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
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
- 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment