . . . .. . . . . Z0004 000 0000000 302 . . 1.0004 000 003300 300A .00 000; 00050030. 000000005. .0$¢.H0000. 0 m. . ........0004 000 0000000 00z........8.80 .000 00004 00 00000002 0000.00.02: 0000.00.00. $000002“. = . . . . ......:..e§ .3 wsoi 00:1: ..... $5.. s0 .525 sz 509N200. 039M200. T000..H0¥00. *0 .............000000h 000 0000000 30Z.......00000h 000 00004 0o 000000002 M 0 s31 ll 000w00fim0m 00030303000000.0003. 000030 _ 30030000 0O m0 000000000 w . H 0000000 302 .00 000.3004 0003000000O 4w @3049 AGRICULTURAL ECONOMIC SURVEY O1“ l{()(‘l§\‘.’1\l.l. (Ul NTY 161 BIBLIOGRAPHY Books: Ely, Richard T., and Edward W. Morehouse, “Elements of Land Eco- no111ics,” The MacMillan Crnnpany, New Stork, 192-1. Jouzier, Emil, “Economics Rurale,” J. B. Bailliere & Fils, Paris, lilrai1ee, Latimer, J. W., “The Wheat Region and Wheat Culture in “Texas”, 'l‘exas Almanac for 1859, p. (i=1. Macklin, Theodore, “Efficient Mz1rke.t.i11g for Agriculture”, (Thapter ll. Marshall, Alfred, “Prliitiples o1’ Economics,” hlzieltlillzin Co, London, 1916, p. 138. Ramsey, James G. M., “Animals of Tennessee. to End of Eigl1tee11Ll1 Century”, Charleston, Russell, 1853. Taylor, H. C., Agricultural Economics (New York, 1920) Lilia} t. XVII, pp. 197-198. Tiedeman, Christopher G., “Real Property”, 3rd Editieii, St. IJUUlS, l\lo., 9 . Walsh vs. Preston, 109 United States, 297-329. Wooten, Dudley G1, “A Comprehensive History oi’ 'l‘e.\'z.1s”, William (i. Scarfi, Dallas, Texas, 1898, Vol. I. Bulletins: Bizzell, Dr. W. B., “Farm Tenantry in the United States”, Bullt tin No. 2'78, Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, College Ffiizttion, Texas. Buechel, F. A., “The Relation Between Rents and Agricultural Land Values in Theory and Practice”, Bulletin 318, Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, College Station, Texas. Hibbard, B. H., “History of Agriculture in Dane County, l/Visxconsin”, Bulletin of the Universfty of Wisconsin, No. 101, Chapter 1V. Taylor, H. C., “The Place of Economics i11 Agricultural EKlUCZIlLlUH and Research”, Research Bulletin No. 16, The University of Wisconsin Agricultural Experiment Station, Madison, Wisconsin. Youngblood, B., and A. B. Cox, “An Economic Study of a Typical Ranch- ing Area on the Edwards Plateau of Texas”, Bulletin No. Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, College Stadon, Tex.“ Miscellaneous: Adair, W. S., “When the Railroads Killed the Dallas News, 1923. Agricultural Credit Act of March 4, 1923, 6" Geib, H. V., “Soil Survey of Roclzxvall C Agricultural Experiment St-atio Department of Agricultu Heath, E. C., Rockwall S Ness, H., Botanist,