ANALYSIS OF TOBACCO GROWERS * ASSOCIATION 



29 



lence of the tenant system, to relatively infertile soil, to occasional 

 profitable cotton and tobacco crops, to custom, to lack of experience 

 with and capital for other farm enterprises, and to the lack of mar- 

 kets or marketing facilities for other products. 



Many of the growers, in addition to having low farm incomes for 

 only one or two cash crops and having little or no other salable arti- 

 cles or source of income, produce an insufficient quantity of their 

 own foods, such as poultry products, meats, milk, fruits, and vege- 

 tables, as well as of feeds and fuel. A survey of 353 farms in 

 North Carolina and South Carolina made by the Bureau of Agricul- 

 tural Economics shows that in 1926 those of owners were 88.5 per cent 

 self-sufficient and those of tenants 77.9 per cent self-sufficient. In 

 finding the degree of self-sufficiency, the ratio of the value of food, 

 feed, and fuel actually produced on the farm, to that which could be 

 reasonably expected to be produced there, was used. 10 The farms are 

 often barren of improvements or of livestock. Many districts have 

 less than an average of one cow per farm. There is an average of 

 about one dairy cow per farm for the entire three States and about 

 one and a half work animals. Table 6 shows the small number of 

 animals per farm in 1925 in some of the important tobacco-producing 

 counties in the three States. 



Table 6. — Average number of animals per farm in important tobacco-producing 

 counties of Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina, and averages for 

 the three States, January 1, 1925 



State and county 



Horses 



Mules 



Cattle 



Dairy 

 cows 



Swine 



Chickens 



Sheep 



Virginia 



1.34 

 1.31 

 .98 

 .64 

 .67 

 .46 

 .20 

 .81 

 .25 

 .20 

 .36 

 .28 

 .34 

 .15 



0.53 



.38 

 1.03 

 1.00 



.76 



.99 

 1.27 



.80 

 1.13 

 1.29 



.96 

 1.15 

 1.16 

 1.05 



4.16 



2.14 

 2.14 

 1.84 

 1.50 

 1.90 

 .62 

 2.79 

 .54 

 .76 

 1.54 

 1.97 

 1.87 

 1.02 



1.51 

 1.23 

 1.50 

 .94 

 1.00 

 .89 

 .24 

 1.93 

 .19 

 .44 

 .73 

 .85 

 .65 

 .36 



3.01 



1.92 

 2.10 

 2.00 

 1.20 

 3.07 

 4.27 

 2.18 

 3.84 

 3.50 

 1.27 

 3.09 

 4.27 

 2.96 



47.60 

 34.50 

 38.57 

 38.11 

 26.80 

 30.19 

 28.70 

 40.30 

 34.80 

 24.60 

 29.60 

 24.50 

 28.90 

 25.40 



1.81 



Appomattox 



.02 



Caroline 



Mecklenburg _ 



.19 

 .22 



Pittsylvania 



.04 



North Carolina 



.23 



Greene 



.02 



Guilford 



.06 



Pitt 



.05 





.01 



Stokes 



.01 



South Carolina 



.08 



Florence 



.02 





.08 







Weighted average 3 States.. 



.68 



.89 



2.57 



1.06 



3.06 



33.87 



.66 



Data from Census of Agriculture, 1925 (10). 



It is difficult for the tobacco farmer to diversify his crops or even 

 to change his type of tobacco. The soil in these three States on 

 which tobacco is grown is usually not well suited to. growing other 

 crops or other types of tobacco profitably. The lack of capital and 

 experience tends to prevent the tobacco planters from going into 

 livestock raising. Market facilities for other than tobacco and cotton 

 crops are absent or inadequate. The cultivation and curing of to- 

 bacco requires skill and judgment acquired through years of experi- 



10 Division of Agricultural Finance, Bureau of Agricultural Economics. In arriving at 

 the degree of self-sufficiency the ratio of the value produced on the farm to the value 

 consumed of the following foods, feed, and fuel was calculated : Foods — beef, veal, pork, 

 bacon, mutton, chickens, eggs, vegetables, fruit, milk, butter, and sirup ; feeds — corn, hay, 

 oats, and other feeds for cows, pigs, etc. ; and all fuel. 



