easier for those remaining in agriculture to benefit from research and extension programs, but also facilitates the movement of rural people into nonagricultural employment, where local land resources are inadequate to provide opportunities for all farmers in the area. Furthermore, education tends to stimulate the desire for improvement in living standards and better opportunities for members of the family.

2. That emphasis be given to vocational education in industrial subjects. The American Farm Bureau Federation has historically supported appropriations for vocational education. In many instances vocational education in agriculture is still inadequate. In other instances the number of students enrolled in vocational agriculture courses is in excess of the number that can reasonably be expected to engage in agriculture in the area upon graduation from high school. What is needed is a balance between vocational education in agriculture and in industrial subjects. In many instances this means a substantial expansion in industrial vocational education.

3. That lending operations of the Farmer's Home Administration be geared toward the creation of economic-sized farm units on which the individual has an opportunity to use his labor and management on an efficient and fully employed basis. In many instances this means the acquisition by the individual farmer of sufficient acreage to economically support the machinery and equipment which is necessary to insure increasing per capita production and improved earning capacity. In other instances this may mean improved use of land resources already available to the individual.

4. That agricultural research and extension programs be continued, and expanded where inadequate. Despite current farm income and surplus problems, it is nevertheless true, as a general rule, that farmers with an adequate resource base, who use their resources efficiently to obtain high per-man production, are earning substantial incomes. On the other hand, there is no possibility whatsoever, that farmers with low per-man productivity can ever attain a satisfactory income level from farming. With the technical changes going on in agriculture, any individual who does not keep up with scientific progress and more efficient production methods-who does not increase per-man production each year-is not likely to share adequately in the American standard of living. In this connection it is perhaps true that there is some tendency for farmers in efficient agricultural areas to improve their efficiency and technology at a more rapid rate than those in less efficient areas. Emphasis upon the application of technological improvements in less efficient areas is imperative if these areas are not to fall further behind in the technological parade.

5. That we avoid provisions of national farm programs which operate to fragmentize national allotments and quotas (by minimum allotment and new. farm allotments) among a larger and larger number of farmers, each with a smaller and smaller percentage of the total right to produce. Any assumption that the welfare of rural people is improved by dividing up the right to produce on a per capita basis is erroneous. This is not the way toward improved per capita incomes in agriculture. This is the way to regulated and stabilized poverty in agriculture. This is not the place for a detailed review of farmprice policy. We would, however, like to state for the record at this point that the loss of markets, resulting from rigid price support programs and the limitations on opportunity by reason of the production controls necessitated thereby— have been a substantial factor in reducing farm incomes in many agricultural It is important that we appreciate that programs having immediate and apparent favorable effects on farm income may have long range adverse consequences far more significant in their impacts on the incomes of farm people.

areas.

6. That State governments adopt taxation, educational and regulatory programs designed to promote efficient use of land for timber production. The area of low rural incomes is nearly contiguous with areas of actual or potential timber production (see map, p. 196 of characteristics of the low-income population). The growing market for forestry products, particularly paper and cardboard, is one of the major economic factors in the current national picture. Most timberland, and particularly land owned in small tracts, is managed to produce only a fraction of optimum production. Millions of acres of forest land could produce much larger amounts of better quality forest products than they are-and provide the basis for a substantial increase in employment in the area. This is of particular significance because employment in the forest industry can readily be adjusted to fill in the gaps in agricultural employment.

7. That State governments recognize the need to establish more specific and protected rights to utilize water resources. Although most Southern States have an ample water supply (as compared with other areas) in general the develop

ment of industry is handicapped to some extent and is likely to be handicapped to a greater extent in the future by the inability to obtain definite assurance of future water supplies.

8. That State governments of States having areas of rural unemploymen continue and expand their programs to provide industrial concerns with information with respect to the advantages of locating industrial plants in the State. 9. That industrial concerns give consideration in their plans for future expansion, to the desirability of dispersing and decentralizing their operations by the location of plants in areas of rural underemployment.

10. That we avoid Federal wage fixing. This is not the place for any comprehensive analysis of the economic and political implications of wage fixing. But this should be said: Whatever other arguments and factors are involved--the certain impact of wage fixing by Government under the Walsh-Healey and DavisBacon Act, or of fixing minimum wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act at too high a level, is to discourage in a major way the development of industry in depressed rural areas. By such action we insure the preservation of rural poverty in many areas that could be significantly alleviated if we were to permit and encourage the employment of surplus workers in such areas.

The problem of improving the earning capacity of our low-income population is not a problem that will readily yield before any single approach. It is a problem of individuals—and inevitably it will be solved (and no problem is ever wholly solved) individual by individual. Government-local, State, and Federal has a responsibility to aid and promote this process, but governmental assistance should be primarily directed toward opening doors of opportunity to the individual.

State farm bureau membership-1954—by State and region

PROBLEMS OF LOW-INCOME FARM FAMILIES

Frank J. Welch, dean of the college of agriculture and home economics, director of the agricultural experiment station, director of agricultural extension, University of Kentucky, Lexington

At a time of booming national economy and an optimistic industrial outlook it is difficult for many people to realize that the agricultural segment of our economy faces serious problems and an outlook much less rosy. Furthermore, when one considers only averages and national figures it is easy to overlook the economically depressed condition of large numbers of farm people who live on very small or low-producing farms and must be classed, by any standards, as low-income families. It is difficult to realize that in America at midcentury approximately a million and a half farm families had cash incomes-from all sources of less than $1,000 and that some 2 million farm families were attempting to make their living from farms having a gross value of products amounting to less than $2,000.

The problems are both national and localized

The problem of low-income farmers is not confined to any one locality, area, or region. It is national in scope, and there are some low-income families in most agricultural areas that are otherwise generally prosperous. But the problem is most acute in a few areas where small-scale low-producing farms predominate. These are areas where improved practices in farming have been slow to come about and opportunities for other employment are limited.

Where low-income rural families are thus concentrated in a particular area rather than dispersed among others in a more varied population, there has usually developed a characteristic "way of life," that all families share and which differs from the patterns of living in other parts of American society. The area of concentration may be small, as in an open-country neighborhood with only a few families.' It may include only a single community as an island in a specialty type-of-farming area, or it may be a region such as that of the southern Appalachians, embracing more than 200 counties in portions of 9 States.

In fact, the plight of the small farmer and low-income rural family is conspicuously typified in the southern Appalachian region which is one of the wellknown focal points of low agricultural income in America. Our colleges, universities, experimental stations, extension services, and numerous other institutions in or near the southern Appalachian region have for many years studied the situation there. Generalizations can therefore be presented here in brief summary form, although capable of extensive development and documentation. Assertions made in this statement can be validated especially by reference to studies of the Kentucky segment of the Appalachians, with confidence that for the most part they apply to the whole region and to large parts of the Southeastern United States, the Ozark country, and other places of small farms, small production, small incomes.

Regional problems have national consequences

Problems and effects of low farm income are not merely local. Our people today get around over the country, and countless thousands change residence and jobs very readily in response to improved opportunity. Many of the youths who grow up and receive their schooling in low-income rural areas spend most of their adult lives in highly industrial areas in other States. Obviously, it is to the interest of the communities and States where they spend their working years that they come well prepared to make a full and worthwhile contribution to their new homes. The entire Nation has a stake in the educational opportunities in every section.

1 For example, in counties of commercial agriculture, certain neighborhoods have been found where farmers have not taken up the recommended improved practices in farming that have been widely accepted in other parts of the same counties. This nonacceptance of new methods is a clue to distinctive way of life, only one part of which can be accurately described as that of "low-income."

There are sound economic reasons for tapping the tax resources of the Nation to support educational and other institutional services in areas which do not have adequate tax resources to support those services themselves. Our present economy is such that wealth, and therefore taxpaying ability, tends to be drawn from wide areas and concentrated in highly industrialized centers which sell their products all over the country. The wide areas contribute directly to the concentration of wealth in the industrialized centers.

While we should not lose sight of local and State responsibility, the fact remains that the responsibilities and the ways of meeting the needs for educational and other services in the rural and less-complex society of former days no longer are adequate. It therefore seems logical that the Federal Government should assume some of the responsibility in seeing that adequate educational facilities and services become available in the small-farm low-income rural areas. This should be done not in a spirit of charity but in a strong sense of obligation and responsibility.

The extent of the southern Appalachian region

Nearly every writer about the southern Appalachian region gives it a somewhat different map. This is to be expected, since the area is not everywhere sharply distinguishable from adjacent territory. For different purposes, it is reasonable to include different areas. However, the various delineations do not differ greatly.

One of the best delineations, from a physiographical viewpoint, is by Marschner. He included 236 counties comprising parts of 9 States-Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia. The area of this region encompasses 109,500 square miles, larger by far than any 1 of the 9 States of which it is a part, and more than twice as large as the State of New York.

More than 8 million people live in the southern Appalachian region

In 1950 this area had a population of more than 8 million. Only 4 States in the Nation-New York, Pennsylvania, California, and Illinois-had more than this. Growth of population in this region has always been very rapid until quite recently. Although the southern Appalachians had nearly 700,000 more people in 1950 than in 1940, the rate of increase during that decade (slightly more than 9 percent) was less than in any 3 previous decades. From 1930 to 1940 the population increased 12 percent; from 1920 to 1930 it increased 17 percent; and from 1910 to 1920 the increase was 15 percent.

The census of 1950 shows that this population is overwhelmingly rural. Whereas the Nation as a whole is approximately two-thirds urban, the southern Appalachian region, by contrast, is two-thirds rural.

Within the Appalachian area as usually delineated there are several large cities and considerable industry. The centers of population and industry are mostly in the broader valleys which, though surrounded by mountains, are not properly "mountain" themselves. Even in these valleys, however, the agricultural resources are not outstandingly good. Nonfarm employment opportunities partly offset this. But it is the narrower valleys and the more isolated areas that more nearly typify the area.

Kentucky's portion of the Appalachian region, commonly referred to as eastern Kentucky, is 31 counties comprising Kentucky economic subregions 8 and 9 in the United States census reports. This is approximately the same delineation as that of Marschner.

The population of these 2 subregions in 1950 was about 745,000, more than a fourth of the population of the State. The proportion of rural population (fourfifths) was somewhat higher than for the Appalachian area as a whole (twothirds).

A region of children

Salient characteristics of the Appalachian population and society may be reflected in a few selected observations for these 31 counties in Kentucky. In 1950, children under 15 years of age constituted about 27 percent of the total population of the United States, but about 35 to 45 percent of the total population of the various countries in eastern Kentucky. Thus, in the county at the extreme, nearly half of the population was in this dependent age group of children under 15 years old. The median age of the United States population was 27 years; the

2 Marschner, F. J., Economic and Social Problems and Conditions of the Southern Appalachians (USDA Misc. Pub. No. 205, Washington, D. C., January 1935).

median age for these ranged 3 to 10 years younger. Size of family, or number of persons per household was 3.4 in the Nation as a whole, but 3.9 to 4.1 in the 31 eastern Kentucky counties.

Education, income, and migration

The education level of the population is reflected in median school years completed by persons 25 years and over, representing the adult population. In the United States in 1950 this stood at the all-time high of 9.3 grades. Thus 31 counties of eastern Kentucky ranged from 1 to 3 grades lower.

Median income in 1949 may be taken to show all of these economic facts which are symbolized in "amount of income." Median income per household in the United States was $2,619; it ranged from $400 to $1,900 less in counties under consideration. In the extreme county the figure was only one-fourth of the United States median.

Although Kentucky as a whole loses many more people than it gains from migration, the net outmigration from the 31 eastern Kentucky counties was much greater than for the State as a whole. During the first 3 years after the 1950 census was taken, for example, it is estimated that these counties lost 16.7 percent of their total population from migration. This was nearly 3 times as large as the percentage for the whole State, and 14 times as large as the percentage for the South. Even with these recent population losses and the long history of outmigration, it is difficult to see how even a highly intensive type of agriculture could provide productive and remunerative employment opportunities for all the people on the land.

The agricultural situation

The pattern of agricultural production has been developed to fit in with offfarm employment. Both the extent and intensity of farming change with levels of employment in nearby coal and forest industries, and with employment levels generally in the Nation. When income from nonagricultural sources is available and high, much land that is farmed in depression years is idle or largely so. Agricultural resources, especially land, are used to fall back on in case of need. Because of rough topography and low fertility most of the land is not well suited for commercial farming. However, with some saw timber and coal in many parts of the area, the small farms have been utilized for part-time and subsistence farming. But the quality and quantity of these resources are such that they provide very inadequate insurance against an uncertain future. And even in the most prosperous years the opportunities for off-farm employment within the more isolated areas are extremely limited.

The agricultural situation in the southern Appalachians may be better understood by taking a look at 32 selected counties.

Within these counties are 57,064 farms averaging about 70 acres in size but having only 26.5 acres of cropland. Estimates indicate that only 5 percent of the total land surface is really suited for cropland. This means that each farm on an average will have only 6 or 7 acres of land suitable for cultivation.

Most farms are owner-operated; the percent of tenancy in nearly all counties is below the State average of 22.5 percent. It takes more and better cropland than is found here to support a normal tenancy system. Over half (52.5 percent) of the farmers had nonfarm income that exceeded the value of the agricultural products they sold. However, 59 percent of all farmers had sales of less than $250 (gross); in some counties the proportion was as high as 90 percent. Twothirds of the farms in the area sold less than $400 worth (gross), and in 1 county 96 percent of the farms sold no more than this. Three-fourths of the farms in the area sold less than $600 worth, and in some counties 99 percent had sales of less than $600.

Less than 10 percent of the total value of livestock and less than 10 percent of the value of all crops harvested in Kentucky are accounted for by these 32 counties which comprise about a third of the area and a fourth of the population of the State. In many counties, tobacco constituted 96 to 99 percent of the value of crops sold, but tobacco acreage per farm in these counties averaged less than one-half acre per farm. Farmers there rely on hand or one-horse methods in farming. Only about 4 percent had tractor power.

Smallness of units is of course a key to an understanding of the economy of these low-farm income areas. The farm is small in size and value; the product

3 Richardson, P. D., and Brown, J. S., Population Estimates for Kentucky Counties, April 1, 1953, Progress Rept. 14, Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Ky., October 1953.