U.S. farm economics 6

The previous posts in this series set the broad contexts in which our family lived both historically (from the late nineteenth century through World War I and beyond), economically (the prosperous years of the Great War into the Great Depression), and even climatologically (the severe drought of the early 1930s). Within those broad contours we located Peter D and Sarah Siebert Buller (the first of our family to break sod and plant crops on the former prairie) through their son and his wife, Peter P and Margaretha Epp Buller (who came to own and farm a significant number of acres), to their son and his wife, Chris and Malinda Franz Buller (who started their farm and established a family during the worst of the Depression years).

All that is the bird’s-eye view of our ancestors’ lives within the context of world history. There is so much more to learn, however, by focusing in on particular aspects of the specific world in which they lived—which is precisely what the upcoming posts will attempt to do.

As someone who knows less about Nebraska farming than he should, I am curious about a number of matters, such as:

• How much did Peter D pay for his land? Peter P for his various tracts of land? Grandpa Chris for his Lushton farm?
• How were the land purchases paid for: primarily in cash or via a mortgage? If the latter, who was the mortgage issuer?
• What type of arrangement (cash or shares) was used with the rental of the north half of the Lushton farm?
• What crops did each one raise? How much was used on the farm, and how much was sold? What prices were they likely to have received for each?
• What were the crop yields during the time they were farming, and what would yields of that size have generated in terms of income?
• What other sources of income were available to the families? How much of their food did they raise for themselves?
• What standard of living did each family enjoy? What were the roles and responsibilities of the various family members, especially the adult women and children?
• How did the families cope with the various weather-related challenges, from extreme drought to severe blizzards?

I cannot promise that all these questions will be answered in full, but at least will will consider and explore each one as a way of gaining insight into the daily lives of our family members of the early twentieth century. We will draw from two groups of sources available to us: the memories of those who lived through a good portion of this time (i.e., Grandpa and Grandma’s children); and many of the publications of the University of Nebraska, College of Agriculture, Experiment Station from that time frame (see a listing of many of them here).

Since most of what we will explore will be farming-related, there is no better place to start than by considering broadly Nebraska farming in the 1920s and 1930s. Our primary source is a Nebraska Agricultural Experiment Station Research Bulletin (Hedges and Elliott 1930) titled Types of Farming in Nebraska. According to the authors, Nebraska can be viewed in terms of nine different types of farming operations (marked in the map below):

1. Northeast Intensive Meat Producing Area
2. Southeastern General Farming Area
3. Southern Cash Grain and Livestock Area
4. Central Corn and Livestock Area
5. Central Hay and Livestock Area
6. The Sand Hill Cattle Ranching Area
7. Southwestern Wheat Area
8. High Plains Small Grain and Grazing Area
9. Irrigated Area

Obviously, the region of greatest interest to us is area 3, within which York County is highlighted in blue. Remember that the Lushton farm was in the southwest corner of York County. So what does this 1930 report have to say about the type of farming practiced in area 3? The bulletin summarizes:

Here the wheat enterprise has gained in importance over Area 2 and occupies about 22 per cent of the farm area. Corn remains the leading crop, however, occupying nearly a third of the farm land. Oats and hay are less important than in Areas 1 and 2, and the pasture land, while nearly as large in acreage, has a somewhat lower carrying capacity. The smaller hay and pasture acreages and their lower productivity account for the fact that there are fewer cattle in this than in the areas to the north and east. Feed grains are relatively plentiful, resulting in a somewhat higher ration of hogs to cattle than in any other area of the state. The dairy and poultry enterprises have gained somewhat in importance relative to the other livestock enterprises. The importance of wheat as a cash grain, supplementing livestock as a source of income, accounts for the name given this area. (Hedges and Elliott 1930, 25)

The authors elaborate later:

In this area there is a further decline in the proportion of the farm area devoted to corn, oats, and hay, and a decided increase in the wheat acreage as compared with Areas 1 and 2. Corn occupies about 31, oats about 8, and hay and other forage crops about 9 per cent of the farm area. Wheat occupies 22 per cent of the farm acreage, which is materially larger than in Areas 1 and 2.

In general, the land of Area 3 is quite level—more level than in any other area of the state. This, together with suitable soils, is favorable to wheat production. The boundaries were determined largely on the basis of wheat acreage; here it occupies a larger proportion of the farm land than in any of the adjoining areas.

The decline in the relative importance of corn in this area is due both to lower relative yields and to greater variability in yields. the rainfall, particularly in the southern and southwestern parts, is lower and the variation from year to year is greater than in Areas 1 and 2. … There is also more evaporation. Corn yields vary as much as 41 per cent from the long-time average. … This is not only very high relative to the variability of corn in other areas but is high relative to the variability of other crops grown in this same area. Oats, for example, have a variability of 35 per cent while the variability in wheat yields is only 30.

This situation results in reducing still more the comparative advantage of corn over wheat with the result that wheat acreage increases relative to both the corn and oats acreages. …

Cattle are somewhat less important relative to hogs in this area than in Area 2. The number is determined by the pasture and hay area. The low productivity of the hay and pasture land results in a decrease in cattle and the smaller amount of corn results in a decrease in hogs. In Figure 17 it will be observed that the number of cattle per square mile is materially below the number in Areas 1 and 2, yet the relative hay and pasture acreages have not changed a great deal. The carrying capacity of the pasture, except in the extremely northeastern part of the area, is considerably less than in the areas to the east and north.

Dairy cattle are relatively more important in this area than in Areas 1 and 2. Dairying fits in as a supplementary enterprise with wheat and utilizes family labor without adding to the out-of-pocket costs. It contributes to the stability of income and helps pay the minor expenses. …

There is more feed grain sold—particularly corn—in this area than in either Areas 1 and 2. Just why this practice has developed is difficult to explain. It possibly may be due to the uncertainty of the rainfall, which increases the feeding hazard. In dry years with a shortage in both pastures and feed grains it becomes necessary to liquidate livestock. This is usually done at a big sacrifice, with the livestock in an unfinished state, resulting in heavy losses. To avoid this hazard farmers ten to understock rather than overstock hence, they have excess feed grain to sell in nearly all years, particularly in the years of good crops. (Hedges and Elliott 1930, 54–56)

There is a lot of information packed into that short description, but several points bear highlighting. First, the crop distribution was, on average, 31 percent corn, 22 percent wheat, 8 percent oats, and the rest in hay, other forage crops, and pasture. This distribution may help us imagine more accurately which crops our ancestors raised on their farms.

Second, compared to the immediately adjacent areas, livestock as a whole was less important relative to the cultivation of cash crops. Dairy cattle were more significant relative to beef, as were hogs. The key here is that farmers in this area perhaps raised livestock first for their own consumption and only secondarily for sale.

There is far more that we can glean from this first bulletin, but this will suffice for now. We have a good sense of the type of farming in which Grandpa Chris engaged in 1930. It was a mix of crops raised for sale (corn and wheat), with large and small livestock for the family’s consumption and limited sales during productive times.

Source Cited

Hedges, Harold, and F. F. Elliott. 1930. Types of Farming in Nebraska. Nebraska Agricultural Experiment Station Research Bulletin 244. Lincoln: University of Nebraska, College of Agriculture, Experiment Station. Available online here. 80 pages.