I Characferistics and Changes in the TEXAS FARM POPULATION /'/_". ‘-—-I___~ ‘(IEI V‘, ‘a xfi‘ ‘I I q ~ ‘ a. , . ~ é \ I Gt" ' l», &.§// (Lax /‘ , ¢ r g r F‘ ' 1 " , ~ % \ T" , a TI F ’ \ \ / “U I I \, \"h( III!’ I/ I w“ l *‘ 5 . \ \ I - ' /\ tfl" _\\\K\\, 1 . \ ' '- ... ~ _ I- \ 15%;?!» I- \ > My 7/ // .. / / f \ ' I ~ I w l I14 x f I). v.31‘ TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION R. D. LEWIS, D llllll R, C LLLL GE S TTTTT N. TEXAS IN COOPERATION WITH THE U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS There were 1.141.000 people living on Texas iarms in April 1955. This figure is not significantly diiierent irom the 1954 estimate oi 1.126.000. Farm population trends in Texas generally have been in the same direction as in the nation and the West South Central division. comprising Arkansas. Louisiana. Oklahoma and Texas. Before 1937. the State's iarm population did not decline as rapidly as in the nation or West South Central division. Since 1945. however. the number oi people on iarms in Texas has been decreasing iaster. at the present time comprising 5.1 percent oi the nation's iann population. The rate oi increase in 1954-55 was about the same in Texas as in the nation. Farm people continue to make up a smaller proportion oi the State's population. In 1920. 1 out oi every 2 Texans resided on a iarm, as compared with 1 out oi 8 in 1955. Despite general decreases prior to 1950. there still are many areas in Texas in which the iarm population is more important numerically than the city population. In 30 counties. more than 50 percent oi the people were classified as rural iarm residents in 1950. In 85 counties. more than 40 percent oi the people were similarly classiiied. Nonwhites comprised 14.6 percent oi the total iarm population oi Texas in 1950. The remaining 85.4 percent were classiiied as whites. Negroes have been decreasing at a faster rate on iarms in recent years than whites. They also had greater losses than whites in the iarm populations oi the West South Central division and oi the United States. Both oi the racial elements on iarms make up smaller proportions oi their total numbers in the State. In 1940. 2 out oi 5 Negroes in Texas were iarm residents. In 1950. only 1 out oi 5 lived on a iarm. The proportionate shares oi whites residing on iarms were slightly smaller, being 1 out oi 3 in 1940 and 1 out oi 6 in 1950. Most oi the nonwhite iarm people are in the eastern part oi the State; only 2 counties in the western part had more than 500 nonwhites in their iarm population in 1950. Harrison. Marion and San Iacinto counties in the eastern section had more nonwhites than white people residing on iarms in 1950. Only 3 counties had as many as 5.000 nonwhite people on iarms in 1950.‘ 19 had more than twice this number oi white iarm residents. The average age oi iarm people in 1940 was 28.3 years; in 1950. it was 32.5. In 1920. 74 out oi 100 people on iarms were less than 35 years oi age. In 1950. only 58 out oi 100 were younger than 35. Each age group older than 35 makes up a progressively larger proportion oi the iarm population; the biggest increases are in persons 55 or over. In 1920. about 8 out oi 100 people residing on iarms were 55 or older. By 1950. people in this age group made up 17 out oi 100. There also has been cm increase among persons 65 years oi age or older who generally are considered to be at the age level where they are not a very active part oi the iarm labor iorce. In 1920. only about 1 out oi 30 people residing on iarms was 65 years oi age or older. In 1950. this age group comprised 1 out oi 14. There are more males than iemales in the iarm population oi Texas at every age level except in the group 30 to 35 years old. where there are only 95 men to 100 women. The greatest shortages oi iemales on iarms are between the ages oi 15 and 25 where there are 123 men per 100 women. and in the ages 60 and older. Texas has a slightly older iann population than the West South Central division or the rest oi the nation. This is due more to diiierences in the ages oi Negroes than in whites in these three areas. The age distribution oi the iarm population diiiers irom that oi the urban and rural noniarm areas‘ oi Texas in several ways. Among the more important are: rural iarm areas have larger proportions oi children and older people. with relatively iewer in the more productive ages: urban areas have more persons in the working ages and iewer to support in the younger and older age levels; and rural noniarm areas have an age proiile more like that oi the iarm population except that its extremes are not so great. These age diiierentials are largely the result oi variations in the rates oi migration into or out oi the diiierent classes oi residential areas. with youth being the most important group. In Texas. 70 percent oi the youngsters living on iarms in 1940 between the ages oi l0 to 15 were no longer iann residents in 1950. A slightly higher proportion oi Negro youth leit the iarm than whites. 74.8 and 69.0 percent. respectively. Almost all oi the white youth leaving the iann moved to a city within the State's boundaries. Among nonwhite youth. however. only about hali oi those migrating irom iarms moved to Texas cities. with at least one-third leaving the State. of the Texas farm population. not an isolated entity. ' Characteristics and Changes in the TEXAS FARM POPULATION R. L. SKRABANEK, Associate Professor Department of Agricultural Economics and Sociology THE BUREAU OF THE CENSUS MADE THE FIRST separate count of the farm population in the United States in 1920. Numerous changes in the farm population of Texas have taken place since that time. These changes are particularly important to the people of Texas and to officials who enact and administer laws designed to improve agricul- tural conditions. Population characteristics and changes affect different types of businesses, churches, schools and organizational activities in rural areas. Each change also has far-reaching effects upon agriculture and the urban centers I which are attracting farm migrants. PURPOSE This report outlines the significant features It also presents some of the important changes in the farm popu- lation since 1920 and points up some of their causes and effects. Although the Texas farm population is the point of interest, this group is Comparisons are made with the farm populations of the West South Cen- tral division, comprising Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma and Texas, and the nation, and with the urban and rural nonfarm populations. The term farm population includes all per- sons living on farms and ranches, except persons in farm houses who pay cash rent for house and yard only, persons in tourist camps and the like located on what is considered farm land, and per- sons in institutions located on farms. Although slight changes in definition of the farm popula- tion have been made since 1920, these have re- sulted in little difference in the number of peo- ple included in it. Changes in the definition of the term urban between 1940 and 1950 resulted in the State’s having only 1,000 fewer rural farm people than if this change had not been adopted. The farm population may be divided into two groups. The rural farm population includes all persons living on farms and ranches which are not located in the limits of any city. The urban farm population includes all persons on farms within the limits of cities. The latter group is relatively unimportant so far as total numbers are concerned, since it comprises less than 1. per- cent of the total farm population in the State. Trends in farm population in a state are of great popular interest. The components of these trends are important since it is their combined force that causes a specific trend to exist. How is the racial composition on farms changing? How are the races distributed in different counties and sections of the State? Are farm people predom- inantly middle-age, young or old? To what areas are farm people being attracted and from what areas are they moving? These are some of the questions that must be answered to give a basis for better understanding the human resources in Texas’ agriculture. This bulletin concerns itself mainly with farm population trends and an explanation of why these trends occurred. One of the basic purposes of the bulletin is to lay the groundwork for more licntensive studies of farm population in the fu- ure. CONTENTS Summary and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3 Purpose . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3 Size of the Farm Population . . . . . . . . . . . 4 General Trends . , . In Relation to the Nation and Region. . . 4 In Relation to the State's Population. . . . 5 Changes within the State . . . . _ . . . . . . 5 Changes by State Economic Areas . . . . 7 Racial Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 General Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 In Relation to the Nation and Region. . . 8 In Relation to the State's Racial Composition . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Changes within the State . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Changes by State Economic Areas . . . .11 Age and Sex Composition . . . . . . . . . . . .11 General Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11 In Relation to the Nation and Region . . . 12 In Relation to State's Age and Sex Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l3 Variations within the State . . . . . . . . . . .14 Ni i \\\\ 1920' ' ' i930 a n94 H950 "T960 Figure 1. SIZE OF THE FARM POPULATION General Trends According to estimates based 0n a statewide survey conducted cooperatively by the Texas Ag- ricultural Experiment Station and the Agricul- tural Marketing Service of the U. S. Department of Agriculture, there were 1,141,000 people liv- ing on Texas farms in April 1955. This estimate is not significantly different from the estimate of 1,126,000 for 1954 (Figure 1). A decline in the number of farm residents in Texas has occurred since 1933, when it reached an all-time high of 2,423,000. Since that year, the size of the farm population has been reduced by more than half. Changes have been partic- ularly marked since World War II, with reversals of the declining farm population trend being of short duration. Some return to farms occurred following the end of the war and at the conclus- RELATIVE CHANGES IN THE RURAL FARM POPULATIONS OF TEXAS. WEST SOUTH CENTRAL DIVISION AND THE UNITED STATES. l920-l955 isssaaasasxéiaafiii Figure 2. ion of the Korean conflict. Nevertheless, the gel, eral trend has been downward, and the farm p01? ulation decreased about 246,000 between 19 l, and 1955. 1 -- ln Relation to the Nation and Region Farm population trends in Texas generally" have been in the same direction as in the natiol and the remainder of the West South Central ~§ vision. Prior to 1937, the State’s farm popul‘ tion did not decline as rapidly as in the nati, or the West South Central division (Figure 2 Since 1941, however, it has fallen more rapid than in the nation and also than in the regi since 1945. Y‘ Differences in the relative rates of chant may be attributed chiefly to several factors wh" are tied closely together. Prior to 1940, the 1, dustrial phase of Texas’ economy had not gro as rapidly as in some other sections of the nati and it could not absorb large numbers of prosp tive migrants from farms. With no place ‘ move, an abundant farm labor supply existi With a large labor supply and small-scale fa i mechanization had not progressed rapidly in ‘i State. Since 1940, industry has expanded rapidlyp tracting large numbers of people from farms. shift from row crop to range and grassland fa f ing in some sections of the State reduced power requirements in agriculture. Large-s p operations through the combination of two g more farms aided in spreading mechanizati Many farmers have moved to town, continui to operate their farms but no longer technic, being classed as farm residents. As a res: Texas has been losing its farm population a, faster rate since 1941 than the rest of the nat Ind.ications are that the State will continue to pand industrially, but at a slower rate than p , iously. There probably will be fewer farms i they will be larger in average size. Fewer r ple probably will be required on farms in the. ture and more people will operate their Y, rural areas while residing in the city. During the 1940-55 period, the farm pop; tion in Texas and the West South Central di, ion decreased about the same amount while i of the nation dropped more slowly. Since 1, Texas and the division have lost farm popula twice as fast as the nation. These losses wer percent for Texas, 27 percent for the West ~j Central division and 12 percent for the natioi The Texas farm population comprises a sistently smaller proportion of the nation’s population because of comparatively greater f es (Table 1). In 1930, about 8 out of 100 f people in the nation resided in Texas. In 1955, the State’s share had been reduced to of 100 farm residents in the United States. ;.i These figures are particularly significant Texas agriculture. Federal funds are all TABLE 1. TEXAS AND WEST SOUTH CENTRAL DIVISION . FARM POPULATION AS PERCENT OF UNITED STATES FARM POPULATION. FOR SELECTED YEARSl Farm population by area West Percent of Percent oi United South U. S. farm U. S. farm ‘Year States Central population Texas population (000) (000) (000) 1910 32.077 5.154 16.1 2.293 7.1 1920 31.974 5.310 16.6 2.314 7.2 1930 30.529 5.341 17.5 2.359’ 7.7 1940 30.547 5.057 16.6 2.160 7.1 1950 25.058 3.423 13.7 1.387 5.5 1951 24.160 3.250 ' 13.5 1.331 5.5 1952 24.283 3.222 13.3 1.346 5.5 1953 22.679 2.899 12.8 1.193 5.3 1954 21.890 2.717 12.4 1.126 5.1 1955 22.158 2.736 12.3 1.141 5.1 lData are from reports oi the Agricultural Marketing Service. the Bureau of the Census and the Texas Agricultural Experi- ment Station. issued separately or cooperatively. , to the states 0n the basis of the proportions their j farm populations comprise of the national farm e population. Among the federal funds so distrib- uted are certain grants-in-aid for agricultural re- search and extension work. Since the State’s pro- portionate share of the nation’s farm population has become smaller, its share of federal grant funds which are distributed on the basis of farm population also has become smaller. If the trend of the 1940-55 period should continue. the State’s allotment of such funds stands to be reduced fur- ther. In Relation to the State's Population While the farm population has been declin- ing, the total population in Texas has increased rapidly (Table 2). It jumped from 6,423,000 in 1940 to an estimated 8,579,000 in 1955. This in- crease of 2,156,000 within the past 15 years alone has been almost twice the size of the State’s pres- ent farm population. . The number of rural residents has decreased since the 1930’s in spite of steady gains in the TABLE 2. TOTAL AND FARM POPULATION. TEXAS. FOR SELECTED YEARSl Population by area Percent of total Year Total Farm population ( 000) ( 000) 1910 3.922 2.293 58.5 1920 4.723 2.314 49.0 1930 5.844 2.359 40.4 1940 6.423 2.160 33.6 1950 7.740 1.387 17.9 1951 8.139 1.331 16.4 1952 8.367 1.346 16.1 1953 8.407 1.193 14.2 1954 8.479 1.126 13.3 1955 8.5792 1.141 13.3 lData are from reports oi the Agricultural Marketing Service. the Bureau of the Census and the Texas Agricultural Experi- ment Station, issued separately or cooperatively. 21955 estimate based on Bureau of the Census report of civilian population plus armed forces estimate. rural nonfarm population. The decrease, then, is due solely to losses of the farm element of the rural population. Urban areas have attracted so many people that their proportionate shares of the State’s population increased from 41 to 60 percent between 1930 and 1950. Cities have con- tinued to grow so rapidly since 1950 that they are estimated to comprise about 66 percent of the State’s total population in 1955. Farm residents in 1955 made up 13.3 percent of the State’s residents. A quarter of a century earlier (1930), more than 40 percent of the State’s citizens lived on farms and ranches. How- ever, at the present level, the farm population in Texas comprises about the same proportion of its total as in the United States. Although the farm population includes only 13 percent of the State’s total residents, it is much more important proportionately in some counties than the State figure indicates. In 85 counties, more than 40 percent of the people in 1950 were classified as rural farm residents (Fig- ure 3). In 30 counties, more than 50 percent of the people were similarly classified. At the other extreme were 76 counties in which the farm pop- ulation made up less than 20 percent of the total population. In 30 counties, the figure was less than 10 percent. These proportions usually are higher in areas which do not have cities and low- er in those with metropolitan centers. Changes within the State Since the earliest period of land settlement, the eastern part of Texas has been more densely populated than the western. For the types of farm equipment available and subsistence econ- omy prevalent in those days, this area was better suited for agriculture. Rainfall and water were mmmm (I um! PERCENT RURAL FARM POPULATION IS OF TOTAL POPULATION IN TEXAS. BY COUNTIES. |95o PERCENT OF TOTAL :1 0.0 w v2.4 12.5 m 24s @ 25.0 o» 31.4 ~“li‘~‘>~l*~‘i 31.5 to 49.9 _ 50.0 and our Figure 3. ; ¢ < w ¢ . n ~ . nnnn u RURAL FARM POPULATION l: I IN TEXAS. BY COUNTIES. I Ioomooo PERSONS TEXAS TOTAL 2,342,553 Figure 4-A. I DOT=I,OOO PERSONS RURAL FARM POPULATION - TEXAS TOTAL R9226? IN TEXAS, BY COUNTIES. I950 , I a lino IIIII I Figure 4-C. comparatively plentiful; good timber which could be used for the construction of houses and other farm buildings was available; and relatively fer- tile, mellow soil, in which could be grown a large variety of crops such as cotton, corn, truck and fruit, attracted most of the farm people to this section of the State. The farm population for each county for 1930, 1940 and 1950 is shown in Figure 4-A, 4-13 and 4-C. Farm population data by counties are not available prior to 1930. In 1930, the largest concentrations of farm people were in the Blackland Prairie area, fol- lowed by the Northeast Sandy Lands and the Lower Rio Grande Valley areas. 6 .- , . - +fi-+J~.---. -:= RURAL FARM POPULATION Tn m TEXAS. BY COUNTlES.l94O -.-~ 0.0.0“ ' Q ~3- 1I:?~ Figure 4-B. In 1930, 13 counties had a farm populatié excess of 25,000. Navarro county had they‘, gest number, 32,799, followed closely by 31,278, and McLennan, 30,273. During the following decade, 1930-40, 62 ties increased in farm population while t; maining 192 were losing. The total loss the decade for the State amounted to 193,3» 8.3 percent. The largest numerical losses j areas where the average size of farms was: paratively small and the farm population thf sest. The Blackland Prairie had the great, creases. The largest increases occurred in the} eastern corner of the State (Piney Woods l f ing and Coast Prairie areas). These we“ chiefly to two factors. Industrial layoffs the early 1930’s caused a number of city to migrate back to farms. In the latter the decade when industrial jobs becamegfl plentiful, a few city residents moved out areas where they conducted part-time f operations. Thus the farm population in Texas in between 1930 and 1933. Decreases occur I ing the latter 7 years of the decade when i began to develop more rapidly. Severalé factors caused farmers to move to the city acreage allotments of cash crops in effect,’ much labor was required as previously. ization also began to increase at this time. , factors pushed people off farms, particul tenant class which did not own land. 0th‘ tors operating simultaneously pulled farm}. to cities. Programs designed to stimulate tion’s economy by the ‘creation of jobs and creased production of war materials gav’ native employment opportunities for fa ple moving to industrial occupations. 4s .2» ‘it"s ii‘- IDOT=I,OOO a TEXAS TOTAL _ During the next decade, 1940-50, farm pop- ulation losses were fairly general in all sections of the State. Numerous job opportunities in in- dustry, increased mechanization and the combina- tion of two or more farms into one unit accounted for the major farm population losses. Only 17 counties had an increase in farm population dur- ing this time. With the exception of 2 counties in the southernmost part of the State, all of those having increases were West of the 100th merid- i ian. The expansion of irrigation accounted for better than 9O percent of the increases in farm _ population in these counties. Within the counties showing increases, the gains were small—aver- aging less than 250 additional farm residents per . county for the decade. Percentagewise, however, ‘ they may appear large in some of the counties, since fewer than 1,000 farm residents resided in 7 counties in either 1940 or 1950. Counties with the largest increases were Hudspeth, 846, and Hale, 702. Changes by State Economic Areas Separate analyses for the 254 counties in Tex- :1 as are impractical because of the large number of units involved. The functional nature and the ; intermediate size of state economic areas make them well-suited for analyzing farm population changes in the State. lineated and defined in 1950 by the Bureau of the Census. l county or group of counties with agricultural, in- These areas were first de- Each state economic area consists of a dustrial and social characteristics different from those of adjoining areas. Texas is divided into 19 state economic areas (Figure 5), composed of two classes of counties. One class includes counties with metropolitan centers of 130,000 population or more, and where the entire county is economically and socially in- \ “at u 5i l? x 13.... xx; ill-CL L1H.‘ u l~f_z."l." §\ B1151 EIIJIC 15”" ‘ \ ," . \ ‘ \§ ooooo o, ECONOMIC AREAS oF TEXAS Figure 5. tegrated with this central city. The 8 metropoli- tan counties in the State are designated by let- ters. The remaining counties were divided into the 19 non-metropolitan areas in which type of farming was one of the principal criteria used in delineation. Each of the designated metropoli- tan counties has a sizable farm population and is considered as a part of its designated state eco- nomic area in the following analyses. Only 1 of the 19 state economic areas had more farm residents in 1950 than 20 years prev- iously (Table 3). This was area 15, which is made up of Cameron, Hidalgo and Willacy coun- ties in the Lower Rio Grande Valley. Although TABLE 3. CHANGES IN THE RURAL FARM POPULATION OF TEXAS, BY ECONOMIC AREAS. 1930-501 1930 1940 Change, 1930-40 19502 Change. 1940-50 Change. 1930-50 Area population population Number Percent population Number Percent Number Percent The state 2.342.553 2.149.187 -"l9~3.366 -" 8.3 1.293.374 -"855.813 "-39.8 "-1.049.179 "-44.8 economic areas la 6. A 20.913 20.559 -" 354 "- 1.7 18.528 "- 2.031 "- 9.9 -" 2.385 -"1l.4 lb 18.658 18.249 -" 409 — 2.2 13.404 "- 4.845 -"2-6.5 - 5.254 -"28.2 2 75.322 67.917 - 7.405 -" 9.8 43.328 - 24.589 "-36.2 "- 31.994 -"42.5 3 40.321 36.533 "- 3.788 -" 9.4 24.144 — 12.389 -33.9 — 16.177 "-40.1 4 61.284 54.485 -" 6.799 -"11.1 45.644 "- 8.841 -16.2 — 15.640 -"25.5 5 84.588 80.094 '-' 4.494 -" 5.3 66.097 - 13.997 "-17.5 -" 18.491 "-21.9 6a 214.642 166.715 "- 47.927 "-22.3 106.055 -" 60.660 -36.4 -" 108.587 "-50.6 6b 35.445 30.717 -' 4.728 -"13.3 18.610 -" 12.107 "-39.4 - 16.835 "-47.5 7a 85.563 84.382 - 1.181 -" 1.4 49.941 "- 34.441 "-40.8 -" 35.622 -"41.6 7b 8- B 62.229 59.368 "- 2.861 -" 4.6 38.147 -" 21.221 '-35.7 -" 24.082 "-38.7 7c 51.578 47.860 -" 3.718 -" 7.2 26.779 "- 21.081 -"44.0 - 24,799 -'48.1 8 d} C. D. E 464.325 401.814 -" 62.511 "-13.5 218.862 -"182.952 -"45.5 "- 245.463 "-52.9 9 127.467 111.952 "- 15.515 "-12.2 56.894 -" 55.058 "-49.2 -" 70.573 '-55.4 10 116.874 98.601 -" 18.273 "-15.6 59.448 -" 39.153 '-39.7 "- 57.426 -"49.1 11 <5} F 142.645 129.502 "- 13.143 "- 9.2 77.031 -" 52.471 "-40.7 -" 65.614 "-46.0 12 450.249 409.113 - 41.136 -" 9.1 231.673 -'177.440 "-43.4 -" 218.576 "-48.5 13 91.131 103.251 + 12.120 +13.3 56.226 -" 47.025 "-45.5 "- 34.905 -"38.3 14 6. G. H 148.875 163.220 + 14.345 + 9.6 85.756 "- 77.464 "-47.5 -" 63.119 "-42.4 15 50.444 64.855 + 14.411 +28.6 56.807 -' 8.048 "-12.4 + 6.363 +12.6 lSource: Bureau of the Census reports. It should be noted that Tables 1 and 2 in this report include estimates of the farm population for Texas which have been adjusted to the 1950 Census-AMS 1950 United States level of farm population. Tables relating to the rural farm population have not been adiusted to this level. Figures in these tables. therefore, are slightly lower than they would be had they been adjusted. 2 Old definition of rural farm population. .::~:~1 < ~ _ 3?“: _ . \i; \-':"!\ Q» >4; \ \‘ . _ s l \ 0-0 (‘- e S‘? o.» i I / .. /,"/ 4 /' PERCENT CHANGE 1N RURAL FARM POPULATION ‘IN TEXAS. BY ECONOMIC AREAS. 1940 TO 1950 10.0 to 19.9 20.0 to 29.9 g 30.0 to 39.9 40.0 to 49.9 Figure 6. area 15 had a 12 percent loss in farm population between 1940 and 1950, the increase registered during the preceding decade was largeenough t0 show an increase for the overall 20-year period. Areas 13 and 14, where industrial development particularly in the Coastal Prairie region helped create a number of part-time farming opportuni- ties, also increased in farm population between 1930 and 1940. In these areas, the increase in farm residents was mostly the result of city peo- ple moving to rural areas, combining their in- dustrial jobs with farming operations and there- by becoming classified as farmers. Farm population losses occurred in all of the ,,economic areas between 1940 and 1950. A part of the losses can be attributed to changes in defi- nition as well as to losses caused by migration and deaths. The smallest proportionate losses, however, were in areas 1a and 15 (Figure 6). Ir- rigation expanded during the decade and pro- vided a force that permitted these two areas to hold a greater share of their farm population than others. Eight areas lost more than 40 per- cent of their farm people, with areas 8, 9, 13 and 14 losing more than 45 percent. All of these areas are in the eastern section, where the factors previously mentioned caused the losses to occur. RACIAL COMPONENTS Three major race classifications are distin- guished by the Bureau of the Census: white, Ne- gro and other races. In the latter group the ma- jor elements are Indian, Japanese and Chinese. Of the total rural farm nonwhite population in 1950, they made up only .7 percent, with the Negro element comprising 99.3 percent. For this reason, the terms Negro and nonwhite are used synonymously when referring to Texas’ farm population. TABLE 4. PERCENTAGE DECREASE IN. r111: 111111111. POPULATION or m1". UNITED STATES, SOUTH CENTRAL DIVISION AND TEXAS. 001.011. 1940-sol Area White Nonwhite ieieij‘ United States —22.s —29.a -2a l West South Central —34.8 -40.6 "'3 Texas —aa.4 —41.o -a lSource: Bureau of the Census reports. Reliable data for the rural farm popul by race are not available prior to 1940. T chiefly because of changes made in the cla cation of persons of Mexican birth or Such persons were designated as Mexican in A and were included in the general class of “p races.” Since 1940, persons of Mexican birt” ancestry who were not definitely Indian o; other nonwhite races were classified as whi General Trends According to the Bureau of the Cens 1950, 1,105,000 white and 188,000 nonwhite sons resided on rural farms in Texas. A de occurred in both groups during the previous cade, with the greater losses among nonw i The percentage loss for nonwhites for theft year period was 47.0, for the whites it was (Table 4). Negroes have a higher birth ra farms than do whites, yet their numbers are? creasing more rapidly, indicating that com tively more Negroes are moving from rural areas. In 1940, about 17 out of 100 person siding on farms in Texas were nonwhites. 1950, they had dropped to 15 out of 100. i In Relation to the Nation and Region The racial trends noted on Texas farms similar to those in the West South Central f ion and in the nation in several ways. Both wf and nonwhites registered losses on farms in, three areas. Each area also had compara i greater losses among Negroes on farms whites. '- One major difference is in the rates of l1 between 1940 and 1950. Texas lost a pr,‘ tionately greater share of both its Negroes whites, followed by the West South Centra TABLE 5. PERCENTAGE COMPOSITION OF THE AND NONWHITE ELEMENTS OF THE FARM POPULATIONS OF THE UNITED ST WEST SOUTH CENTRAL DIVISION AND 1 IN 1940 AND 19501 I’? Area White Nonwhite T 1940 3 United States 94.3 15.7 o i a West South Central 77.5 22.5 I", Texas 83.5 16.5 l“ _A 1950 .5 United States 85.5 14.5 W West South Central 79.1 20.9 "'4 Texas 85.4 14.6 ' lSource: Bureau of the Census reports. s - s v c I - _ ; a n n _ n + NoNM/HlTE RURAL FARM l“ |ooT=|,ooo PERSONS NON"WHITE RURAL FARM ‘ |DQT=|p00 PERSONS POPULATION m TEXAS, BY TEXAS TOTAL 355W PQPULATION IN TEXAS, BY T, TEXAS TOTAL $8,086 CQUNTlEs. 1940 CQUNTES. 195C ' T /-~=*;:;. Figure 7'A- Figure 7-B. t VlSlQII, with the‘ nation having the Smallest PPO- in Texas lived on farms, as compared with 19 out 9014310113139 105595- of 100 in 1950. The white farm population made . f h't ' ' Both racial groups made up about the same lllgltgeagtltltogtylgg Xttlti- Iittttltsttttttsllgttgttthe State m proportion of the total farm population in Texas lh 1950 as they did lh the hatleh’ with Whltee he‘ While the large increase in the white popula- lhg relatlvely rherelrhpnertaht thah lh the West tion has been occurring mainly in the larger cit- Sellth Central tllvlsleh (Table 5t ies, the gains among Negroes have been more equ- ally divided between the urban and rural non- farm areas. This is due mainly to differences in migration patterns. Most of the white migrants from farms move to the larger metropolitan cen- ters. Rural nonfarm areas apparently attract a greater portion of the Negro migrants than is true for the whites. Since Texas had proportionately greater losses in both white and nonwhite farm people, each group comprised a smaller proportion of its re- spective racial element in the nation’s farm pop- ulation in 1950 than 10 years previously. One out of every 14 white persons residing on farms in the United States in 1940 lived on a farm in Texas. Ten years later, the State had 1 out of ghcmges wtthtn the state 18 white persons living on farms in the nation. - h t - The locations of Negro farmers in Texas in Vlgfiitlezestttttgtrtrttttglstttg ilbgttltt ttf elgatttrgtitvgttlttttttlgsrtggnttttt: 1940 and 1950 are shown 1n Figure 7-A and 7-B. gnattotfs farms in 1940, as compared with 1 out There are comparatively few Negroes outside the of 18 tn 1950 eastern section. They were first attracted to the ' area by the cotton plantation system which pre- l In Relation to the State's Racial Composition Veiled in the earlier days’ When. the PrOPPeY eye" . , , _ tem developed later, they remained 1n the area. Whlle heth the States Whlte aha herlwhlte As cotton production moved westward in recent farm Peplllatlehe ‘leellhed hetWeeh 1940 and 1950’ years, less and less hand labor was required in its ithey Were lrlereaslrlg lrl llrharl and r llral herlrarm new location. Consequently, Negroes remained in areas (Table 6). As a result, the relative im- the eastern Sectiott portance of both racial elements residing on farms to their total populations in the State was reduc- The geographic locations of Negroes in Texas ed by about half. In 1940, 38 out of 100 Negroes show definite contrasts. Nineteen counties, all in TABLE 6. CHANGES IN THE RURAL FARM. RURAL NONFARM AND URBAN POPULATIONS OF TEXAS, BY COLOR. 1940-501 White population Nonwhite population Total Change Change Change Area 1940 1950 Number Percent 1940 1950 Number Percent 1940 1950 Number Percent Urban 2.489.569 4.035.587 +1.546,0l8 +62.l 421.820 577.079 +l55.259 +36.8 2.911.389 4.612.666 +l.701.277 +58.4 Rural nonfarm 1.203.950 1.585.803 + 381.853 +31.7 150.298 219.351 + 69.053 +45.9 1.354.248 1,805,154 + 450.906 +33.3 Rural farm 1.794.026 1.105.144 — 688.882 "-38.4 355,161 188.230 —166.931 —47.0 2.149.187 1.293.374 - 855.813 "-39.8 Total 5.487.545 6.726.534 +1.238.989 +22.6 927.279’ 984.660 + 57.381 + 6.2 6.414.824 7.711.194 +1.296,370 +20.2 1Source: Bureau of the Census reports. I llll u vnxu. ooT=|,ooo PERSONS TEXAS TOTAL |,794,o2e wum: RURAL FARM I " - m TEXAS. BY couunss. I940 -~.- ~ Figure 8-A. the western section, had no nonwhite farm popu- lation listed by the Bureau of the Census in 1950. Only 1 county west of Travis and Williamson had as much as 500 nonwhite rural-farm population in 1940. This county, Wilbarger, had a total non- white farm population of 561. In 1950, Lubbock county joined Wilbarger in this category, with 787 nonwhite rural farm people. In the eastern section, 3 counties, Harrison, Marion and San J acinto, had more nonwhite than white farm peo- ple in both 1940 and 1950. Freestone county had moreNegro than White farm people in 1950 but not in 1940. The importance of the Negro farm population in the eastern part of the State may be shown swan PERCENT OF DECREASE PERCENT CHANGE lN RURAL FARM NONWHITE POPULATION IN TEXAS. 325%; BY ECONOMIC AREAS, .2...» I940 TO I950 Figure 9. 1U .-:‘§:i.'§7,P-§‘l_-_ i .:t :...T." 5 F 0.}: .3. 3 i“ 3 l; F ‘*0 :0 §0 a ‘n ':,_ oi ‘.5 k. , n .9" A O20 .5.‘ a 'r‘ a 9 0 g p. “ - .' .0 '00 " 0 .15 ‘fi o o 0'0 a o g , >0 o n c~ m i+. , . I 5 J 30' n U1 1“ o . ‘.0 n . . o ,.o 0"- ‘? ' . in ' a 0,10 Iv. - ..: H . - . l sale RICO. W115i" | oomooo WHTE RURAL FARM POPULATIO f 51".; ’ ~p IN TEXAS. BY COUNTIES. I950 =-;-li§§;ii-:-.TEXA'5 TWA‘- Figure 8-B. further by the fact that 24 counties had y, than 5,000 nonwhites living on farms in 1, The greatest numbers were in the following c0] ties: Harrison (18,780), Smith (12,673), R; (10,694) and Houston (9,293). A large indus expansion in the same sections of the State ing the next decade opened up many job tunities for Negroes, resulting in their migra’, from farms in large numbers. By 1950, only counties had as many as 5,000 nonwhite farm r ple. These were: Harrison (10,327), u_ (7,241) and Rusk (6,418). All of the counties in the eastern sectio Texas lost in Negro population in rural farm between 1940 and 1950. A few counties in western portion had increases, but the numb. people involved was so small they are not ‘A sidered important. The heaviest concentration of the white population has consistently been in the Blac Prairie and the Lower Rio Grande Valley (Fifi 8-A and 8-B. In 1940, more than one-fourth (J of the counties in the State had more than 10,, white farm population. Among this group, counties had more than 20,000. Hidalgo had most (34,912). Other counties with more 20,000 were Cameron, Collin, Fannin, Gray Harris, Hunt, Lamar, McLennan and Van Za By 1950, only 19 counties had 10,000 or ‘Q white rural farm residents, with only 2 ha more than 20,000. These were Hidalgo (30,? and Cameron (22,289), both in the Lower Grande Valley. Sixteen counties showed an increase in rural farm White population between 1940 1950. With the exception of Kenedy and Zap counties in the southern portion, all were in; Western section. The increases in each c0 if were relatively small, only 3 being as large as: x1, I The largest single increase (951) occurred in . Hudspeth county. These increases may be ac- counted for mainly by an expansion in irrigation. I Changes by State Economic; Areas Of the 19 economic areas in the State, all but 4 lost in Negro population in rural farm areas be- tween 1940 and 1950 (Figure 9). The 4 having increases were areas 4, 5, 6a and 15. The first 3 are in the Panhandle and the High Plains areas. The latter is in the Lower Rio Grande Valley. The actual increases were relatively small, however, with all having a small nonwhite population. Area 12, in Northeast Texas, had the largest numerical . loss, 62,000, followed by areas 9 and 14, with loss- es of 24,000 and 21,000, respectively. All of the state economic areas showed de- creases in rural farm whites between 1940 and . 1950. The largest losses were in area 8 (over 150,000) and area 12 (115,000). In 8 areas, losses of over 40 percent were recorded (Figure 10). Since the number of nonwhites and whites is changing in all economic areas, their relative I importance in each area changes accordingly (Fig- ure 11). A wide diversity exists between eco- nomic areas. At one extreme is area 7a, with fewer than 2 nonwhites per 1,000 whites. In 3 other areas, 3, 6b and 15, the ratio is less than 5 to 1,000. At the other extreme are areas 9 and 12, with 727 and 508 nonwhites per 1,000 whites, respectively. AGE AND SEX COMPOSITION While the size and racial composition may be - among the more important farm population fea- tures, other factors should be considered to make a the farm population picture more complete. One is the age and sex composition, which has a direct bearing on the size of the farm labor force and its future population potential. ~ General Trends p The average age of the Texas farm population is increasing. In 1940, the average age was 28.3 while in 1950 it was 32.5. This is largely the TABLE 7. PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF THE RURAL FARM POPULATION OF TEXAS BY AGE GROUPS, 1920-501 Age group 1920 1930 1940 1950 Under 5 13.1 11.8 10.1 10 5 5-9 14.4 13.2 10.8 10.6 10-14 13.7 12.6 11.5 10.5 15-19 11.4 12.1 11.2 9.0 20-24 8.7 9.1 8.2 5.7 25-29 7.1 6.8 7.2 5.5 30-34 6.0 5.8 6.6 5.7 35-44 10.5 11.0 11.7 13.6 45-54 7.4 8.6 10.1 11.9 55-64 4.4 5.2 7.0 9.3 65-74 2.4 2.7 4.1 5.5 75 and over 0.9 1.1 1.5 2.2 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 ISource: Bureau of the Census reports. .0 ,. ¢¢¢¢ ~- /% Qé‘ \ 9 WEB 93x 5 I "m .. - $1 i O00 \ \‘ ‘\ o o 0.0 A M; _\‘. W? ""‘ -"‘\" ~ \ \. \"“ .- 9 T3155 .._\>\ ._ M \ . .~ .1 (Q \ \\ T171.’ \\ a ' \ \. -I"\ \ PERCENT CHANGE IN RURAL FARM WHITE POPULATION IN TEXAS. BY ECONOMIC AREAS. I940 T0 I950 _ A. /PERCENT OF DECREASE "-“' I00 m 19.9 20.0 to 29.9 m 90.0 to 39.9 -~~--~---~-:-:.;.;;>- 40.0 n 49.9 Figure 10. result of a changing age profile. The relative im- portance of different age groups in the Texas farm population by 10-year intervals from 1920 to 1950 is shown in Table 7 and is illustrated graphically in Figure 12. Among the most important trends are the changing proportions that different age groups make up of the total farm population. With the exception of a small increase for youngsters less than 5 years of age between 1940 and 1950, each age group less than 35 makes up a progressively smaller proportion of the total. In 1920, 74 out of 100 people living on farms were less than 35 years of age. Their proportions de- creased each successive decade, in 1950 being only H I, g y w .;2-2~. $9‘? , \ \\ \ \'_ It -\\s, .\ §§\~»>.>.=>~‘¥§\\ \\§;>< . .......... , . $9 ' A.’ s9$§*§\§?‘3* "’E=="'*o>@ ’ . if; '13‘ r/ B /// / //\ >2 L! P ........ 0 I RATIO OF NONWHITES T0 WHITES IN RURAL FARM POPULATION IN TEXAS. BY ECONOMIC AREAS. I950 NONWHITES PER I, 000 WHITES 0.0 m 9.9 '/////4 lQOto I99 % 20o r0 39.9 \\\§\\\ 200.0 and over Figure 1 1. 1 1 AGE DISTRIBUTION OF THE RURAL FARM POPULATION OF TEXAS. l920-—I950. I 00 a mammal :3 \\ 30-64 years 7O / //"//// 6O o q 1 g jg OOOOOOOOOO // %%%%% A IE 58 out of 100. This trend _is largely the result of a slowing down of the birth rate among farm people, a general increase in the migration of youth from farms and a general increase in the life span of those remaining on farms. These fac- tors tend to decrease the proportions of younger people and at the same time increase those of older people on farms. Every age group over 35 makes up a pro- gressively larger portion of the farm population. The biggest increases were among those age 55 or older. They comprised 8 out of every 100 farm people in 1920 and 17 out of 100 in 1950. The oldest group, 65 years of age and over, also has greatly increased in importance. In 1920, about 1 out of every 30 people residing on farms was 65 years of age or older. In 1950, this group com- prised about 1 out of 14. PERCENTAGE AGE DISTRIBUTION FOR THE RURAL FARM POPULATIONS OF TEXAS. WEST SOUTH CENTRAL DIVISION AND THE U. 3.. I950. TEXA S SOUTH CENTRAL UNITED STATES l l l l l l l l l l J 0 l0 2° 3O 4° 5° 6° 7° 8° $0 I90 I unozn s YEARS g 30-44 YEARS s-m YEARS Q 4s-e4 YEARS E l5—l9 YEARS E es AND oven 7/4 20-29 YEARS Figure l3. l2 The age structure of the two racial groups rural farm areas differs in several respects. groes have a greater proportion of their peoplef the younger ages than do whites. Nonwhites l than 25 years old make up more than half of th, total population (55.6 percent). Among whi j they make up less than half of the total percent). A higher birth rate and shorter le . of life are the main causes for people in the yo I er age groups being relatively more impo . among Negroes than whites. Persons in the 01. age groups are comparatively less important-l the Negro farm population. Since agriculture generally is considered man’s occupation, males predominate in num, on farms. In 1950, of the total number of residing on farms, 52.5 percent were males 5 47.5 percent were females, a ratio of 110.7 per 100 females. The sex ratio of the rural f population was 109.8 in 1930 and 109.9 in Even though these changes have been small, decade shows the males making up a sligi greater share of the rural farm population. , has been largely the result of the migration women to urban areas at an increasingly f =. rate than men. The Texas farm population has more than females at every age level except in the group 30 to 35. In this group there are only men per 100 women. Since there were more Ii than women in this age group in 1940, it assumed that World War II was mainly rest sible for the 1950 situation. The war acceler” the migration rate from farms among young g more so than young women, with an excep ally large number of men being in the armed ces. These young men, usually between the ag‘ 18 and 25 at that time, did not return to farms resulted in more females in the 30 to 35 age 1 on farms in 1950. The greatest shortagl women exist between the ages of 15 to 25 " there are 123.2 men per 100 women and inf ages 60 and older, a sex ratio of 127.1. In f groups these shortages are caused by a , degree of migration at these age levels ont e1 of females from farms to cities. There are more males on farms among w than nonwhites, their sex ratios being 112.0 g 103.3, respectively, in 1950. Another featu the sex ratio is that while male dominatiov‘ numbers increased among whites between and 1950 (110.6 to 112.0), the opposite was, among nonwhites. In 1940, there were 1; males per 100 females among the nonwhites; in 1950 the ratio had been reduced to 103.3. . In Relation to the Nation and Region The farm population is slightly older in T than in either the West South Central divisioi the United States (Figure 13). In 1950, I were proportionately more in every age p over 30 than in the other two areas. TABLE 8. PERCENTAGE AGE DISTRIBUTION OF THE RURAL FARM POPULATIONS OF TEXAS, THE WEST SOUTH CEN- TRAL DIVISION AND THE UNITED STATES, BY COLOR. 19501 Whites Nonwhites Total West West West South United South United South United Age group Texas Central States Texas Central States Texas Central States Under 5 10.1 10.7 10.7 13.0 15.3 15.0 10.5 12.1 11.4 5-14 20.3 21.9 20.9 25.6 26.6 27.1 21.1 23.3 21.8 15-19 8.7 9.2 8.9 11.0 10.5 10.9 9.0 9.6 9.1 20-29 11.2 11.4 12.1 10.4 11.5 12.5 11.2 11.4 12.1 30-44 20.0 19.5 19.2 15.4 15.1 15.0 19.2 18.2 18.6 45-64 21.9 20.0 20.4 17.0 14.6 13.7 21.2 18.4 19.5 65 and over 7.8 7.3 7.8 7.6 6.4 5.8 7.8 7.0 7.5 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 1 Source: Bureau of the Census reports. Almost half (48.2 percent) of the farm popu- lation in the State in 1950 was over 30 years of age, as compared with 43.6 and 45.6 percent, re- spectively, for the West South Central division and the nation. Thus, Texas has the smallest proportion of younger people. These age differ- entials are mainly the result of a slightly lower birth rate in Texas and a comparatively larger migration of youth from farms in more recent years. There appears to be little difference in the ages of whites in the three areas (Table 8). Thus, the variations noted for the total farm population are caused by differences in the age distributions of nonwhites. Among the Negro farm popula- tions, Texas has a larger proportion of older peo- ple, with about 1 out of 4 nonwhites being 45 years of age or older. In the West South Central divis- ion, they comprise about 1 out of 5 and slightly less than this proportion in the United States. Differences in the balance between the sexes on farms in Texas, the West South Central divis- ion and the United States are almost negligible. from that of the State as a whole in several ways. One of the most important differences is the pro- portion of persons in the earlier working ages. For example, only about 30 out of 100 people on farms are between 20 and 45 years old. For the State as a whole, 38 out of 100 are in this age level. Farm areas have greater proportions of their people in the younger ages, with 41 percent not yet having reached their twentieth birthday, as compared with 37 percent in the State. Another age characteristic of the farm population is a proportionately greater number of older people. Approximately 1 out of 12 is 65 years of age or older, while in the State this group includes 1 out of 14. Actually, Texas has the highest proportion of men I40 among both whites and nonwhites, with the nation being the next highest and the West South Central |3o_ n‘ division the lowest. I \ ,.-\ a \ ; \ I \ In Relation to State's Age and Sex Distribution '20 T ‘l’ l‘ ,1’ \\§' I .‘ The age distribution of farm residents differs i‘ l‘ I’ _-" \\ IIO — .- °"‘ | -‘ i a 1 l rural nonfarm and rural farm areas of Texas is illustrated in Figure 14. Among the most important differences in the age distributions of the three residential classes in Texas are: rural farm areas have excessively larger proportions of children and older people and relatively fewer in the more productive ages; by comparison, urban areas have an age profile show- ing more people in the working ages and fewer to support in the younger and older age levels; and the rural nonfarm age profile is more like that of the rural farm areas except that its ex- tremes are not as great. A number of factors account for the socially significant variations in the age profiles. The excess of youngsters on farms is due to a relative- ly higher birth rate. The migration of youth from farms to cities leaves relatively few persons in the INDEX NUMBERS SHOWING RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF EACH AGE GROUP IN THE URBAN, RURAL NON- FARM AND RURAL FARM POPULATIONS OF TEXAS, I950. INDEX NUMBERS 6O I I I l I I l I N l | O IO 2O 3O 4O 5O 6O 7'0 8O AGE The relative importance of children, persons in URBAN """ "RURAL NON FARM n-RURAL FARM the working ages and older people in the urban, Figure 14. 13 . , 7 y I y / “ex . $1 a //% . ’//// ~ i~ - i’ " i 4/» 4 / PERSONS UNDER I5 I AND OVER e4 PER RURAL FARM POPULATION I,000 PERSONS I564 DEPENDENCY RATIOS IN TEXAS. BY ECONOMIC AREAS. I950 900.0 T0 699.9 100.0 AND OVER Figure 15. early productive ages, particularly between-ZO and 40. Their migration, in turn, affects the age pro- file in cities, where an excess of people in these ages exists. In the older ages (65 and over), peo- ple tend to migrate from farms to rural nonfarm areas. Wives generally outlive their husbands by 4 to 5 years. Upon the death of the husband, the widow usually moves to a city or small town near the farm. The most obvious differences in the sex ratios of the three major residential classifications are the concentrations of females in cities and of males on farms among both whites and nonwhites (Table 9). Since the rural nonfarm population is comprised of people in smaller towns and villages, suburban areas and of nonagricultural occupations in open-country areas, its sex ratio occupies an intermediate position between the other two resi- dential classes. Variatio-ns within the State Dependency ratios were computed for each county and economic area in the State. Such a ratio indicates the comparative burden of support borne by the more productive members of the farm population. It is derived by dividing the number of persons less than 15 years of age plus those 65 or older by the number of persons be- tween 15 and 65 years of age. The result is mul- TABLE 9. SEX RATIOS OF THE URBAN. RURAL NONFARM AND RURAL FARM POPULATIONS OF TEXAS. BY COLOR. 19501 Race Urban Rural nonfarm Rural farm Total White 97.1 105.8 112.0 101.2 N onwhite 91.3 100.3 103.3 95.1 Total 96.3 105.2 110.7 100.4 1 Source: Bureau of the Census reports. 14 tiplied by 1,000 to obtain a ratio of the number? “dependent” people per 1,000 persons of wor ' age. The variations in dependency ratios =f shown by economic areas in Figure 15. 0* Farm population dependency ratios in 19 ranged from 284 in Terrell county to 854 in N rison county. Twenty counties had 750 or m dependent persons for every 1,000 persons ag 15 to 65. All of these counties are in the easte and southern sections of the State, none he'- west of the 100th meridian. Thirty-five count”, all in the western section, had relatively low pendency ratios of less than 550. People in , working ages have a smaller burden to carry A these counties. When counties are grouped into econoi areas, the lowest rural farm dependency ratio 487 in area 1b. This area, the Edwards Plate has sparse farm population and large ranches. level of living is high and comparatively people of Mexican descent live here than in m other ranching areas in the State. The birth ’ is lower than in the rest of the State. Area 13, East Texas Piney Woods, has the highest depe", ency ration in the State. It has 741 dependent sons for every 1,000 persons age 15 to 65. This! an area of dense farm population, with many s M; farms. The birth rate is high and the level living among farmers is relatively lower than»; the rest of the State. All of the counties in I: area are classified as “serious low farm incop and level of living areas in agriculture” in an A, a 1955 U. S. Department of Agriculture publica entitled “Development of Agriculture’s Hu If Resources.” is One of the most important determinants of f size of the dependency ratio is the extent to wh youth migrate from farms. Although the e W. I NET LOSS f PERCENT NET LOSS 0F t: us...“ RURAL FARM YOUTH IN TEXAS. BY ECONOMIC .._. .. AREAS. I940 T0 I950 I 15.0 mo - Figure 16. TABLE 10. NET LOSS OF YOUTH FROM THE RURAL FARM POPULATION OF TEXAS. BY COLOR, 1940-501 , Males Females Total population Age Year White Nonwhite Total White Nonwhite Total White Nonwhite Total 10 to 15 1940 104.086 22.517 126.603 97.822 21.900 119.722 201.908 44.417 246.325 20 to 25 1950 35.368 5.446 40.814 27.322 5.766 33.088 62.690 11.212 73.902 Decrease in numbers 68.718 17.071 85.789 70.500 16.134 86.634 139.218 33.205 172.423 Percentage decrease 66.0 75.8 67.8 72.1 73.7 72.4 69.0 74.8 70.0 1 Source: Bureau of the Census reports. magnitude of the annual loss of Texas farm youth to cities is difficult to determine, relatively recent data give a good indication of what is happening. The number of children on Texas farms between the ages of 10 and 15 in 1940 may be compared with the number living on farms between 20 and. 25 years of age in 1950. Although a few will have died, the death rate at this age level is so low that the few expected deaths will be negligible. Thus, the resultant figures are a fairly reliable estimate of the actual net migration of youth from farms. In Texas, 70 percent of the youth living on farms in 1940 were no longer farm residents in A 1950 (Table 10). A slightly higher proportion of nonwhite youth left the farm than whites (74.8 and 69.0 percent, respectively). Practically all of the white youth who left the farm between 1940 and 1950 moved to a city within the State’s boun- daries. The number of white youth on farms de- creased by 68,000. During the same period, the number of white youth in urban areas increased by 66,000. Among nonwhite youth, however, ap- parently fewer than half of those leaving farms moved to a city within the State’s boundaries. In 1950, there were 33,000 fewer nonwhite youth on farms than in 1940, but the increase for nonwhite youth in cities was only 16,000 for the same per- iod. Since the number of nonwhite youth resid- ing in rural nonfarm areas barely increased during the same period, indications are that at least 10,000 who moved from farms left the State en- tirely. The relative ability of different sections of the State to hold their younger people on farms is shown in Figure 16. Economic area 1a had the smallest proportionate loss of farm youth be- tween 1940 and 1950. Only about one-fourth (23 percent) left during the decade in area 1a, with a considerably larger share of the migrants being girls. The increase in irrigation in this area ap- parently opened up a number of new farming op- portunities that were especially attractive to young men. Area 13, in the eastern section of Texas, had the greatest loss of farm youth. Between 1940 and 1950, about 4 out of 5 (79.2 percent) of the farm youth in the area moved. Four other areas lost over three-fourths of their farm youth during the decade. Such large changes will continue to have marked effects upon the agricultural, resi- dential and occupational shifts in Texas’ popula- tion. 15 r Q19? i- State-wide Research ‘ The Texas Agricultural Experiment Station is the public agricultural research agency _ Location of field research units in Texas main- tained by the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station and cooperating agencies of the State oi Texas, and is one oi nine parts of the Texas AcSM College System IN THE MAIN STATIGN, with headquarters at College Station, are 16 subject-matter departments, 2 s A departments, 3 regulatory services and the “administrative staff. Located out in the major agricultural of Texas are 21 substations and 9 field laboratories. In addition, there are 14 cooperating stations to d by other agencies, including the Texas Forest Service, the Game and Fish Commission of Texas, the U.’ Department of Agriculture, University of Texas, Texas Technological College and the King Ranch. experiments are conducted on farms and ranches and in rural homes. RESEARCH BY THE TEXAS STATION is organized by programs and projects. A program of research r - sents a coordinated effort to solve the many problems relating to a common objective or situation. .1 search project represents the procedures for attacking a specific problem within a program. THE TEXAS STATION is conducting about 550 active research projects, grouped in 25 programs which I clude all phases of agriculture in Texas. Among these are: conservation and improvement of soils; servation and use of water in agriculture; grasses and legumes for pastures, ranges, hay, conservation i improvement of soils; grain crops; cotton and other fiber crops; vegetable crops; citrus and other subt i cal fruits, fruits and nuts; oil seed crops—other than cotton; ornamental plants—including turf; brush weeds; insects; plant diseases; beef cattle; dairy cattle; sheep and goats; swine; chickens and turkeys; I mal diseases and parasites; fish and game on farms and ranches; farm and ranch engineering; farm i’ ranch business; marketing agricultural products; rural home economics; and rural agricultural econo Two additional programs are maintenance and upkeep, and central services. RESEARCH RESULTS are carried to Texas farm and ranch owners and homemakers by specialists and c f agents of the Texas Agricultural Extension Service. i 0899