The people's voice. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1939-1969, 1947-03-21
Continued from Page One)


dinating the efforts of various federal
agencies which have to do with reg
ional development.
The Missouri Valley is by far the
larger, embracing 10 states but of
these only Nebraska lies wholly with
in its boundaries. 1t has nearly a
fourth of all United States farm land.
The Tennessee Valley takes in parts
of seven states, but has less than 2
per cent of the farm lands.
Size of Farms
Tennessee Valley farms are gener-
ally the smaller, family type, averag-
ing about IS acres Those of the Mis-
souri, Valley average about ATS acres.
But whatever the size of the farm,
whatever the variance in types of
crops, there are certain measurements |
which may be applied to any farm. |
These are the common denominators |
found in the Census Bureau study
Each farmer lives in home that
has or lacks modern conveniences. he
has or he lacks modern farm machin-
cry; he owns his farm or operates it
as a tenant; he has greater or lesser
opportunity in periods of slack farm
operations to supplement his income
by other employment. And in many
instances account can be taken of the :
disparity in size of farms by reducing
the data to per acre basis.
Certainly the last is true of the per
acre value of farm lands and build !
ings. In 1880 the acre value of Mis-
cO11ri Ua11ou fa1 ,I1oc Voc or
cents more than in the Tennessee Val
ley. By 1915 the acre value of Ten
nessee valley farm had risen to $4,000,
and in the Missouri valley had 5
dropped to S25.2S.
Farm Machinery Index Z
The position of the two valleys was
reversed again when measured in the
value of farm machinery employed Z
per acre of harvested land For 1880
the figures were S7.13 for the Mis- Z
souri, Valley and $7.05 for the Ten
nessee Valley. By 1916 the Missouri Z
Valley figure was 1894, but that of
the Tennessee Valley, $12.72.
Also of interest is the comparison Z
of farm homes equipped with cleo s
tricity. IVA has constructed vast Z
network of hydro electric dams which q.
made cheap power available in it's 8
region. The result by 1915 was that 8
32.1 per cent of its farm homes had &
electric service. Even in that year y
a larger proportion of Missouri Val 3
ley farm homes were so equipped, 1872 g
per cent. But since 1880 the gain in Z
the Tennessee Valley was about sew 9
en-fold, against a two-fold increase in &
the Missouri Valley.
In population the Missouri Valley q
slight decline between
the 1880 and 1910 censuses, only 5 of &
one per cent, but it ran counter to a 2
national trend which showed an in .
crease of ~ per cent. The Tennes- 8
see Valley increase was - per cent. q
During the 1930-1945 period there 8
was marked decline in farm tenancy q
IN the Tennessee Valley. In 1880, 8
1919 per cent of it's farms were tenant q
operated; in 1915, PA per cent. The 8
rend toward farm ownership was less
pronounced in the Missouri Valley q
where the percentage of tenant OPP Z
Grated farms fell from 39.7 to 34.7. q
Here again was reversal-the Ten Z
lessee Valley began the period with d
| greater percentage Of tenant oper- Z
tied farms and at the end the Mis- q
ouri Valley had this dubious distinc- 8
ion q
Supplemental Income q
During the war all farm areas suf- &
cred from an acute manpower short q
ge but there are always seasons of 8
he year when the farmer has time q
not the opportunity, to supplement 3
is income by other employment. 8
A suggestion of broader economic 8
pportunity in the Tennessee Valley 9
5 found in figures obtained in the q
935 and 1915 censuses. Farmers in 8
he Tennessee Valley worked off their Il
arms IL million days in 1914, about &
TX million more than in 1884. In the q
Iissouri Valley farmers worked off Z
leir farms 13,365,O0O days in the 1
ter year, about 100000 fewer than
! 1884 IS
ahOr cOcfc for birod hoIy ora yo,,ob ~