Peter D and Sarah’s Farm 20

Viewing an object such as a painting or a sculpture from a number of different angles often provides new perspectives and, as a result, a deeper and more nuanced understanding of and appreciation for the object under examination. This principle is just as true for less tangible material such as words and numbers on the page of a census form. With that in mind, the next several posts will look at the information recorded on the agricultural schedule for the 1885 Nebraska census from various angles, so we can form a nuanced and accurate view of the Buller farm six years into our family’s life in the U.S.

The two previous posts (here and here) observed the significant progress that Peter D and Sarah had made between 1880 and 1885. However, one wonders how their experience compared with those around them, that is, with their closest neighbors whose lives are described and their livelihoods recorded on the same page of the 1885 schedule. Looking at the Buller farm’s performance from this comparative angle is the subject of this post.

1. Farm size and land value

The extract from the agricultural schedule above records three types of information for each farmer: acreage that the farmer devoted to four different types of agriculture in columns 5–8; the value of the land owned in column 9; and the value of all farm products, whether sold or consumed, in column 16 (the last column shown).

Three of the nine farmers listed owned 160 acres: Peter Dalke, Isaac Brown, and Peter D. John Sparling owned 120 acres, and four others owned 80 acres: John Dalke, Isaac Brown (both Jr. and Sr. are listed on this page), Henry Pankratz, and John Penner. Finally Peter Penfrey (name uncertain; it appears to be Penkres on the main census form) owned 20 acres. By homesteading the 80 acres south of his original (1879) farm, Peter D had joined the group of farmers with the larger land holdings.

Four of the farms, including Peter D’s, were valued at $20 an acre; two were in the $22–23 range, and the remaining three farms were valued at $25 an acre. This close grouping is pretty clear evidence of the worth of land in that immediate area in 1885. By way of comparison, in 1880 the per-acre values for the farms in Peter D’s immediate area ranged from $5 to over $21, with an average value of $12.40 an acre.

What can we conclude from this brief comparison? By 1885, Peter D and Sarah were numbered among the larger landholders in their immediate area; the value of their land, though significantly higher than in 1880, was on the low end of the range reported by their neighbors.

2. Value of farm products

Of the three largest landowners, Peter D had by far the lowest value of farm productions: $652. Peter Dalke led the way with $2,495, and Isaac Brown reported $1,195. Why did Peter D’s 160-acre farm produce so much less? That is a question to keep in mind as we consider the other areas of comparison in this post.

The picture does not improve when we consider the data from the perspective of dollars produced per acre for all nine farms. The range is $4.06 to $15.59 (Peter Dalke) an acre; Peter D’s figure of $4.08 is next to last and well below the average of $7.36. Again, one wonders about the cause of the the Buller farm’s poorer performance.

3. Crop distribution

Interestingly, the amount of acreage Peter D devoted to raising crops was proportionately smaller than nearly all the other farmers. Could this be part of the source of the lower farm production value? The two other 160-acre farms devoted 144 acres, or 88 percent of their total acreage, to the raising of crops; Peter D, on the other hand, used only 115 acres, or 72 percent, to that end. Most of the smaller farms also devoted a higher percentage of their land to raising crops, ranging from 75 to 87 percent. Only John Dalke allocated a smaller percentage to crops than Peter D.

We observe in the second column of numbers that Peter D had 40 acres set aside for “permanent meadows, permanent pastures, orchards, vineyards.” This was more than double the amount of any of the other farms listed. Was this prairie sod that had not yet been broken (plowed), or did the Buller farm actually include a permanent pasture or orchard?

Note also that Peter D had 5 acres in the category “woodland and forest.” Again, this is far more than the other farms in the immediate area. When we compare these figures with the 1880 census schedule, we discover something interesting. In 1880, Peter D reported no acreage allocated to pastures or woodland. This gives the impression that the 45 acres given to pastures and woodland in 1885 were in the new land that Peter D and Sarah had claimed through the Homestead Act on 9 August 1880. If all this is correct, then it would be reasonable to think that these 45 acres simply had not yet been developed. It is not that Peter D chose to devote more than a fourth of his land to pastures and woodlands; rather, he had not yet broken the prairie sod or cut down the trees in the wooded area. Presumably all that took place at some point in the future.

4. Crop yields and revenue

As noted above, the amount of money that Peter D generated per acre owned was far below that of his closest neighbors. Was this because his farm had a comparatively smaller amount of land given over to raising crops? because his crop yields were below those of his neighbors? because of both? due to some other factor? A close look at Peter D’s yields compared to those of his neighbors may shed light on this question.

The extract above shows the crops raised by the nine farmers on the relevant agricultural schedule. As noted before, Peter D is the eighth farmer listed. Without reproducing all the details (I am happy to send my Excel sheet to anyone who asks), we can draw certain conclusions from this report.

Comparing the tilled acres listed in the first extract above to the total acres planted for all crops reveals that five of the farmers listed planted crops in every spare acre, while two others planted, respectively, 95 and 93 percent of the available acres. Peter D, by contrast, planted crops in 89 percent of his available acreage. Presumably the rest of his land was left fallow this year. To put this in different terms, whereas the other two 160-acre farms planted crops on 140 acres, Peter D planted only 102 acres, which certainly reduced, in the end, the amount of revenue that his farm produced.

Six of the nine farmers raised at least corn, oats, and wheat, but one planted only corn and wheat, one with a small farm (20 acres) planted only wheat, and one planted only corn. Interestingly, Peter D was the only one of this group of nine who planted rye. He used less than 10 percent of his tilled acreage for this crop, so it was not a central part of his farming. Still, I find it noteworthy that he diversified his crops more than his neighbors. I also wonder: Why did he raise rye, when none of the others did?

The majority (55.2 percent) of the acres were planted to wheat, which was clearly the leading crop in this area. Corn was the second most popular crop, accounting for 36.1 of the acres planted. The remaining 8.7 percent was given mostly to oats, along with Peter D’s 7 acres of rye.

The average yields for the three crops grown by the majority of these farmers were:

• corn: 37.6 bushels an acre, ranging from 25.0 to 47.4 (whether the reported yield was for shelled corn or on the cob is unknown to me)
• oats: 44.9 bushels an acre, ranging from 25.0 to 60.0
• wheat: 14.5 an acre, ranging from 10.0 to 18.3

Peter D’s yields were below average in every case, with his corn producing 33.3 bushels an acre, his oats 25.0 bushels an acre, and his wheat 13.1 bushels an acre.

According to the 30 July 1885 Republican Register, an Aurora newspaper, local prices for the crops listed above were as follows (p. 8):

• corn: 25¢ a bushel
• oats: 22.5¢ a bushel
• rye: 42.5¢ a bushel
• wheat: 62.5¢ a bushel

By multiplying the average yields per acre by the local price for each crop, we can calculate the average revenue per acre that each crop produced:

• corn: $9.40 an acre (Peter D: $8.33)
• oats: $10.10 an acre (Peter D: $5.63)
• rye: $6.98 an acre
• wheat: $9.07 an acre (Peter D: $8.16)

Taking all these data into account helps us to form a more nuanced perspective on Peter D and Sarah’s farm six years after they set up their new life a mile outside of Henderson. By 1885, they were among the larger landholders in the immediate area, with possession of 160 acres. However, a notable amount of that land was as yet undeveloped, still in its original state as unbroken prairie sod or woods. Further, of the land that was available for raising crops, 11 percent was left fallow; unlike most of their neighbors, Peter D and Sarah did not plant crops in every available acre. In addition, for whatever reason, Peter D and Sarah fell somewhat below the average yields that their neighbors enjoyed. As a result of all these factors, they also reported a lower than average value of all farm productions.

One might think, after reading that paragraph, that Peter D and Sarah were not very successful in their farming endeavors. However, there are still other angles from which to view their performance, which is a matter we will take up in the following post.

Peter D and Sarah’s Farm 19

The previous post (here) examined the top section of data recorded in the agricultural schedule for the 1885 Nebraska census; this post will turn to the second and third sections, so that we can compare further how Peter D and Sarah’s situation changed during the first five years of their life in Nebraska. The first section of the scheduled revealed that they had doubled their acreage, that the per-acre value of their land had more than tripled, and that they were producing goods whose value was nearly 50 percent higher than when the family first arrived. Will the rest of the agricultural schedule continue this positive trend? Let us turn to the final two sections, on livestock and crops, to find out. (For a scan of the full schedule page, see here.)

We noted earlier that the Buller farm had two horses in 1880 and four in 1885. We see, in most cases, a similar increase with the other farm animals.

Cattle: In 1880 Peter D had a single dairy cow; in 1885 he had three dairy cows and three “other” cows, presumably for sale or slaughter. Curiously, the three dairy cows of 1885 produced the same amount of butter as the one cow in 1880: 150 pounds. The 1885 schedule also reports that one calf dropped (i.e., was born) during the prior year.

Pigs: In 1880 Peter D owned six pigs; in 1885 he had thirty-six, a sixfold increase. By way of context, four of Peter D’s eight immediate neighbors had larger herds, ranging all the way from forty-seven up to eighty. Thus although one can reasonably conclude that raising swine assumed greater importance for Peter D and family, it was, comparatively speaking, not as significant as with other farmers in the area.

Chickens: The Buller farm actually reduced its number of chickens over this five-year period, from twenty-five in 1880 to seventeen in 1885. The egg production experienced an even greater decline, from fifty dozen eggs in 1880 to twenty-five dozen in 1885 (note that the 1885 record is smudged, and I am not positive of my reading).

In general, then, the five-year period from 1880 to 1885 saw significant increases in the livestock owned by Peter D and Sarah: they had twice as many horses, six times as many cows, and six times as many pigs. Only their chicken holdings had decreased, a reduction that probably had little financial effect on the family.

The family’s crops show a similar expansive trend.

Corn: In 1880, Peter D had 1.5 acres of corn that produced 60 bushels; in 1885 he reported planting 27 acres that produced 900 bushels of corn. The average yield for 1885 was slightly below that for 1880: 33.3 bushels an acre in 1885 compared to 40 in 1880. Most notably, whereas corn accounted for only 2.6 percent of the entire acreage planted in 1880, in 1885 it represented 25.7 of the total acreage.

Oats: In 1880, Peter D harvested 160 bushels of oats from a 5-acre field; in 1885, his 8-acre plot yielded 200 bushels. Once again we see a decrease in the average yield, from 32 bushels an acre in 1880 to 25 bushels an acre in 1885.

Rye: No rye had been planted by the former owner of the Buller farm (recall that Peter D and Sarah bought the farm with crops in the ground), so none was harvested in 1880. By 1885, Peter D planted 7 acres to rye, which produced 115 bushels, for a yield of 16.4 bushels an acre.

Wheat: The dominant field crop in both years was wheat. However, it is quite possible that the two wheat varieties planted were different; in fact, the 1880 and 1885 crops may even have been planted at different times of the year. At this time, non-Mennonites favored a spring planting of the softer types of wheat, while Mennonites usually planted Turkey Red, a hard winter wheat that they had brought with them from Russia. Since the 1880 wheat field was planted by a non-Mennonite and the 1885 one by a Mennonite (Peter D), it is highly likely that the the two plantings were significantly different.

Although we cannot be certain about the types and times of the wheat planted, we do know that Peter D increased his acreage from 51 acres in 1880 to 63 acres in 1885. His yield also increased, from 10.2 bushels an acre (518 bushels total) in 1880 to 12.4 bushels an acre (783 bushels total) in 1885.

One last crop, to use the term loosely appears on both agricultural schedules: Irish potatoes. The family reported half an acre devoted to potatoes in each schedule. In 1880, that half-acre produced 20 bushels of potatoes; in 1885, 30 bushels.

On nearly every front, Peter D and Sarah’s farm operations showed significant growth during the first five years of their new life in Nebraska. Their land holdings had doubled, and the value of their land had tripled. By 1885, they owned double the number of horses, six times as many cows, and six times as many pigs as five years earlier; of all the animals raised on the farm, only their chicken flock was smaller than it had been at the beginning. Likewise, the family devoted more acreage to each of the three crops they had harvested in 1880 and added a fourth crop (rye) to the mix. Certainly the first five years of our family’s U.S. existence were a time of establishing a good life in their new Nebraska home.

Peter D and Sarah’s Farm 18

As noted earlier (see here), in 1879 the U.S. Congress passed an “act to provide for taking the tenth and subsequent censuses,” which included a provision encouraging state governments to conduct their own censuses midway between the federal censuses, that is, in 1885, 1895, 1905, and so on. Nebraska took up the federal government’s offer to reimburse half the cost of conducting this census only once, in 1885 (for more on the 1885 Nebraska census, see here).

Although the population data collected in that census is important enough on its own, what is of greatest interest to us now is the information gathered in the 1885 agricultural schedule, which was patterned after the 1880 U.S. census agricultural schedule that we examined in the last few posts. To be specific, a comparison of the agricultural schedules of the 1880 and 1885 censuses will give us a good picture of how Peter D, Sarah, and the family fared during the first five years of their new life in Nebraska.

As mentioned, the 1885 agricultural schedule followed the 1880 pattern, as one can see in the image below. Both recorded the information for ten farms on each page, and both began in the first section by indicating whether the person listed owned or rented his farm, the farm acreage (tilled fields, permanent meadows, woodland, other unimproved land), the farm value (land, farm implements, livestock), cost of fences built or repaired, hired laborers, estimated value of all farm productions (sold and consumed), grass lands, and the number of horses and mules owned. (For a scan of the full schedule page, see here.)

With this overview as background, we are ready to compare the 1880 and 1885 schedules. We begin with the first part of section 1.

The first thing to notice is that this group of ten actually numbers only nine, which is unique among the 1885 Farmers Valley precinct schedules. Another anomaly is that the first columns, which are supposed to indicate whether the farmer owned, rented for cash, or rented on shares, are all blank; again, this sheet is the only one in Farmers Valley to lack this information. One wonders what this reveals about the care with which this schedule page was completed.

Peter D Buller (this time with his name spelled correctly; compare the 1880 census) is in the eighth slot. Curiously, only one of the names who was listed with him on the 1880 sheet (see the table here) appears on the 1885 sheet: Henry Pankratz (no. 7). However, five others listed on the same sheet as Peter D in 1880 appear on sheets before and after his 1885 page: Philip Fuhrer, Gerhard (George) Dick Jr., Gerhard (George) Dick Sr., Henry Griess, and John Laurie Sr. Presumably the 1880 and 1885 census takers took different routes through the countryside, which led to the shuffling of names. Thus, one might reasonably suggest that two-thirds of Peter D and Sarah’s immediate neighbors in 1880 were still there five years later.

A second noteworthy item is the significant increase in size of the Buller farm. In 1880 the schedule reported that Peter D had 70 acres tilled and 10 acres other unimproved, for a total of 80 acres. In the 1885 schedule shown above, Peter D is reported as having 115 acres tilled, 40 acres in permanent meadows, permanent pastures, orchards, and vineyards, and 5 acres other unimproved, for a total of 160 acres, double the amount of land owned just five years earlier.

Of course, this is no surprise, since we learned earlier that Peter D filed a homestead claim for the 80 acres immediately south of his original farm on 9 August 1880 (see here). Although Peter D’s homestead claim was not finalized until 3 September 1892, the land was considered his for the purposes of the 1885 agricultural schedule.

Not only had the size of the Buller farm increased significantly; its value had grown substantially. The extract below provides the details.

As in the 1880 schedule, the three columns list the value of (1) the farm, including land, fences, and buildings; (2) farming implements and machinery; and (3) livestock. Peter D’s 160 acres of land was worth $3,200 (compared to $500 for 80 acres in 1880); his implements and machinery were worth $400 (compared to $160 in 1880); and his livestock was worth $105 (compared with $175 in 1880). All told, the value of the Buller farm was $3,705 in 1885, over four times the 1880 value of $835. Obviously, the growth in value was due to a sharp increase in land values, from $6.25 an acre ($500 ÷ 80 acres) to $20 an acre ($3,200 ÷ 160 acres) in five years.

A few final items close out the top portion of the schedule. (1) According to the 1880 schedule, Peter D had paid one laborer $8 during the prior year; the 1885 schedule reports that he paid eight laborers a total of $60 ($1,978 in 2025 dollars) during the prior year. (2) The value of all the farm products in 1880 was $453; in 1885 the value increased by roughly 44 percent, to $652. (3) Finally, in 1880 the Bullers owned two horses; in 1885 they owned four.

This top portion of the 1885 agricultural schedule sketches a remarkably clear picture of our family’s early life in the United States. Within five years, Peter D and Sarah had gained possession of 160 acres of land whose value had more than tripled during that time, all the while producing farm goods worth nearly half again as much as when they first arrived. Their overall situation was decidedly positive, but what other details about their lives lie waiting to be uncovered? The next post in this series will examine the rest of the agricultural schedule to discover how it might fill out the sketch of the Buller family farm in 1885.