Hrjfz

^^ United States

Ij] Department of

Ç Agriculture

Economic

Research

Service

Rural

Development

Research

Report

Number 61

Cfi~

Social and Ec^omic

Environment of^ k

Blaçl^-farmers ""

Robert ßi

Herman B|

Virginia

T- rn23Ü^_ ^

^

MI
Additional copies of this report. . .

can be purchased from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government

Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402. Ask for Social and Economic Environment of Black Farmers (RDRR-61). Write to the above address for price and

ordering instructions. For faster service, call the GPO order desk at

202-783-3238 and charge your purchase to your VISA, MasterCard, Choice,

or GPO Deposit Account. A 25-percent bulk discount is available on orders of

100 or more copies shipped to a single address. Please add 25 percent extra

for postage for shipments to foreign addresses.

Microfiche copies ($5.95 each) can be purchased from the order desk, National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA

22161. Ask for Social and Economic Environment of Black Farmers

(RDRR-61). Enclose check or money order, payable to NTIS. For faster service, call NTIS at 703-487-4650 and charge your purchase to your VISA,

MasterCard, American Express, or NTIS Deposit Account. NTIS will ship rush

orders within 24 hours for an extra $10; charge your rush order by calling

800-336-4700.

The Economic Research Service has no copies for free mailing.
Social and Economic Environment of Black Farmers. By Robert A. Hoppe,

Herman Bluestone, and Virginia K. Getz. Agriculture and Rural Economics

Division, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Rural

Development Research Report No. 61.

Abstract

Most black farmers live in slowly growing southern counties. The authors

identified 342 counties with at least 25 black farmers each and four regions

based on the most common commodity produced. Social and economic conditions of blacks varied considerably among the regions, but blacks always

lagged behind whites. Poverty rates among blacks ranged from 56.3 percent

in the Delta Crop region (parts of Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi) to 36.3

percent in the Atlantic Tobacco region (parts of North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia). Unemployment among black adults ranged from 15.1 percent in

the Delta Crop region to 8.9 percent in the East Texas Beef region (parts of

Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Texas). Growth in jobs between 1970 and

1980 ranged from 4.4 percent in the Delta Crop region to 29.9 percent in the

East Texas Beef region.

Keywords: Black farmers, poverty, economic growth. South, metro areas,

nonmetro areas, race.

Acknowledgments

Dorothy H. Atkins, Sharon Black, Brenda Heggie, Linda Kenner, and Frances

Williams assisted in preparing this report. Vera J. Banks, Calvin Beale^Thomas Carlin, Fred K. Mines, James Mikesell, James P. Miller, Robert Munoz,

and Mindy F. Petrulis made useful suggestions. Lindsay Mann provided

editorial assistance and Carolyn Riley and Elizabeth Jenny provided graphic

assistance.

Washington, DC 20005-4788 August 1986

III
Contents

Page

Summary v

Glossary ... vi

Introduction 1

Location of Black Farmers .1

The Study Regions 2

Characteristics of Black-Operated Farms 2

Off-Farm Work .........2

Land Tenure 4

Farm Size 4

Age of Black Farmers 5

Study Counties Compared with Other Southern Counties . 5

Economic Structure, 1980 5

Economic Changes During the Seventies ,5

Demographic Characteristics, 1980 .6

Variation in Social and Economic Conditions .9

Economic Structure, 1980 .9

Economic Changes During the Seventies 9

Demographic Characteristics, 1980 10

Conclusions and Implications 11

References 14

Appendix: Data Sources , .15

IV
Summary

Black farmers tend to live in slowly growing southern counties where nonfarm

employment opportunities are limited. Those counties have grown slowly

compared with southern metro areas. The counties where black farmers live

also contain about two-thirds of all nonmetro southern blacks. BJacks face severe economic and social conditions in these counties. They have a higher

incidence of poverty, much less education, and higher unemployment than

other blacks in the South. However, growth and socioeconomic conditions

vary considerably among the counties.

To study the social and economic conditions in areas where black farmers

live, the authors kJentified 342 southern counties that had at least 25 black

farmers each. They divided the study counties into five categories, four of

which reflected the most common commodity type of black-operated farm and

one which did not exhibit any common black-operated farm type.

Among the four classifiable regions, the authors concluded that social and

economic conditions of blacks varied considerably, but blacks always lagged

behind whites. Here is a comparison of the four study regions and all study

counties in 1980:

• Atlantic Tobacco Region (parts of North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia)—36.3 percent of blacks in poverty (1979), 11.7 percent of whites;

34.8 percent of blacks graduated from high school, 54.5 percent of

whites; 11.3 percent of black adults unemployed, 4.6 percent of whites;

number of jobs increased 17.7 percent (1970-80).

• Delta Crop Region (parts of Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi)—56.3

percent of blacks in poverty (1979), 15.9 percent of whites; 25.3 percent of blacks graduated from high school, 54 percent of whites; 15.1

percent of black adults unemployed, 5 percent of whites; number of

jobs increased 4.4 percent (1970-80).

• East South Central Beef Region (parts of Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi)—46.1 percent of blacks in poverty (1979), 14.1 percent of wtiites;

31 percent of blacks graduated from high school, 60.2 percent of

whites; 13.4 percent of black adults unemployed, 4.9 percent of whites;

number of jobs increased 13.2 percent (1970-80).

• East Texas Beef Region (parts of Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma,

Texas)—39.9 percent of blacks in poverty (1979), 12.9 percent of

whites; 36.8 percent of blacks graduated from high school, 55.9 percent of whites; 8.9 percent of black adults unemployed, 3.8 percent of

whites; number of jobs increased 29.9 percent (1970-80).

• All study counties—41.4 percent of blacks in poverty (1979), 12.9 percent of whites; 32.3 percent of blacks graduated from high school, 55.5

percent of whites; 11.7 percent of black adults unemployed, 4.8 percent of whites; number of jobs increased 19.2 percent (1970-80).

Employment growth in the study counties varied by study region, ranging

from 29.9 percent in the East Texas Beef region to 4.4 percent in the Delta

Crop region. Blacks in the Delta Crop region were particularly disadvantaged,

with a higher poverty rate, higher unemployment, and lower education levels

than blacks in other study regions.
Glossary

Civilian tabor force. People emptoyed and unemployed, at least 16 years

old, excluding inmates of institutions and members of tfie armed forces. The

labor force participation rate is the percentage of the civilian population at least

16 years old and in the civilian iabor force, that is, either working or seeking

work. (See Employed and Unemployed.)

Earnings (earned income). The sum of wages and salaries, other labor income, and proprietors' income.

Employed. Civilians at Jeast 16 years of age who worked for wages and salaries, who worked 15 hours per week as unpaid workers in a family enterprise, or who were self-employed.

Farm. In both the 1980 Census of Population and 1978 Censas of Agriculture,

a farm is defined as a place with at least $1,000 of farm product sales. In the

Census of Agriculture, places with farm product sales of less than $1,000 may

also be classified as farms if they normally would have sold at least $1,000 of

farm products.

High school graduates. Persons 25 years old or older who graduated from

high school. The percentage of the population graduating irom high school is

obtained by dividing the number of graduates by the population 25 years old

or older

Labor force participation rate. See Civilian labor force.

Metro areas. Counties that are part of a Standard Metropolitan Statistical

Area. (See Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area.)

Nonmetro areas. Counties that lie outside of a Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area. (See Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area.)

Other labor income. Largely employer contributions to private pension and

welfare funds.

Personal income. Total income individuals receive in the form of wages and

salaries, other labor income, proprietors' income, property income, and transfer payntents less contributions for social insurance.

Poverty. The Bureau of the Census determined poverty status by comparing

1979 family income with a poverty threshold that varies with family size and

composition. For example, a family of four with two children was poor in 1979

if its income was below $7,356. An area's poverty is measured by its poverty

rate, the percentage of its population that falls below the poverty threshold.

Both the count of the poor and the count of the population exclude inmates

of institutions, members of the Armed Forces in barracks, college students in

dormitories, and individuals younger than 15 years old not living with

relatives.

Property Income. Dividends, interest, and rent.

Proprietors' income. Income earned by sole proprietors and partners (income of the self-employed).

VI
Rural. Not urban (See Urban). The rural population is broken into two groups,

rural farm and rural nonfarm. Rural farm people live on farms, while rural

nonfarm people do not. Rural nonfarm people may live in the open countryside or in places with a population smaller than 2,500 that are not located in

an urbanized area. (See Farm and Urbanized areas.) Rural is not synonymous

with nonmetro. (See Nonmetro areas and Standard Metropolitan Statistical

Area (SMSA).) One can be both rural and metro. For example, a person living

in the open country or in a small city with fewer than 2,500 inhabitants in a

fringe SMSA county would be both metro and rural.

Service industries. Transportation, communications, public utilities, wholesale

and retail trade, finance, insurance, real estate, business services, agricultural services, and personal services.

South. The South in this study includes Delaware, Maryland, the District of

Columbia, Virginia, West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, North Carolina,

South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana,

Oklahoma, and Texas.

Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA). A county or a group of

counties containing at least one central city with a population of 50,000 or

more, or a central city with a population of at least 25,000 if the city's population plus the population of contiguous thickly populated places equals 50,000

or more. Additional contiguous counties are considered part of an SMSA if

they are economically and socially integrated with the central city. The metro

counties used in this study were so designated by the Office of Management

and Budget as of 1974.

Transfer payments. Payments for which no work was done in the current

time period. Transfer payments are largely from government programs, such

as Social Security, unemployment compensation, Medicare, and public assistance (welfare).

Unemployed. Civilians at least 16 years of age who were looking for work or

on layoff waiting to be called back to a job. The unemployment rate is the

proportion of the labor force that is unemployed. (See Civilian labor force.)

Urban. The urban population lives in either urbanized areas or places with a

population of 2,500 or more. (See Urbanized areas.) The remaining population

is rural. Urban is not synonymous with metro. For example, a person living in

a city of 2,500 or more in a county outside an SMSA is both nonmetro and

urban.

Urbanized areas. Areas having a total population of at least 50,000 and a

population density of at least 1,000 per square mite. An urbanized area

generally consists of a central city and its surrounding, densely settled

suburbs. Urbanized area and metro area are not synonymous. Some parts of

metropolitan counties are too sparsely populated to be classified as urbanized.

VII
Social and Economic Environment

of Blacic Farmers

Robert A. Hoppe, Herman Bluestone,

and Virginia K. Getz*

Introduction

Black farming families in the United States are concentrated in rural southern counties that have not

fully benefited from recent national economic growth.

These counties' populations are either growing slowly or declining, and their nonfarm economies have

not expanded rapidly enough to fully absorb growth

in the labor force. Nonfarm employment is potentially

important to bJack farming families because their

farms tend to be smaller, less fertile, and less

mechanized than average farms (7, ö).i A growing

nonfarm economy can provide jobs to supplement

farm income or to employ those who decide to leave

farming.

This report focuses on the social and economic environment in the areas where black farmers live. We

compare social and economic conditions of blacks

and whites in 342 nonmetro southern counties that

had 25 or more black farmers in 1978. Blacks in

these study counties are both socially and economically disadvantaged. Another U.S. Department of

Agriculture publication, Black Farmers and Their

Farms, examines black farmers in relation to other

farmers nationally and in the South (7).

Because almost 95 percent of the Nation's black

farmers live in the South, we restrict our analysis to

that region. We divide our analysis into four parts:

• First, we identify the counties where most

black farmers live.

• Second, we briefly examine characteristics of

black farmers in these study counties.

• Third, we compare social and economic conditions in counties which have a concentration

of black farmers with ciDnditions in other

southern counties. We also compare social

and economic conditions of blacks and whites

in the study counties.

• Fourth, we compare social and economic conditions among four study regions where black

farmers are concentrated. Again, we also compare social and economic conditions of blacks

and whites in the study regions.

Location of Black Farmers

In 1978, the study counties contained almost half

(46.3 percent) of the South's 55,000 black farmers

and 71.8 percent of the 35,000 southern black farmers for whom county data were available.2 Black

farmers in the study counties made up only 9.7 percent of all farmers in these counties in 1978.

We intended to limit the study to counties with relatively heavy concentrations of black farmers, but we

realized that such a limitation would drastically

reduce the number of black farmers covered. For example, restricting the study to counties where 100 or

more black farmers lived and where at least 20 percent of the farmers were black would have reduced

the number of study counties to 31 and the percentage of black farmers covered to only 17.7 percent of

the total for which county data were available.

On© of our major findings is that most black farmers

live in counties that contain few other black farmers.

Thus, had we restricted our study to counties with

* Hoppe and Bluestone are economists in the Agriculture and

Rural Economics Division (ARED), Economic Research Service,

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Getz, an economist in

ARED at the time of this study, works for the Farmers Home Administration, USDA.

'•Italicized numbers in parentheses identify literature cited in

the references at the end of this report.

2For more information about statistical coverage of black

farmers in study counties, see the appendix. The appendix also

identifies the major data sources used in this report.
heavier concentrations of black farmers, we would

not have accurately jdentified the social and economic conditions experienced by most btack farmers.

The Study Regions

To study geographic variation in social and economic conditions in the study cGOJnties, we^tried groupjng

them in various ways, including by nrïost common

commodity type of black-operated farm, number of

black farmers, percentage of farmers who were

black, degree of urbanization, and percentage of total income from farming. However, we found that

classification by most common commodity typeof

black-operated farm provided the most satisfactory

basis for studying geographic variation in^ the socioeconomic conditions of the study counties.

In 197B, black farmers tended to specialize in four

commpdities or groups of commodities: beef cattle,

other livestock, tobacco, and cash grain (table l).^

The Bureau of the Census classified each farm by

commpaity type on the basis of the commodity or

group of commodities accounting for at least 50 percent of its total farm sales (7 7),

Table I^BIack^operated farms in sttidy counties, by

commodity type, 1978

Type of farm Total

Number

Share of

total

Percent^

Beef eattie (except feedlots) 5,923 23.4

Other livestock 4,710 18.6

Cash^gratn 5,422 21.5

Tobacco 5,165 20.4

Cotton 946 3.7

Vegetable artd melon 683 2.7

Other crops 2.414 9.6

Total 25,263 100.0

^Totels may not add due to rounding.

Source: (72).

ly in the Atlantic Tobacco region and the Delta Crop

region. The large decline in the Atlantic Tobacco

region appears to be partly explained by continued

mechanization of flue-cured tobacco (4). Another explanation may be the decline in flue-cured acreage

allotments.5

We identified four major geographic clusters of counties that differed in commiodity specialization (f^. IJ.'^

The beef cattle farm is tfie most common type of

black-operated farm in two clusters, one centered in

East Texas and another largely in Missfesippi and

Alabama. We refer to these two clusters of counties

as the East Texas Beef study region^^nd the East

South Central (ESC) Beef study region^.

f^ost black farmers in a third county cluster, located

largely in the Mississippi JDelta, specialize in cash

grain or cotton, while black farmers in a fourth group

of counties, clustered along the Atlantic coast,

specialize in tobacco. We^alled these two clusters

the Delta Crop study region and the Atiantic Tobacco study region. The remaining study counties did

not fall into neat clusters and were left unclassiíied.

Because the black-operated farms in^he unclassified

counties are not homogeneous, we did not analyze

them as a separate group;

Characteristics of Slack-Operated Farrm^

Blacks operated only 9.7 percent of all farms in the

study counties in 1978. The percentage ranged from

4.9 percent in the East Texas Beef study region to

15.6 percent in the ESC Beef study region (table #

While data on the numtrenof black farmers from thfe

1982 Census of AgrioulturB{14) are not fully comparable with data from the 1978 Cerïsus,^ rndteatföns

are that the number of bteick farmers dmpped sharpOff-Farm Work

As a whole, black farmers in the study counties depended less on off-farm work than did farmers in

general. Considerable geographic variation existed,

however. Black farmers worked off their farms about

the same as all farmers in the Atlantic Tobacco

study region, slightly more in the Delta Crop region,

and considerably less in the two beef regions.

Nevertheless, black farmers worked off their farms

more in tfie beef study regions than black farmers in

the crop and tobacco regions. Many of the black

farmers in the beef regions appeared to be part-time

farmers. Beef farms can use buildings and hilly land

that otherwise would have little use, and these

farms tiave relatively flexible labor requirements (5).

Thus, a beef operation dovetails well with a job off

the farm.

3As defined here, grains include wheat, rice, corn, barley,

sorghum, and oats. However, tt>ê Census data used here also

classify certain legumes, such as soybeans, lentils, and dry field

peas/as grains.

Wthough we used black-operated farm characteristics to

deHneate regions, one Should remember that black farmers are

retatively rare in the United States; BJack farmers made up no

more than 15.6 percent of ail farms in any of the regions

delineated.

siniormation on allotments and demand for tobacco came

from (&) and from Verrier M. Grise; î^lational Economics Division,

economic Research Service, Ü.S. Department of Agriculture.
Figure 1

Study Counties and Regions

Atlantic Tobacco region

East South Central Beef region

Delta Crop region

East Texas Beef region

Unclassified

w
Land Tenure Farm Size

About the same percentage of blaek farmers as all

farmers were tenants in our study counties. The

tenancy rate was actually lower for black larmiers

than for all farmers in the Atfântie Tobacco region.

The highest tenancy rates for both blacks and all

farmers among the study counties were in the Delta

Crop region.

Black-operated farms in the study counties in 1978

averaged 99 acres, compared with 258 acres for all

farms (table 2). The average size of all farms exceeded the average size of black farms in all study

regions. The difference ranged from 87 acres in the

Atlantic Tobacco region to 403 acres in the Delta

crop region.

Table 2—Characteristics of felack-operated farms and black farmers in study counties by region, 1978

Study regions

East

Item All study Atlantic Delta South East

counties Tobacco Crop Central

Beef

Texas

Beef

Number

Study counties 342 51 34 62 55

Black-operated farms 25,263 7,121 2,047 ^

Percent

5,696 2,758

Share of totat farms 9.7 13.2 ffi2 15.6 4.9 ;

Farmer characteristics;

Under 35 years oldAll farmers 13.8 15.3 18;2 118 10.7

Black farmers 7.6 7.3 10^6 6.0 5.0

65 years old or olderAll farmers 19.0 15.8 14.1 22.0 22.7

Black farmers 31.4 25.3 30:1 38.4 41.2

Worked off-farm 100 or more daysAll farmers 45.2 34.5 31.6 50.6 56.7

Blackiarmers 38.4 33.3 34.0 40.4 45.1

Tenants—-

AU farmers 12.2 19.0 21;a 7.7 8.6

Slack farmers 13.1 16.4 21,8 9.0 8.3

Farms with annual sales:

$40,000 or moreAll farms 19.2 25.0 36:7 15.3 10.2

Black-operated farm 4.2 6.0 4,5 1.2 1.7

$20,000 or moreAir farms 29.4 40.2 47.7 21.4 17.1

Bláek-operated farms 10.2 16.4 12.2 3.0 3.4

Less than-$2,500—

All farrns 25.7 -16.8 17.5 38.6 31.2

Black-operated farms 46.1 28.2 32.3

Acres

68.5 61.2

Average farm size:

AH famas 258 156 514 273 296

Black-operated farms 99 69 111 103 133

Farmland in harvested crops:

All farms

Black-operated farms

Sources: (12, 13).

38.5

33.9

41.2

34.2

Percent

76.1

69.5

27.8

17.3

16.9

14.1
Black farmers In every study region also harvested a

smaller proportion of their land in 1978 than did all

farmers. We are unable to teli from the data whether

blacks farmed less intensively than whites or if

black-owned land was less suited for crop production. A larger percentage of land was harvested by

both blacks and all farmers in the crop and tobacco

regions than in the beef regions.

Blacks also operated rather small farms in 1978

when size was measured by volume of sales. Less

than 5 percent of all black farmers sold more than

$40,000 worth of farm products in 1978, and only 10

percent had sales over $20,000. Sales amounted to

less than $2,500 for 46.1 percent of all blackoperated farms. The percentage of black farms with

sales over $40,000 was largest in the Atlantic Tobacco region and smallest in the beef regions.

Age of Black Farmers

tn each region, proportionately fewer black farmers

were young (less than 35 years old) and more were

elderly (at least 65 years old) than farmers in general. The age distribution of black farmers varied by

study region. The Delta Crop region had the highest

percentage of young black farmers (10.6) and the

East Texas Beef region had the towest percentage

(5). The percentage of efderly farmers ranged from

25.3 in the Atlantic Tobacco region to 41.2 in the

East Texas Beef region.

Study Counties Compared with Other

Southern Counties

Study counties differed from other Southern counties

in economic structure, recent growth, and demographic characteristics.

Economic Structure, 1980

The study counties represented only a small part of

the southern economy in 1980. They contained only

13.5 percent of the region's total population, 11.9

percent of its employment, and 10.3 percent of itspersonal income (table 3). They made up a larger

part of the South's nonmetro economy: 36.8 percent

of the nonmetro South's population, 36.8 percent of

its employment, and 34.7 percent of its personal income. The study counties were economically similar

to other nonmetro counties, but markedly different

from southern metro counties.

Per capita income averaged $6,559 in the study

counties in 1980, some $629 less than in other

southern nonmetro counties and $2,982 less than in

southern metro counties. Transfer payments provided about 17.7 percent of personal income in the

study counties, about the same as in other southern

nonmetro counties, but approximately 5 percentage

points more than in southern metro counties.

Group statistics mask considerable variation among

counties in dependence on transfer payments. For

example, transfer payments made up at least 25 percent of personal income in 29 study counties; 13 of

these counties were in Mississippi. Transfer payments accounted for the largest share of study

county income, 32 percent, in Holmes County, Mississippi, and Mclntosh County, Oklahoma.

Study counties differed little from other southern

nonmetro counties in the distribution of employment

among industries. Farming antf manufacturing

provided proportionately more jobs in both study

counties and other southern honmetro counties than

in the metro South, anct service industries provided

fewer jobs. Nevertheless, the service industries

made up the largest employment sector in all county

groups. In both the study coijnties and other nonmetro counties, about 16 percent of all workers were

self-emptoyed (proprietors) compared with only 7 percent in the metro South.

Economic Changes During the Seventies

Population and employment increased less in the

study counties between 1970 and 1980 than in other

nonmetro counties and metro counties (table 4).

Even so, the study county population growth rate

(13.7 percent) was above the national average (11.4

percent). Per capita income Increased by about the

same percentage in the study counties as in other

Southern nonmetro and metro counties.^ However,

dollar increases in per capita personal income were

less in the study counties than in the other two

county groups.

Transfer payments, property income, and earnings

provided about the same shares of personal income

growth in the study counties as in other nonmetro

counties. Earnings were a smaller source of income

growth and transfer payments a larger source in

both kinds of southern nonmetro counties than in

southern metro counties.

Sources of employment growth varied among the

three county groups. Farming declined as a source

of employment in both groups of southern nonmetro

^Growth in per eapita personal income was greater than inflation in all groups. The eonsumer price index grew by 112.2 percent, from 64.1 in 1970 to 136.0 in 1980 (17).
counties during the seventies, but thedêdina was

larger In the study counties than In other nonnietro

counties. Although sen/ice^ government, and

manufacturing were leadthg sources of new lotjs in

all southern county groups^ the service sector created only about half as many jobs per thousand workers in the non metro as in metro areas. Manufacturing was a more important growth source in Ihe study

counties than in the other county groups; government was most important in the metro South,

Demographic CharacteristiGs, 1980

As expected, blacks made up a much larger part of

the total population in study countiesHthan in the

other two county groups (table 5). In 1980, sonrre

32.3 percent of all residents of study counties were

black, compared with only 9^7 percent in other

southern nonmetro counties; and 19 percent in the

metro South. About 66 percent of the nonmetro

blacks in the South lived in the studiS counties.

EHack poverty was a severe problem in the study

counties; 41.4 percent of all blacks in these counties

were^or, compared with 34.6 percent in other

southern nonmetro counties and 28.9 percent in

southern metro counties. The black poverty rate exceeded 50 percent in 56 study counties, peaking at

67.2 percent in Tunica County, Mississippi.

The difference in black poverty rates between the

study counties and other nonmetro counties was

much greater than one would expect from the per

capita personal income figures in table 3. Per capita

personal income was only 9.6 percent higher in the

othertionmetro counties than in the study counties

(table 3), but the black poverty rate was 19.7 percent

hrgher in the study counties than in the other nonmetro counties (table 5). Per capita income, a highly

aggregate measure, masks the concentration of

blacks at the lower end of the income distribution in

the study counties.

Table 3—Economic charaeteristics by type^ söutHerrTcounty, t980

Item Nonmetro counties Metro

counties

Total

study Other Total

Number

Counties 342 783 1,125

Millions

300 1,425

Populatfon 10.2 17.5 27.7 47.7 75.4

Employment 4.2 7.1 11:.4

BHtion tíoítars

23.8 35,2

Personar ineome 66.9 125.9 192.7

Dolfärs

457.2 650.0

Per capita personai income 6,559 7,188 6,957

Percent

9,541 81,594

Sources of personal income:

Transfer payments 17.7 17.3 17.4 12.5 14.0

Property income 13.7 15.1 14v6 14.7 14.7

Earnings 68.6 67.6 68.0 72.8 71.3

Sourcea of employment:

Farm proprietors 8.6 7.9 8 1 1.0 3 3

Nonfarm proprietors 7.2 8.3 7;9 5.8 6.5

Wage and salary workers 84.2 83.9 84,0 93.2 90.Z

Farming 4.0 2.7 m .5 ÍA

Mining 1.2 3.6 2.7 1.3 1.7

Construction 4.0 4.2 4.1 5.4 5,0

Manufacturing 22.7 21.9 22.2 14.9 17.3

Service 33.5 33.6 336 50.5 45.0

Government 18,8 17.8 18.2 20.6 19,8

Note: Totals may not add due to rounding.

Sources: {16, 18).
The higher incidence of black poverty in the study

counties may be partiatly attributed to blacks' low

educatlonai attainment, low labor force participation

rate, and high unemployment rate. In the study

counties, only 32.3 percent of tílack people over 25

years of âge had completed high school in 1980,

compared with 36.2 percent m other nonmetro counties and 51 percent in the metro South. The black

labor force participation rate was 3.4 percentage

points lower in the study counties than in other nonmetro counties and 9.3 percent lower than in metro

counties. The black unemployment rate was 11.7

percent in the study counties, compared with 10.6

percent in other nonmetro counties and 9.6 percent

in metro counties.

On the ottier hand, the percentage of families headed by a woman with no husband present, another

social indicator linked with poverty (3), was about the

same for blacks in the study counties as in other

nonmetro counties in the South. Both groups of nonmetro counties had a slightfy smaller percentage of

black families headed by women than southern

metro counties.

Blacks were worse off than whites in all groups of

counties. However, differences between blacks and

whites in terms of poverty, educational attainmerrt,

labor force participation, and^ unemployment were far

larger in the study counties than in other types of

counties. For example^ poverty rates for blacks exceeded rates for whites by almost 29 percentage

points in the study counties, compared with only

about 20 percentage points in other nonmetro and

metro counties in the South.

Several factors may have contributed to the low socioeconomic status of blacks in ret^ion to whites in

the study counties. The increased use of farm

maehinery may be one cause. Black labor was significant in the farm sector in the past. Machinery has

decreased the demand for unskilled labor provided

by the black population, tending to lower black labor

force participation and socioeconomlc status in cerTable 4—Econonric growth Indicators by type of southern county, 1970-80

ttem Nonmetro counties Metro

counties

Total

Study Other Total

Percent

Change, 1970-80:

Poputation

Employment

Per capita personal incomePercentage change

13.7

19.2

157.7

20.4

24.7

156.8

17.9

22.6

157.5

Dollars

21.3

35.1

151.0

20.0

30.8

153.4

Dollars 4,014 4,389 4,255 5,740 5.2X)3

Sources of personal

income growth, 1970-80:

Transfer payments

Property income

Earnings

20.0

15.0

65.0

19.3

16,6

64.2

Percent

19.5

16.0

64.5

14.2

15.3

70.5

15.8

15.5

68.7

Sources of employment

growth, 1970-80:1

Farm proprietors

Nonfarm proprietors

Wage and salary workers

Farming

Mining

Construction

Manufacturing

Service

Government

Total

Jobs per 1,000 workers

-21.7 -12.0 -15.8 -2.0 -6.8

17.9 23J 21.5 22.2 21.9

195.9 235.6 220.4 330.8 292.8

-7.7 -2.4 -4.4 -.5 -1.9

6.2 18.0 13.5 8.6 10.3

15.2 16.9 16.3 20.4 19.0

49.7 37.3 42.0 30.5 34.5

93.0 118.7 108.9 218.9 181.0

39,4 47.1 44.1 52,9 49.9

192.1 247.2 226.1 350.9 307.8

Note: Totals may not add due to rounding.

^Growth = ("'^SO industry's employment - 1970 industry's employment) x 1,000

Sources: (75, 76, 18).

total 1970 employment in all industries
tain coufitíes where many blacks left agricultufe and

other industries did not expand to hire the surplus

labor.

Discrimination must be considered as an explanation

of blacks' low socioeeonomic status in the study

counties/In a recent study in eight rural counties in

the Deep South, over 40 percent of the blacks felt

that racîât discrimination was the marh reason that

local blacks did not make more progress. Over 40

percent of the blacks also believed ^hat local governmentsfavored whites over blacks. Whites in the

eight counties, however, generally felt that racja^ discrimination was not a major problem. White respondents also believed that local government was fair to

both races (6).

The dual labor market theory may also help explain

the low status of blacks in the study counties. The

dual labor market theory holds that the labor market

is made up of a primary market and a secondary

market (2). The jprimary market pays high wages,

provides good working conditions, offers employment

stability and ehsfnces for advancement, and administers work rules fairly. The secondary sector, on

the other hand, öfters low wages, poor working conditions, unstable efnployrnent, few chances for advancement, and arbitrary administration of work

rules. Disadvantaged workers, such as blacks, are

concentr^ed irethe^secondary market by residence,

inadequate skills, poor work history, and discrimination. If blacks in the study counties are more concentrated in the secondary market than blacks

Tablé 5—Population characteristics by type of southerrr cpunty and race, 1980

Item Wonnietro counties Metro

counties

Total

Study Other Total

Percent

Blacks^ 32.3 9.7 18.0 19.0 1^8.6 ;

65 years old or older^

Blacks

Whites

12.3

10.7

13.0

13.0

9.5

13.4

12.7

10.3

13.3

10.4

7.6

11.3

11.2

8.6

12.1

In poverty (1979)2

Blacks

Whites

22.3

41.4

12.9

17.2

34.6

14.9

19.0

39.1

14.3

13.2

28.9

9.1

15.4

32.5

11.0

Graduated from high school

Blacks

Whites

49.0

32.3

55.5

51.1

36.2

52.8

504

33.6

53.6

65.9

51.0

69.3

60.2

45.0

m.5

Living in rural areas (all races):^

Gn farm

Off farm

5.4

57.5

5.0

57.5

5.1

57.5

.8

15.3

2.4

30.8

Unemployment rate^

Blacks

Whites

6.7

11.7

4.8

6.6

10.6

6.1

6.6

ii:3

5.7

5.2

9.6

4.2

5.7

10.1

4.7

Labor force participation rate^

Blacks

Whites

56.5

52.1

58.5

56.0

55.5

66.1

56;2

53.2

62.7

614

62.8

^0.3

58,4

60.6

Families with a woman as head

of household, no husband present^

Black

White

15.3

32.3

9.0

11.2

32.5

9.3

12.7

32.3

9.2

15.0

36.1

10.7

14.2

84.8

10.1

^Shar^ of population.

2Share of noninstitutionalized population.

^Share of population at least 25 years old.

"^Share of labor force.

sShare of population at least 16 years old either working or seeking work.

^Share of families.

Source: (76).
elsewhere, they will tend to have lower socioeconomic status in relation to local whites.

Whites are better off in the study counties than in

other nonmetro counties. Whites have a lower

poverty rate, a higher labor force participation rate,

and a lower unemptoyment rate in the study counties

than in other nonmetro counties. The dual labor market theory may also help explain this phenomenon.

The secondary labor market probably draws heavily

from the white population in other nonmetro counties

because blacks make up such a small portion of the

population. In the study counties, however, blacks

are a much larger share of the population and undoubtedly make up a larger portion of the secondary

market. Whites are better off in the study counties

because proportionately fewer whites are in the

secondary market in the study counties than in other

nonmetro counties.

Variation in Social and

Economic Conditions

Not only do study counties, on average, differ socially and economically from metro and other nonmetro

counties in the South, but conditions in the study

counties also vary considerably by study region.

Economic Structure, 1980

Per capita income in 1980 ranged from $5,755 in the

Delta to $7,364 in East Texas (table 6). Transfer payments in 1980 provided about a fifth of total personal

income in the Delta Crop and ESC Beef regions, the

two study regions with the lowest incomes. Although

transfer payments accounted for the largest share of

personal income in the Delta, that study region actually had lower per capita transfer payments than did

the East Texas Beef and ESC Beef regions. Even

small transfer payments can make up a large share

of total personal income in a low-income area.

The distribution of employment across industries in

1980 differed from that for ail study counties much

more in the East Texas Beef and Delta Crop regions

than in the other two regions. Hired farm workers in

the Delta Crop region accounted for 10.3 percent of

total employment, compared with only 4 percent for

all study counties. The region is characterized by

targe farms and plantations that require hired workers. Although the service sector was the largest

sector in all study regions, it was particularly large in

the Delta Crop and East Texas Beet regions. On the

other hand, manufacturing provided only 14.3 percent of all Delta jobs, 8.4 percentage points less

than for all study counties. In East Texas, a larger

percentage of workers were farm and nonfarm

proprietors than in the other regions. The East Texas

Beef region was similar to the Delta Crop region in

that the service industries were relatively more important than for all study counties, and manufacturing was relatively less important.

Economic Changes During the Seventies

By any measure, the East Texas Beef region

boomed between 1970 and 1980, while the Delta

Crop region languished. The growth rate in the East

Texas Beef region exceeded the growth rate in the

Delta Crop region by 21.6 percentage points for

population, 25.5 percentage points for employment,

and 25 percentage points for per capita personal income (table 7). Growth rates in the other two regions

generally fell between those for the Delta Crop and

East Texas Beef regions.

Rapid growth in East Texas appears to have benefited black farmers. The percentage of black farmers

working off the farm 100 or more days a year was

highest (45 percent) in the East Texas Beef region

(table 2). The high off-farm employment rate may

reflect both better economic opportunities in the local

East Texas economy and the characteristics of

small-scale beef farming. Small beef farms with their

flexible labor requirements (5) are particularly well

suited to part-time farming.

Only the Delta Crop region tost population during the

seventies; population declined in half of the 34 Delta

Crop counties. Population change among Delta

counties ranged from a decline of 20.5 percent in

Quitman, Mississippi, to an increase of 15 percent in

Caldwell Parish, Louisiana. By contrast, none of the

East Texas Beef counties lost population, and 31 of

55 grew by more than 15 percent during the decade.

Per capita income during the seventies increased

least ($3,533) in the slow-growing Delta Crop region

and most ($4,771) in the fast-growing East Texas

Beef region. Transfer payments and property income

became a larger source of income in all regions during the seventies. The percentage of income provided by these two income sources increased 6-8

percentage points in all study regions except the

East Texas Beef region, where it increased only 3

percentage points.

Sources of employment change among study counties also varied by study region. Farming was the

only industry to become a smaller provider of jobs in

all regions during the decade. The decline in the

number of farm proprietors was smallest in the East

Texas Beef region and greatest in the ESC Beef and
Atlantic Tobacco regions. The Delta Crop region had

the largest decline in farm workers, over four times

the study county average.

In East Texas, employment growth was more broadly

based than in the other regions. Job gains in mining,

construction, services, and government were larger

in East Texas than in any other region. By contrast,

most of the slow-growing Delta Crop region's new

jobs were concentrated in services and government.

Most employment growth in the ESC Beef and Atlantic Tobacco regions also was concentrated in a few

industries, largely manufacturing, services, and

government.

Demographic CharacteristJcs, 1980

Blacks formed a larger share of the population in the

Delta Crop and ESC Beef regions than in other

regions in 1980. Over 40 percent of the population

was black in the Delta Crop and ESC Beef regions,

compared with 34.1 percent in the Atlantic Tobacco

region and 19.8 percent in East Texas Beef region

(table 8).

More blacks lived in poverty in the Delta Crop (56.3

percent) and ESC Beef (46.1 percent) regions than

in the Atlantic Tobacco (36.3 percent) and East

Texas Beef (39.9 percent) regions. Geographie variation in black poverty may be partiaUy explained by

variation in educationar attainment and local employment opportunities. The percentage of black adults

who graduated from high school was lower in the

two regions with high black poverty rates than in the

otheriwo regions. And, the black unemployment rate

in 1980 was higher in the poorer regions. Black

labor force participation was lowest in the Delta Crop

region, which had the highest black poverty rate,

Table 6—Economic characterJstics of study counties, by region, 1980

m study

counties

Study regions

item Atlantic

Tobacco

Delta

Crop

East

South

Centrai

Beef

East

Texas

Beef

Number

Counties 342 51 34

Thousands

62 55

Population

Employment

10,178

4,226

2,255

1,010

826

306

Billion dollars

1,648

624

1,498

609

Personal income 66.9 14.8 4.8

Dollars

10.0 11.1

Per capita personal income 6,559 6,580 5,755

Percent

6,507 7,384

Sources of personal income:

Transfer payments

Property income

Earnings

17.7

13.7

68.6

16.3

12.2

71.5

20.6

15.3

64.1

19.9

12,0

68.1

17.2

17.3

65.5

Sources of employment:

Farm proprietors

Nonfarm proprietors

Wage and salary workers

Farming

Mining

Construction

Manufacturing

Service

Government

8.6

7.2

84.2

4.0

1.2

4.0

22.7

33.5

18.8

7.8

6.6

85.6

4.7

.3

3,9

25.3

31,3

20.0

8.9

7.1

84.0

10.3

1.0

3.0

14.3

37.1

18.2

8.9

6.7

84.4

2.4

1.7

3.7

21.7

34.1

20.8

11.1

8.7

80.1

2.1

3,7

4.5

17.7

36.1

16.9

Note: Totals may not add due to rounding.

Sources: (16, 18).

10
and highest in the Atlantic Tobacco region, which

had the lowest black poverty rate.

The percentage of black families headed by a woman with no husband present showed less variation

than other social and economic indicators, but was

highest in the Delta Crop region.

Whites were better off than blacks in all study

regions in 1980, but racial differences in poverty, unemployment, and educational attainment were greater in the Delta Crop and ESC Beef regions than in

the other two regions.

Conclusions and Implications

Black farmers are concentrated in slow-growing

areas where employment opportunities are limited.

Economic and social conditions in the study counties

were far worse than conditions in metro areas of the

South. Employment, population, and income have

also grown much more slowly in the study counties

than in metro counties of the South. Growth in the

study counties also lags somewhat behind growth

in other nonmetro southern counties.

The socioeconomic status of blacks was particularly

low in the study counties in 1980. Blacks in those

counties have a higher incidence of poverty, much

less education, a lower labor force participation rate,

and a higher unemployment rate than in other

southern counties. And, disparities between blacks

and whites in poverty rates, level of educational attainment, labor force participation, and unemployment are all far wider in the study counties than

elsewhere.

Table 7—Economic growth indicators for study counties by region, 1970-80

All study

Study regions

Item Atlantic Delta

East

South East

Texas counties Tobacco Crop Central

Beef Beef

Percent

Change 1970-80:

Population 13.7 14.1 -1.2 9.9 20.4

Employment 19.2 17.7 4.4 13.2 29.9

Per capita personal incomePercentage change 157.7 143.6 159.0

Dollars

164.8 184.0

Dollar change 4,014 3,879 3,533

Percent

3,770 4,771

Sources of personal

income growth, 1970-80:

Transfer payments 20.0 19.6 23.2 22.2 17.3

Property income 15.0 13.2 17.9 13.0 18.4

Earnings 65.0 67.2

Jobs

58.8

per 1,000 workers

64.8 64.3

Sources of employment

growth, 1970-80: i

Farm proprietors -21.7 -32.8 -24.1 -32.6 -6.0

Nonfarm proprietors 17.9 17.9 15.4 13.9 23.3

Wage and salary workers 195.9 191.6 54.2 152.3 280.9

Farming -7.7 -9.5 -34.0 -12.0 -6.6

Mining 6.2 1.3 2.9 7.4 25.7

Construction 15.2 10.8 5.2 15.6 23.0

Manufacturing 49.7 65.9 8.0 25.9 65.6

Service 93.0 89.3 49.6 79.4 122.0

Government 39.4 33.7 22.5 36.0 51.0

Total 192.1 176.7 45.5 133.5 298.1

Note: Totals may not add due to rounding.

irirnwth = (1980 industry's employment- 1970 industry' s employment) x 1,000

total 1970 employment in all industries

Sources: {15, 16, 18).

11
Economic growth in the study counties \^aried considerably by region, ranging from fast in the East

Texas Beef region to slow in the DeJta Crop region.

The seventies' growth rate for the East Texas Beef

region exceeded the rate for the Delta Crop region

by 21.6 percentage points for population, 25.5 percentage points for employment, and 25 percentage

points for per capita income. The East Texas Beef

region's employment growth was well distributed

across all nonfarm industries, while the Delta Crop

region's was concentrated in the service industries

and government. The decline in farm proprietors per

1,000 workers was five times as great in the Delta

Crop region as in the East Texas Beef region.

Although the black poverty rate was high (39.9 percent) in the East Texas Beef region, it was even

higher (56.3 percent) in the Delta Crop region. The

black unemployment rate in 1980 also was much

higher in the Delta Crop region (15.1 percent) than

in the East Texas Beef region (8.9 percent).

These findings suggest that policies and programs to

assist black farmers need to be tailored to the kind

of areas in which they live and to the type of farming

they practice. For example, In areas of rapid employment growth, such as the East Texas Beef region,

assuring black farmers equal access to credit and

extension programs and encouraging part-time farming may be the most appropriate policy emphasis.

Many of the black farmers in the East Texas Beef

region appear to raise a few head of cattle and work

off their farms. On the other hand, slow employment

Table 6—Population characteristics of study counties by region, 19â0

Item All study

counties

Atlantic

Tobacco

Study regions

Delta

Crop

East

South

Central

Beef

East

Texas

Beef

Percent

Biacksi 32.3 34.1 44.7 41.4 19.8

65 years old or otder^

Blacks

Whites

12.3

10.7

13.0

10.2

8.8

11.0

13.0

12.6

12.9

12.4

11.1

12.8

15.9

15.7

16.4

In poverty (1979)2

Blacks

Whites

22.3

41.4

12,9

20.5

36.3

11.7

33.9

56.3

15.9

27.3

46.1

14.1

18,7

39,9

12.9

Graduated from high schooP

Blacks

Whites

49.0

32.3

55.5

48.3

34.8

54.5

43.2

25.3

54.0

49.9

31.0

60.2

52.2

36.8

55.9

Living in rural areas (all races):^

On farm

Off farm

5.4

57.5

6.4

60.6

5.7

51.0

3.7

61.0

5.1

48.7

Unemployment rate'^

Blacks

Whites

6.7

11.7

4.8

6.7

11.3

4.6

8.6

15.1

5.0

7.8

13.4

4.9

4.7

8.9

3.8

Labor force participation rate^

Blacks

Whites

56.5

52.1

58.5

60.1

56.2

62.1

50,1

43.8

54.4

53.1

48.6

55.7

53.8

48.0

55.2

Families with a woman as head

of household, no husband present^

Black

White

15,3

32.3

9.0

16.1

31.1

9.8

18.6

35.3

8.6

17.1

32.4

8.8

12.1

31.9

8.0

^Share of population.

2Share of noninstítutionallzed population.

^Share of population at least 25 years old.

^Share of labor force.

sShare of population at least 16 years old either working or seeking work.

^Share of families.

Source: (76).

12
growth and continued population loss in other areas,

such as the Delta Crop region, suggest that some

black farmers cannot rely on local off-farm employment to supplement their farm income. Many of

these black farm families may have to migrate to

other areas in order to find more attractive economic

opportunities.

Many black farm families would be better off financially if they left agriculture. Most black-operated

farms are very small and cannot provide enough income to adequately support a family. Thus, the most

effective policy for helping many black farmers may

be to encourage economic growth in depressed rural

areas for those who decide to leave farming. More

education and job training in these areas could also

help black farmers make the transition to nonfarm

work. Black farmers who want to continue farming,

but are not economically able to do so, will undoubtedly find the transition to nonfarm work traumatic,

even if they eventually improve their lot.

Although most black farmers operate small farms,

not all do. About 4 percent of black farmers in the

study counties had sales of at least $40,000. Percentages of black farms with sales of $40,000 or more

ranged from 1.2 percent in the ESC Beef region to 6

percent in the Atlantic Tobacco region. For these

commercial farmers, the economic health of agriculture in general is important.

Finally, 31.4 percent of the black farmers in the

study counties were 65 years old or older. For these

farmers, the major transfer programs directed specifically toward the elderly (Social Security, Supplemental Security Income, and Medicare) are critically

important. Changes in these programs will have a

greater effect on elderly black farmers than any

other kinds of programs, including rural development

programs, farm programs, educational programs, or

job creation programs.

13
References

(1) Banks, Vera. Black Farmers and Their Farms.

RDRR-59. U.S. Dept. Agr., Econ. Res. Serv.,

July 1986.

(2) Doeringer, Peter B., and Michael J. Piore. Internal Labor Markets and Manpower Analysis. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath and Company, 1971.

(3) Getz, Virginia K., and Robert A. Hoppe. "The

Changing Characteristics of the Nonmetro

Poor," Social Development Issues, Vol. 7, No. 1

(Spring 1983), pp. 29-44.

(4) Grise, Verner N. Trends in Flue-Cured Tobacco

Farming. AER-470. U.S. Dept. Agr., Econ. and

Stat. Serv., June 1981.

(5) Holcomb, George B. Getting Started in Farming

on a Small Scale. AIB-451. U.S. Dept. Agr., Off.

of Gov. and Pub. Aff., April 1982.

(6) Molnar, Joseph J., and William D. Lawson.

*'Perceptions of Barriers to Black Political and

Economic Progress in Rural Areas," Rural Sociology, Vol. 49, No. 2 (Summer 1984), pp.

261-83.

(7) Munoz, Robert D. Black Farmers in the Mississippi and Tennessee Sand-Clay Hills. AER-149.

Mississippi State Univ., Mississippi Agricultural

and Forestry Experiment Station, June 1984.

(8) U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. The Decline of

Black Farming in America. Feb. 1982.

(9) U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic

Research Service. Tobacco Outlook and Situation Report. TS-187. Mar. 1984.

(10) U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the

Census. 1978 Census of Agriculture: Vol. 1,

State and County Data. Various States. Various

dates.

(11) _. 1978 Census of Agriculture: Vol.

h Summary and State Data: Part 51 United

States. AC78-A-51, July 1981.

(12) _. 1978 Census of Agriculture. Black

Farm Characteristics by County. Unpublished

computer tape.

(13) 1978 Census of Agriculture. Farm

(14)

Characteristics by County. Unpublished computer tape.

. 1982 Census of Agriculture: Vol.

(15)

7, Geographic Area Series. Various States. Various dates.

. 1970 Census of Population. Unpublished computer tape.

(16) 7980 Census of Population. Unpublished computer tape.

(17) __. "Money Income and Poverty Status of Families and Persons in the United

States: 1984 (Advance Data From the March

1985 Current Population Survey)," Current

Population Reports. Series P-60, No. 149, Aug.

1985.

(18) U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. Local Area Employment and Income, 1970 and 1980. Unpublished computer

tapes.

14
Appendix: Data Sources

Most of the county data on the number, location,

and characteristics of black farmers are from a special tabulation of the 1978 Census of Agriculture (12).

This is the most recent Census of Agriculture for

which special tabulations on black farmers are available. A special tabulation from the 1982 Census of

Agriculture is planned, but is not yet available.

Income and employment data for counties came

from the Bureau of Economic Analysis (18). We used

these data to compare economic conditions in counties containing concentrations of black farmers with

conditions in other counties. We also drew heavily

from the 1970 and 1980 Censuses of Population for

socioeconomic data on blacks and whites (75, 16).

Not all black-operated farms were assigned to counties in the 1978 Census of Agriculture. In collecting

data, the Bureau of the Census first compiled a mailing list from various sources and then mailed questionnaires to farmers on the list (11). Farmers then

filled out the questionnaires and mailed them back to

the Bureau.

The Bureau also sent enumerators to all households

in selected rural areas to obtain information for those

farmers who were not on the original mailing list.

These interviews provided data that were included in

national, regional, and State totals. However, these

data could not be allocated to individual counties

(11). Although our study counties contained only

46.3 percent of southern black-operated farms, they

contained 71.8 percent of all the black-operated

farms assigned to counties by the Bureau of the

Census (app. table 1). These percentages varied

considerably by State.

Some data for black farms in the study counties

were also missing. Because there were so few black

farmers in most counties, the Bureau of the Census

suppressed these data to prevent disclosure of information about individuals. Suppression of these data

rendered county data on total volume of agricultural

sales, value of farmland, value of buildings and

equipment, acres of various crops, and head of

livestock of various species practically worthless.

The characteristics of black farmers and blackoperated farms presented in text table 2 are for

items with relatively minor disclosure problems.

Appendix table 1—Black farmers in the Southern States, 1978

Black farmers in all

southern counties Black farmers in study counties

Percentage

Not Percentage of all black

Assigned assigned of all farmers

to to black assigned to

State Total counties counties Total farmers counties

Number —— -Percent

Alabama 4,791 3,143 1,648 2,348 49.0 74.7

Arkansas 2.067 1,559 508 1,054 51.0 67.6

Delaware 60 42 18 0 0 0

Florida 2,307 999 1,308 565 24.5 56.6

Georgia 4,485 2.648 1,837 1,556 34.7 58.8

Kentucky 1,092 1,028 64 360 33.0 35.0

Louisiana 3,296 1,934 1.362 1,471 44.6 76.1

Maryland 953 564 389 235 24.7 41.7

Mississippi 8,817 4,996 3.821 4.385 49.7 87.8

North Carolina 7,680 5,820 1,860 4,826 62.8 82.9

Oklahoma 851 773 78 415 48.8 53.7

South Carolina 6,451 3,773 2,678 3,101 48.1 82.2

Tennessee 2,405 1,754 651 835 34.7 47.6

Texas 5,420 3.066 2.354 1,855 34.2 60.5

Virginia 3,895 3,075 820 2,257 57.9 73.4

West Virginia 46 33 13 0 0 0

Total 54,616 35.207 19,409 25,263 46.3 71.8

Sources: (10,12).

15