UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA COMPOSITION AND CHARACTERISTICS OF THE AGRICULTURAL POPULATION IN CALIFORNIA GEORGE M. PETERSON BULLETIN 630 June, 1939 CONTRIBUTION FROM THE GIANNINI FOUNDATION OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA CONTENTS PAGE Introduction 3 Definitions and census terms 5 Farm population and number of farms 9 Estimated California farm population, January 1, 1930 9 Urban-farm population 13 Gainful workers in agriculture 15 Farmers by occupation and the number of farms, April 1, 1930 22 Classification of farms by residence of the operator 24 Rural-farm population in California, April 1, 1930 25 Families without gainful workers 27 Gainful workers among school children 29 Racial groups in rural-farm population 30 Census figures on size of families 30 Distribution of rural-farm population by race, sex, and occupation 31 Derivation of table 14 31 Analysis of female farm operators and heads of families 32 Calculation of distribution of homemakers 32 Percentage of married farm laborers 34 Size of families with homemakers 34 Farm-operator population not living on farms 35 Agricultural population in California, April 1, 1930 36 Other activities of farm operators 39 Labor supply available to do the necessary farm work 43 Proportion of farm wages paid to people living on farms 44 Summary and conclusions 45 COMPOSITION AND CHARACTERISTICS OF THE AGRICULTURAL POPULATION IN CALIFORNIA 1 GEORGE M. PETERSON 3 INTRODUCTION In recent years there have been many attempts to solve some of the eco- nomic problems connected with agriculture by legislation and by action of organized groups. Legislators and officials of such organizations need all the facts that can be made available if they are to act wisely in coping with the problems. Census data provide many of the facts to be considered in connection with problems relating to agriculture. These data may be roughly divided into two categories : one relating to people engaged in or dependent on agriculture for a livelihood ; and the other pertaining to nonhuman agri- cultural resources and the production of agricultural commodities. This bulletin deals primarily with the first category and presents figures from the censuses and estimates based on these figures for important groups of persons not classified separately in the censuses. The United States Department of Agriculture Bureau of Agricultural Economics has been making estimates of income from agricultural pro- duction for many years. These estimates of gross and net income apply to agriculture as an industry ; total wages paid, taxes, depreciation, other costs, and expenses are deducted in calculating net. In making these esti- mates, attempts are made to separate all costs and expenses connected with family living from the farm business, such as expenses attributed to the dwelling house and family use of the automobile. The farm as a business unit is charged with room and board furnished to labor and credited with the farm value of products consumed in the home. Obvi- ously these estimates of farm income do not represent total income to people living on farms. Since no other figures on farm incomes have been available, however, these estimates have sometimes been misinterpreted to represent the total income to people living on farms and the census on farm population to represent the total population dependent on agri- culture. 1 Received for publication August 17, 1937. 2 Paper No. 80, The Giannini Foundation of Agricultural Economics. 3 Associate Professor of Agricultural Economics, Associate Agricultural Economist in the Experiment Station, and Associate Agricultural Economist on the Giannini Foundation. [3] 4 University of California — Experiment Station Reliable estimates of income from all sources accruing to people living on farms are difficult to make, and even if made such estimates may have no practical significance. Many farm operators and farm laborers do not live on farms, and many of the gainful workers living on farms work in other industries than agriculture. In considering agriculture as an in- dustry and the welfare of the people engaged in this industry, farm operators, farm laborers, and their dependents should be considered regardless of whether or not they live on farms. The purpose of this bulletin is to make an analysis of census data for California to show the difference between the "agricultural population" and the "farm population," that is, the population living on farms; to estimate the number of farm operators, farm laborers, and dependents of both not living on farms ; to show the number of gainful workers liv- ing on rural farms while working in other industries than agriculture ; to separate the total agricultural population into employer and employee classes ; to show the importance of work off the farm for pay or income by farm operators ; and to make an estimate of the proportion of wages paid for farm labor which is received by people not living on farms. These data for California are of importance to the people in this state and to officials in Washington, D. C, who have to administer the various laws enacted to improve agricultural conditions. Similar data for other states and for the whole United States may indicate the need for modi- fying laws and policies to conform to census facts. One policy of the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act, approved February 29, 1936, was stated to be "the reestablishment ... of the ratio between the pur- chasing power of the net income per person on farms and that of the in- come per person not on farms that prevailed during the five-year period, August, 1909, to July, 1914, inclusive, as determined from statistics available in the United States Department of Agriculture." Since the available statistics did not include income to people on farms from other sources than farming, a research project was started in the Department of Agriculture to obtain data on income to farmers from other sources. A preliminary draft of the analyses contained in this bulletin was sent to Washington, D. C, and the difference between farm population and agricultural population pointed out. The difficulty of making an analysis of population on farms and obtaining data on income from other sources than farming operations led to a change in the wording in the Agricul- tural Adjustment Act of 1938, approved February 16, 1938. It states : "Parity as applied to income shall be that per-capita income of individ- uals on farms from farming operations that bears to the per-capita net income of individuals not on farms the same relation as prevailed during Bul. 630] Characteristics of Agricultural Population 5 the period from August, 1909, to July, 1914." This wording seems to legalize the procedure of calculating per-capita net income to people on farms by dividing the income from farming operations by the census number of people living on farms. Since many people living on farms are not engaged in agricultural pursuits or are not dependent on those engaged in farming and many farmers have income from other sources, more data are necessary before accurate comparisons can be made. The Census of Population and the Census of Agriculture for 1930 con- tain the most recent and most detailed information available on the com- position and characteristics of the California agricultural population. More complete and up-to-date information will not be available until the 1940 Census has been taken and published — about two years later. The more recent 1935 Census of Agriculture contains data on the number of people living on farms January 1, 1935, but no detailed information on race or nationality, age, sex, or occupation of these people. DEFINITIONS AND CENSUS TERMS The federal Constitution provides for the taking of a census of popula- tion every ten years. Since 1840 a census of agriculture has been taken at the same time. In 1925 and again in 1935 a separate census of agricul- ture was taken as of January 1 of those years. Terms quoted from the various censuses are defined by the United States Department of Commerce Bureau of the Census as indicated in the following paragraphs. Some supplementary terms used in this bulle- tin are defined by the author. Urban population, as defined by the Census Bureau, is in general that residing in cities and other incorporated places having 2,500 inhabitants or more, the remainder being classified as rural. The farm population as shown for 1930 comprises all persons living on farms, with- out regard to occupation. The farm-population figures for 1920 include, in addition, those farm laborers (and their families) who, while not living on farms, nevertheless lived in strictly rural territory outside of the limits of any city or other incorporated place. Though the number of additional persons thus included is believed not to have been very great, some allowance should be made for this difference in definition when comparing the figures. Further allowance should be made for the fact that the 1920 Census was taken in January, when considerable numbers of farm laborers and others usually living on farms were temporarily absent, while the 1930 Census was taken in April, when by reason of the advancing season the number of persons on the farms was appreciably larger. Since these two factors operate in opposite directions, it may well be that one largely offsets the other. It seems probable, however, that the change in date added more to the 1930 returns than were omitted through the use of the narrower definition. 6 University of California — Experiment Station Urban-farm population, that is, the population living on farms within the limits of cities and other urban places .... is not included in the detailed presentation by color, sex, age, etc. In other words, the analysis of the farm population is limited to that part living in rural territory, which is designated in every case as "rural-farm" [population] Eural-nonfarm population, sometimes termed the "village" population, includes, in general, all persons living outside of cities or other incorporated places having 2,500 inhabitants or more who do not live on farms 4 The term agricultural population is used in this bulletin to mean the people who operate or work on farms and their dependents irrespective of where they live. 5 The term farm population as used in the census ap- plies to people who live on farms at a given date irrespective of what they do. Since many gainful workers living on farms work in other industries than agriculture, and since many farm operators and most of the farm laborers in California do not live on farms, census data on farm popula- tion give an incorrect picture of the agricultural population and are often misinterpreted to mean the latter. The farm population as tabulated in the 1930 Census of Population was in answer to the question on the population schedule, "Does this family live on a farm?" Since some people call their property a farm even though it does not meet the definition of a farm in the censuses of agriculture, whereas others do not call their holding a farm even though it fulfills the requirements, farm population in 1930 is not exactly com- parable with data for 1925 and 1935, which apply to people actually liv- ing on the farms enumerated in the censuses of agriculture. A farm, for census purposes, is all the land which is directly farmed by one person, either by his own labor alone or with the assistance of members of his household, or hired employees. A ranch, nursery, greenhouse, hatchery, feed lot, or apiary, is considered a farm. Establishments keeping fur-bearing animals or game, fish hatch- eries, stockyards, parks, etc., are not considered as farms, unless combined with farm operations. The enumerator was instructed not to report as a farm any tract of land of less than 3 acres, unless its agricultural products in 1934 were valued at $250 or more. A farm may consist of a single tract of land, or of a number of separate tracts. These several tracts may be held under different tenures, as when one tract is owned by the farmer and another tract is rented by him. When a landowner has one or more tenants, renters, croppers, or managers, the land operated by each is considered a farm. Thus on a plantation the land operated by each "cropper" or tenant was re- 4 This and the three preceding paragraphs are from: United States Department of Commerce Bureau of the Census. Fifteenth Census of the United States, 1930. Population, vol. 3(1) :5, 6. 1932. 5 People dependent on agriculture, such as operators and laborers in processing and merchandising establishments handling agricultural commodities or products and services for sale to farmers, are not included in this analysis. Bul. 630] Characteristics of Agricultural Population 7 ported as a separate farm. The land operated by the owner or manager, by means of wage hands, was likewise reported as a separate farm. 6 The censuses of agriculture tabulate data from all farms that meet the census definition of a farm irrespective of whether such farms are located in urban or rural territory and irrespective of whether the operator lives on the farm or elsewhere. If the census enumerator cannot interview the farm operator, because he is not at home or lives too far away, then he gets whatever information he can about the farm from observation and by asking the neighbors. Practically the same definition of a farm has been used since 1910 with only minor differences in 1910 and 1920. No distinction is made in the censuses of agriculture between urban and rural farms. The census defi- nition of a farm should not be confused with the ordinary concept of real estate, for there are many properties of 3 acres and over outside city limits which are not counted as farms. For example, the 1930 Census of Agriculture showed 3,401 and the 1935 Census 5,582 farms of 3 acres and over in San Diego County, whereas an actual count in 1934 of the number of properties of 3 acres and over outside city limits listed on the assessor's books showed 16,759 such properties of which more than 4,000 were tax delinquent. 7 Similar conditions prevailed in other coun- ties where land had been subdivided and sold to nonresidents. According to the definition in the Census of Agriculture : A farm operator .... is a person who operates a farm, either performing the labor himself or directly supervising it. Therefore, the number of farm operators is identi- cal with the number of farms. 8 The "person" operating a farm may also be engaged in some other occupation or profession, and the farm operator may actually be a bank, an insurance company, or a corporation primarily engaged in some other activity while operating one or more farms. A farm operator, according to the occupational classification in the Census of Population, is an individual for whom farming constitutes his major source of income. Many small and part-time farmers receive most of their income from other sources than agriculture and may classify themselves as engaged in some other industry than agriculture. Land owners who operate their farms by hired managers or renters may classify themselves as farmers, so that for some farms there may be two 6 United States Department of Commerce Eureau of the Census. United States Census of Agriculture, 1935. vol. l:vi. 1936. 7 Peterson, George M. Eural tax delinquencies in California. Univ. of California Giannini Foundation Mimeo. Eept. 38:1-8. 1934. (Out of print.) 8 United States Department of Commerce Bureau of the Census. United States Census of Agriculture, 1935. vol. l:vi. 1936. 8 University of California — Experiment Station operators listed in the occupational classification while for other farms there are none. In some sections of the country, including California, these differences tend to offset each other so that the number of farm- ers as owners, tenants, managers, and foremen practically equals the number of farms listed in the Census of Agriculture. Unfortunately, however, the census classification groups farm managers and foremen together and therefore adjustments have to be made in interpreting the data. In the Census of Agriculture : Farm operators are classified as white or colored. White includes Mexicans and Hindus; and colored includes Negroes, Indians, Chinese, Japanese, and other non- white races, and also mixtures of white and colored races. 1 ' In the Census of Population : In the main tabulations of the population by color or race, three groups are dis- tinguished, namely, white, Negro, and "other races." In some of the tables, however, the third group is subdivided into its constituent parts, the principal ones being Mexican, Indian, Chinese, and Japanese. 10 This difference in definition of "white" between the Census of Agri- culture and the Census of Population is of little significance for most states but very important in California where there are many Mexican agricultural workers, and the Mexican foremen of crews of laborers are classified along with managers of farms in the occupational classification. The term family, as it is used in the tabulation of the results of the 1930 Census, is limited in the main to what might be called private families, excluding the institu- tions and hotel or boardinghouse groups which have been counted as families in prior censuses. A family may therefore be defined in general as a group of persons, related either by blood or by marriage or adoption, who live together as one house- hold, usually sharing the same table. Single persons living alone are counted as families, however, as are a few small groups of unrelated persons sharing the same living accommodations as "partners." A homemalcer is that woman member of the family who was responsible for care of the home and family. (Hired housekeepers were not counted as homemakers.) The families reporting no gainful worlcers are mainly those of widows and elderly men who have retired from active employment. 11 9 United States Department of Commerce Bureau of the Census. United States Census of Agriculture, 1935. vol. l:vi. 1936. 10 United States Department of Commerce Bureau of the Census. Fifteenth Census of the United States, 1930. Population, vol. 3(1) :7. 1932. 11 This and the preceding two paragraphs are from: United States Department of Commerce Bureau of the Census. Fifteenth Census of the United States, 1930. Population, vol. 6:5-6, 8, 9. 1933. Bul. 630] Characteristics of Agricultural Population 9 The term gainful workers in census usage, includes all persons who usually follow a gainful occupation, although they may not have been employed when the census was taken. It does not include women doing housework in their homes, without wages, and having no other employment, nor children working at home, merely on general household work, on chores, or at odd times on other work. 12 The school attendance tabulation is based on the replies to the enumerators' in- quiry as to whether the person attended school or college of any kind since September 1, 1929. Since the inquiry was made for the most part in April, 1930, the returns should include all persons who had attended school for any part of the school year, 1929-30 .... The number of persons 21 years old and over attending school .... is made up partly of young men and women attending college and partly of employed persons attending night schools. 13 The classification of dwellings [on farms] as occupied or unoccupied was as of January 1, 1935. Any place in which people were living, such as a mansion, house, sod hut, shack, cabin, hogan, etc., was to be reported as an occupied dwelling. 14 FAEM POPULATION AND NUMBER OF FARMS Census data on farm population are available for the years 1920, 1925, 1930, and 1935 and are shown in table 1. Prior to the Census of 1920, no classification was made of people living on farms, and only two classes, "urban" and "rural," were tabulated. The data in table 1 are not comparable and cannot be used to show trends without first making adjustments. As reported in the censuses and shown in table 1, the data indicate a decrease of 11,668 in the farm popu- lation and an increase of 14,684 in the number of farms between April 1, 1930, and January 1, 1935. An increase in the number of farms is not con- sistent with a decrease in the farm population and indicates the need for making adjustments before drawing conclusions. The main adjustment necessary to make data on farm population more nearly comparable in recent years is to estimate what the farm population was on January 1, 1930. Estimated California Farm Population, January 1, 1930. — The vari- ations in the number of persons per farm shown in the last column of table 1 are due to differences in the number of farms as well as to differ- ences in definition of farm population. The figure for 1920 is too high on account of the inclusion of some farm laborers not on farms (see defini- tion, p. 5). 12 United States Department of Commerce Bureau of the Census. Fifteenth Census of the United States, 1930. Population, vol. 4:1. 1933. 13 United States Department of Commerce Bureau of the Census. Fifteenth Census of the United States, 1930. Population, vol. 3(1) :10. 1932. 14 United States Department of Commerce Bureau of the Census. United States Census of Agriculture, 1935. vol. 2:vii. 1936. 10 University of California — Experiment Station The figure for 1925 may be too low, for it is generally recognized that the census taken in that year was incomplete. An analysis of the number of farms by size in acre classes shows that the 1925 Census of Agriculture indicated a considerable drop in the number of large farms, while the 1930 Census of Agriculture showed a corresponding increase. Since large farms do not drop out of existence and come back again within a five-year period, it is reasonable to assume that farm population in 1925 is under- stated. TABLE 1 Farm Population and Number of Farms in California, 1920 to 1935 Census period Farm population Number of farms Persons Urban farms Rural farms Total per farm January 1, 1920 23,257 * 41,156 493,513 516,770 531,008 620,506 608,838 117,670 136,409 135,676 150,360 4.39 3 89 April 1, 1930 579,350 4.57 January 1, 1935 4.05 * Dashes indicate data not available. Sources of data: 1920, 1930: United States Department of Commerce Bureau of the Census. Fifteenth Census of the United States, 1930. Population, vol. 3 (1):30. 1932. 1925: United States Department of Commerce Bureau of the Census. United States Census of Agriculture, 1925. vol. 3:480. 1927. 1935: United States Department of Commerce Bureau of the Census. United States Census of Agriculture, 1935. vol. 2:941; vol. 1:937. 1936. Similar analysis of farms by size in acres indicates that somewhere around 2,000 small properties were not counted as farms in 1930. Many of the people living on these properties may have answered yes to the question, "Do you live on a farm ?" and may have been counted as part of the farm population even though their property was not counted as a farm in the 1930 Census of Agriculture. The number of persons per farm in 1930 is therefore too high owing to an understatement of the number of farms and to the fact that the census was taken as of April 1 instead of January 1. In taking the 1935 Census of Agriculture, greater emphasis was placed on securing a complete count of all places that might be called farms, with the result that many properties not previously counted as farms were included. Since the people living on these places were also included in the farm population, the number of persons per farm may be a fairly representative average for January 1. In prosperous times many families live on farms but do not operate them. The owners rent the land to neighbors. In this way several prop- erties, which for all practical purposes are separate farms, become only one farm operated by a part owner according to the census definition of Bul. 630] Characteristics of Agricultural Population 11 a farm (p. 6). During* depressions some of the part owners cease to rent properties and these become separate farms, not necessarily new farms. From 1930 to 1935 there was a decrease of 1,727 in the number of farms operated by part owners. Other part-owner operators may have relinquished the farming of one or more properties and still remained part-owner operators. Transfer of existing properties from inclusion in part-owner-operated farms to separate farms may account for as much as 3,000 of the apparent increase in the number of farms. Underenumer- ation of farms in 1930 may have been about 2,000, and the real increase in number of farms from 1930 to 1935 about 9,000. If the above estimated real increase of 9,000 in the number of farms is multiplied by 4.05 (the average number of persons per farm in 1935), a total of 36,450 is ob- tained as the estimated increase in farm population associated with the increase in the number of farms. The January 1, 1935, farm population of 608,838 less 36,450 leaves 572,388 as estimated farm population, Jan- uary 1, 1930. Subtracting this figure from the April 1 population of 620,506 leaves 48,118 as the estimated movement to farms between Jan- uary and April. Another method of making an estimate is to multiply the number of farms in 1930 plus the estimated underenumerations of farms in that year (135,676 + 2,000) by 4.11 (the average number of persons per farm during" the three censuses that were taken on January 1) . This gives a total of 565,848 as the estimated farm population on January 1, 1930, and 54,658 as the estimated movement of population to farms between January 1 and April 1, 1930. In round numbers these two methods give an estimated movement of 50,000. Other data on dwellings and hired labor indicate that the above esti- mate is approximately correct. The 1935 Census of Agriculture, taken on January 1, shows that 17,702 farms in California had no people living on them. Of this number 3,583 had only unoccupied dwellings and 14,119 had no dwellings or did not report. Farms reporting both occupied and unoccupied dwellings numbered 10,287 and there was a total of 19,076 unoccupied dwellings at this season, but most of these undoubtedly would be occupied at other seasons by farm operators or farm laborers. Some of the farms with occupied dwellings may have been occupied only by a caretaker or a few laborers rather than by the farm operator's family and enough laborers to do the spring work. Since very little building construction took place between 1930 and 1935, most of these dwellings were there in 1930 ; and if most of them are occupied during April and other dwellings are also used, 50,000 more people could easily be housed on farms in April than were on farms on January 1. 12 University of California — Experiment Station During the first week in January, 1935, 93,499 farms used family labor only, 14,247 used hired labor only, 31,211 used both family and hired labor, and 11,403 used no labor at all or did not report. At this season only 45,458 farms out of a total of 150,360, or less than one-third, used hired labor. In 1929, a total of 90,492 out of 135,676 farms, or two-thirds, hired labor at some time during the year. The need for farm labor in April is much greater than in January, and many of the farm laborers and a few farm operators move to farms bringing their families with them. The sea- sonal labor study by R. L. Adams 15 shows that in addition to the farm work performed by the farm operator, his family, and the regularly hired laborers, there is need for approximately 11,000 more fully employed efficient seasonal laborers on farms in April than in January. The United States Department of Agriculture Bureau of Agricultural Economics publishes their estimates of the January 1, 1930, farm popu- lation by regions rather than by states. A comparison of their figures for the Pacific Coast 16 with the census data for Washington, Oregon, and California shows that they have estimated the difference for all three states combined to be only 24,900 between January 1 and April 1 in 1930. This is only about half of the 50,000 estimated above for California alone. Although there is no exact basis for making an estimate, the author believes that an estimate of 50,000 in round numbers more nearly in- dicates the movement of population to farms in California between January and April, and that 570,000 in round numbers is a close ap- proximation of the farm population, January 1, 1930. The movement of farm laborers and some farm operators to and from farms raises an important question of how they are to be considered in relation to population on farms. Must they be living on farms on Jan- uary 1 to be counted as part of the farm population ? Or should they be counted as part of the farm population if they spend most of their time working on farms and derive all or most of their income from agricul- ture ? In the latter case practically all farm laborers and farm operators not living on farms would have to be counted as farm population. But, if the term "farm population" is to be used to signify the number of people actually living on farms at a given date, then some other term must be used to designate the people dependent on agriculture, regardless of where they live, and for this purpose the term "agricultural population" as defined on page 6 has been chosen. 15 Adams, R. L. Seasonal labor requirements for California crops. California Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 623: 1-28. 1938. 10 United States Department of Agriculture Bureau of Agricultural Economics. Farm population estimates, January 1, 1938. p. 14. June 16, 1938. (Mimeo.) Bul, 630] Characteristics of Agricultural Population 13 In order to reconstruct a measure of the agricultural population from census data and to separate this population into classes by operators, farm laborers, and dependents, and further to separate it into those liv- ing on farms and those not living on farms, it is necessary to (1) estimate the number of occupied urban farms and the number of farms operated by people who do not live on farms, (2) analyze the rural-farm popula- tion by occupations and race classes, and (3) subtract the gainful work- ers accounted for in the urban-farm and rural-farm population from the total gainful workers in agriculture as reported in the census. TABLE 2 Urban- and Rural-Farm Population in California by Counties, April 1, 1930 County Total farm Rural farm Urban farm Per cent urban 604 53,770 21,022 20,605 20,824 14,394 11,353 8,255 26,765 442,914 33,169 16,799 17,285 17,909 12,421 10,332 7,501 25,761 438,173 604 20,601 4,223 3,320 2,915 1,973 1,021 754 1,004 4,741 100.0 38.3 San Bernardino Riverside 20.1 16.1 14.0 13.7 9.0 9.1 3.8 1.1 620,506 579,350 41,156 6.6 Source of data: United States Department of Commerce Bureau of the Census. Fifteenth Census of the United States, 1930. Population, vol. 3(1) :251-54. 1932. Urban-Farm Population. — The data in table 1 indicate that the urban- farm population nearly doubled between 1920 and 1930, while the rural- farm population increased only a fifth. In 1930 the urban-farm popu- lation represented only 6.6 per cent of the total farm population in the state, but it ranged from 100 per cent in San Francisco County to zero in fourteen counties. Only nine counties had over 500 persons each classed as urban-farm population in April, 1930. These are shown in table 2. Since the censuses of agriculture do not classify farms or farm popula- tion as urban and rural, comparisons in 1935 can be made only for San Francisco County where all farms are urban. In 1930 the Census lists 112 farms and an urban-farm population of 604 persons in San Francisco. The 1935 Census lists 248 farms of which 157 were under 3 acres in size. Only 184 of the 248 farms reported farm population — a total of 917 per- sons. Much of this reported increase in San Francisco undoubtedly is due mainly to a more complete enumeration rather than to any actual 14 University of California — Experiment Station increase. These data also indicate that many urban farms are unoccupied, and that the owner or operator does not live on the farm. In the 1930 Census volume on families, under the classification of ten- ure of homes, the totals for all farm families and for rural-farm families are tabulated by race and tenure of home as owned, rented, and tenure unknown. By subtracting the rural-farm families from the total of all farm families a classification of urban-farm families by race is obtained, as shown in table 3. These data along* with those shown in tables 1 and 2 constitute all the census information available about the urban-farm TABLE 3 Tenure of Homes of Farm Families by Nativity of Head of Family, California, April 1, 1930 Total farm families Rural-far ti families Urban-farm families Race Total homes and families Owned homes Total homes and families Owned homes Total homes and families Owned homes Native white. . . Foreign-born white Negro Other 95,373 42,555 847 17,102 61,896 29,380 207 2,387 88,431 40,023 822 15,724 56,526 27,464 198 2,052 6,942 2,532 25 1,378 5,370 1,916 9 335 Total 155,877 93,870 145.000 86,240 10,877 7,630 Source of data: United States Department of Commerce Bureau of the Census. Fifteenth Census of the United States, 1930. Population, vol. 6:155-56. 1933. population in 1930, and no data except that mentioned above for San Francisco are available for the number of urban farms and population in 1935. For the purpose of analysis it will be assumed that each of the 10,877 urban-farm families shown in table 3 represents a farm operator and one occupied urban farm. There may be many uninhabited urban farms and a few may provide homes for more than one family. Most of the farms within city limits, however, are small, and, since there are other living accommodations nearby, very few urban farms are apt to provide homes for more than one family each. The error in assuming that each urban- farm family represents a farm is therefore small, and the estimate of 10,877 as the number of occupied urban farms represents a maximum rather than a minimum. A similar assumption could not be made for rural farms, which often provide separate dwellings for laborers so that there may be several families living on one farm. The opportunities for work off the farm either by the farm operator or other members of his family are much greater for urban-farm families Buu 630] Characteristics of Agricultural Population 15 than for families living' in strictly rural areas. This applies not only to the urban-farm families who live on urban farms but also to the families of farm operators who do not live on their farms but in homes located some distance from the farm and within village or city limits. GAINFUL WORKERS IN AGRICULTURE Many of the gainful workers in agriculture in California do not live on farms. Only about one-half of them were living on rural farms in April, 1930. The exact number living on urban farms cannot be determined from TABLE 4 Gainful Workers in Agriculture by Place of Residence in California, April 1, 1930 Total population Urban population Rural-farm population Rural-nonfarm population Total Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Farmers (owners and tenants) Farm managers and 126,399 8,871 195,390 188,678 6,712 3,581 119,822 8,550 190,626 184,824 5,802 3,185 6,577 321 4,764 3,854 910 396 16,629 1,644 53,245 52,989 256 974 975 76 1,179 1,000 179 198 96,157 5,692 85,565 80,226 5,339 1,136 5,262 216 2,556 1,874 682 119 7,036 1,214 51,816 51,609 207 1,075 340 29 1,029 980 Unpaid family workers Other occupations* 49 79 Total 334,241 322,183 12,058 72,492 2,428 188.550 8,153 61,141 1,477 * Farm occupations such as bookkeepers, clerks, engineers, tractor and truck drivers, etc., employed mainly on the larger farms. Source of data: United States Department of Commerce Bureau of the Census. Fifteenth Census of the United States, 1930. Population, vol. 3(1):241. 1932. census data. The number living in urban areas is nearly twice as large as the urban-farm population. Approximately one-fifth of all the gainful workers in agriculture live in villages and towns under 2,500 population and are included in the rural-nonfarm population. Place of residence, sex, and occupation of gainful workers in agricul- ture in California are shown in table 4. These data are the result of a preliminary tabulation made by the United States Department of Com- merce Bureau of the Census. The final detailed tabulation of gainful workers does not include a classification by place of residence except for cities of over 25,000. Final figures for all gainful workers in agriculture by occupation, race, and sex are shown in table 5. The totals in tables 4 and 5 do not check because the preliminary data contained some errors, but the differences are not very important. The number of female farm 16 University of California — Experiment Station It. C _» "3 a CM -H H< H< H< CO H< uo CO H 1C « OS >C CO H If} 00 U5 r- »H rt -<" H* # CO CD r- h< cm »o CO IN CC M Ol CO rS U5 OO if) t-- HI f N U5 M CM 13 CO m o OS O CM i-l 00 Hi O £ cm' cm* © cm" CO CM CN i-H 1-H* CM* 1 oo ra ■* OS M c3 h S) lO H OS O CO rt N ■* "3 to M Ol CO o O OS O H> O O 1-H iO i-H CO i-H OS Hi oo o H* CO »- V CO CM cm" l-t ^H CO OO CC M< os ~ cd o3 CD s S CD **< O CO o CO o o o o o OS "5 1 «o CD O CO OO CO CO os h m m * O 73 r2 oo co cs •«* OS t-i 00 CM t- d 03 CO "3 CM © CM io" i-T co oo s M o3 d CO H< CO OS en i-H CO CO •* OS 1 'el CO N O! Hi os il OO CM t^ CO CO © CM CD co 1 lO i-l* 00 r2 ^ ^ ^ o c CO i-H 00 CM CM "o3 a CD O O) ih o t- ^1 o oo co 00 CO H* ,-* CO d P>H o3 q 5 o co o >0 . *o3 l>- o i-h O -H t» m * h d 03 § ia w r. t~ CO CO OS co 0) O r^ © h lO CM co i>- «o t— CO ~~3 rf 00 CM CO CO oo co co co t^ CO t^ M no o O OS i-i co" co 00 CO CM ^ r^ OS H< CC t— H N ■* CM N CC CO "~3 in m ic OS IC CO t-H t^. O CO ^H i- CO rt C" o a CO CM i-i * H CM* O lO IC CO I> CO N CO O0 If ^ O) M "I U0 t^ CO CM CM Hi OC- CO £ Is CO N i> 8K3 CO CM t-* cc as CO CO CO i- cm" cm cm i-i" cr lO CO CM CO O! O) « CO i— eo h m us i- lO "oS hi oo e »o co © H< OS lO 0C o O oo cc CO CO i-H CO CO CO IT CO "o H © CO CN OS CC CO cm" CM* i-H cr «o t^ t^ H CO 1-1 CO a. | ,3 C 03 4 *-! = a 1 c s C a CD 5 03 c c a | g 1 cs n a. £^ ■ga £ 1* s 4 fe U fc c t rd o a s H co ft 03 co o ■S & s a o O o I 1-3 as co 0CT3 a^P^ 2ss •• ti CO . C> fl) oo ^T! CO* 0> r ™ CO P>H CD . w ■*- !-c o m Bul. 630] Characteristics of Agricultural Population 17 managers and foremen was reduced by 262, while the number of female owners and tenants was increased by 225, the wage earners by 9, and unpaid family workers by 13, which indicates mainly a reclassification of female workers. The largest change was an increase of 1,335 in the number of male farm labor wage earners. Male unpaid family labor was increased by 65, managers and foremen by 30, and owners and tenants reduced by 51. The 3,581 persons listed under "other occupations" in table 4 are book- keepers, clerks, engineers, tractor and truck drivers, etc., employed TABLE 6 Percentage Distribution of Races within Each Agricultural Occupation in California, April 1, 1930 Race Native white Foreign-born white Mexican Japanese Filipino Indian Chinese Negro Other Unclassified All races All occupations Owners and tenants Managers and foremen Farm laborers* 50.7 63.7 61.7 42.7 22.0 31.4 12.4 16.8 12.7 0.9 3.4 20.9 5.8 2.5 19.1 7.4 4.8 0.1 1.1 8.2 0.9 0.6 0.1 1.2 0.8 0.3 1.0 1.1 0.7 0.4 0.3 1.0 0.5 0.1 0.9 0.7 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Other occupations in agriculture 100.0 100.0 * Including unpaid family labor, t Dashes indicate data not available. Source of data: Calculated from table 5. mainly on the larger farms. This figure of 3,581 is taken from table 4 and is included in tables 5, 6, and 7 under the heading "unclassified." In the detailed state tables on occupations, these people are classified by race and sex along with all bookkeepers, clerks, engineers, etc. They are often overlooked as part of the population engaged in agriculture. In a special table for the whole United States, these other workers in agricul- ture are classified by sex and race under 38 different occupations. For the whole United States most of them are native or foreign-born white ; there are a considerable number of Negroes but very few from all other races. The chances are that these Negroes are mainly employed on large farms in the South. Since data for California are not available, all of the 3,581 persons will be assumed to be native or foreign-born white in later analyses in this bulletin. The data in table 5 have been reduced to percentages in tables 6 and 7. 18 University of California — Experiment Station Thus, table 6 is arranged to indicate the importance of the various races in each occupational group, and table 7 the importance of agricultural occupations for each race. Of the gainful workers in agriculture 72.7 per cent are whites, 50.7 per cent are native-born whites and 22.0 per cent are foreign-born whites. The other three important races are Mexicans with 12.7 per cent, Japa- nese with 5.8 per cent, and Filipinos with 4.8 per cent. The other races constitute less than 1.0 per cent each. TABLE 7 Percentage Distribution of Agricultural Occupations by Eaces in California, April 1, 1930 Race All occupations Owners and tenants Managers and foremen Farm laborers* 100.0 47.4 3.1 49.5 100.0 53.8 1.5 44.7 100.0 2.6 0.7 96.7 100.0 16.2 8.5 75.3 100.0 0.8 0.6 98.6 1000 25.3 0.4 74.3 100.0 13.9 3.1 83.0 100.0 19.4 1.0 79.6 100.0 8.3 4.5 87.2 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 37.7 2.6 58.6 Other occupations in agriculture Native white Foreign-born white Mexican Japanese Filipino Indian Chinese Negro Other Unclassified All 100.0 * Including unpaid family labor, t Dashes indicate data not available. Source of data: Calculated from table 5. Native and foreign-born whites constitute 95.1 per cent of the farm owners and tenants, Japanese 2.5 per cent, Mexicans 0.9 per cent, and all other races only 1.5 per cent. Although Japanese operate as owners and tenants one-half of all the farms not operated by whites, the total oper- ated by them is small. In the census classification of managers and foremen, native and for- eign-born whites account for 74.1 per cent, some of whom may be only foremen, and Japanese account for 19.1 per cent, most of whom appar- ently are foremen. Mexicans rank third with only 3.4 per cent, and Filipinos fourth with only 1.1 per cent. The farm-labor problem is not strictly a race problem, for native and foreign-born whites constitute 59.5 per cent of the farm laborers, includ- ing unpaid family laborers. Mexicans constitute the second largest group with 20.9 per cent of the farm laborers, Filipinos rank third with 8.2 per Bul. 630] Characteristics of Agricultural Population 19 cent, Japanese fourth with 7.4 per cent, and other races represent about 1.0 per cent each. The percentage distribution of each race by occupations in agriculture shows that there are practically as many white farm laborers as there are white farm operators (table 7) . For the other races, however, three- fourths or more of the gainful workers are farm laborers. Filipinos rank highest with 98.6 per cent ; if foremen are included, practically 99.0 per cent of the Filipinos are wage earners. Mexicans rank second with 96.7 per cent as farm laborers. TABLE 8 Number and Percentage of Unpaid Family Workers in Agriculture in California, April 1, 1930 Race Males Females Total Per cent Native white 4,820 556 37 454 410 144 4 365 923 5,230 700 41 819 77.0 10 3 6 12.1 Total 5,867 6,790 100 Source of data: United States Department of Commerce Bureau of the Census. Fifteenth Census of the United States, 1930. Population, vol. 4:193. 1933. Unpaid family laborers were not shown separately in table 5 because the census does not separate such workers by race for minor race groups ; however, enough data are given so that they can be separated for native and foreign-born whites and Negroes and all others (table 8). The "others" must be mainly Japanese and Mexicans, since these races oper- ate most of the farms not operated by whites. Races other than native and foreign-born white apparently make more use of unpaid family labor ; the Negroes with 0.4 per cent of the farm owners and tenants (table 6) have 0.6 per cent of the unpaid family labor (table 8) ; the other races with only 4.5 per cent of the owners and tenants have 12.1 per cent of the unpaid family labor. By comparing the male gainful workers of each race in agriculture with the total gainful workers of that race in the state (table 9), it is possible to show the importance of agriculture as a source of employment for each race. Negroes rank the lowest with only 8.3 per cent of the gain- ful workers in agriculture ; native-born whites rank second lowest with only 12.3 per cent; Chinese are almost as low with only 13.5 per cent. The next lowest group is the foreign-born white with 18.6 per cent. Although Mexicans constitute an important group of workers in agri- culture, this industry furnishes employment to only 37.0 per cent of the gainful male Mexican workers in the state. Aside from the smallest 20 University op California — Experiment Station group, which consists mainly of Hindus, Koreans, and a few other races, Filipinos rank highest with 60.2 per cent of the workers in agriculture. Indians, who are usually thought of as living on reservations and en- gaged in agriculture, have only 55.4 per cent of the gainful workers in agriculture ; Japanese have nearly as large a percentage in agriculture with 54.8 per cent. TABLE 9 Total Population and Total and Percentage of Gainfully Employed Males Ten Years of Age and over in California, April 1, 1930 Total population of state Gainfully employed males Race Males and females Males State total Employed in agriculture Total* Per cent in agriculture 4,230,213 810,034 368,013 97,456 81,048 37,361 30,470 19,212 3,444 2,123,407 454,027 199,228 56,440 40,052 27,988 28,625 10,018 2,810 1,330,827 385,945 112,119 32,233 27,970 19,470 27,041 5,357 2,328 163,690 71,735 41,455 17,656 2,323 2,627 16,277 2,966 1,648 12.3 Foreign-born white . . . 18.6 37.0 54.8 8.3 13.5 60.2 55.4 Other 70.8 Total or average . . 5,677,251 2,942,595 1,943,290 320,377 16.5 * Includes unpaid family labor. Source of data: United States Department of Commerce Bureau of the Census. Fifteenth Census of the United States, 1930. Population, vol. 3(1):233, 1932; vol. 4:193, 1933; vol. 5:86, 92, 95, 98, 1933. Although the number of women gainfully employed in agriculture is small (mainly because homemaking is not considered gainful employ- ment) , the total number of women in each race relative to the number of men is important in determining the future numbers of that race. The proportion of males to females is nearly equal for whites, Negroes, In- dians, and for children under ten years of age. For the other races the number of males greatly exceeds the number of females ten years of age or over. The ratio of males to females for the other races on April 1, 1930, is as follows : 17 Race Males Females Ratio Filipino 27,944 1,164 24.0:1 Chinese 24,311 6,186 3.9:1 Japanese 41,518 26,590 1.6:1 Mexican 143,925 113,943 1.3:1 17 United States Department of Commerce Bureau of the Census. Fifteenth Census of the United States, 1930. Population, vol. 5:86, 95, 98, 1933; vol. 3:234, 1932. Bul. 630] Characteristics of Agricultural Population 21 The Filipinos will become less and less important in agriculture, the Chinese have already ceased to be important, but the Japanese and Mexi- cans will increase in importance partly because they raise larger families than the whites. (See p. 34.) The number of children under ten years of age for each of the above races listed can be calculated by subtracting the total of males and fe- males for each race as shown above from the total of that race as shown in table 9. Most of the children under ten years and some of the persons over ten years are native-born citizens. For example, 176,667, or 48 per TABLE 10 Marital Condition of Women Fifteen Years of Age and over Engaged in Agriculture in California, April 1, 1930 Occupation Total Single and unknown Married Widowed and divorced 6,802 59 898 3,810 862 11 265 966 1,641 24 604 2,428 4,299 24 29 416 Total 11,569 2,104 4,697 4,768 Source of data: United States Department of Commerce Bureau of the Census. Fifteenth Census of the United States, 1930. Population, vol. 4:213. 1933. (Total all classes and totals of some of the classes do not check with data on p. 174 of same volume.) cent of the total Mexican population of 368,013 in California on April 1, 1930, were native-born ; 48,879, or a trifle over 50 per cent of the total Japanese population of 97,456 were native-born ; and 17,320, or 46 per cent of the total Chinese population of 37,361, were native-born. The marital condition of women fifteen years of age and over engaged in agriculture explains to some extent the reason for such a large number of female farm operators. The data are valuable for use in estimating dependents and distributing homemakers between farm operators and farm laborers. From the figures in table 10 it is very evident that about two-thirds of the female farm operators are widowed and have come into possession of their farms on the death of their husbands. Unpaid family laborers are often thought of as children, but these figures show that over two- thirds of them are married. Tables in the census classify them by age groups and, of the 265 single unpaid female laborers, only 157 are under twenty years of age. The chances are that most of the married female unpaid laborers are wives of farm operators ; a few of them might be 22 University op California — Experiment Station married to men working in other occupations while making their home with his or her parents. Of the 966 single female wage earners, 504 are under twenty years of age. Some of these may be children traveling with farm-labor families. Most of the married women, who constitute about two-thirds of the fe- male wage earners, may be wives of farm laborers, and most of them have been assumed to be such in allocating dependents to farm-labor families. Widowed, female farm wage earners constitute a small group, and many of them no doubt have families to support. They have been treated as separate farm-labor families in estimating dependents. FARMERS BY OCCUPATION AND THE NUMBER OF FARMS, APRIL 1, 1930 The censuses of agriculture include some farms for which there would be no farm operators classified as such by occupations in the censuses of population. (See definition, p. 6.) Farms such as those cultivated dur- ing the preceding year and abandoned when the census is taken, estates of 10 acres or more, institutions, Indian reservations, and some feed lots, greenhouses, etc., especially when run in connection with some other business, are counted as farms because they exceed 3 acres or produce commodities worth more than $250, but the operator may not consider himself as a farmer. Both the 1930 and the 1935 censuses of agriculture indicate that there are many farms of this kind: the "type-of-farm" classification in the 1930 Census lists 6,951 farms as unclassified, 251 as horse farm, feed lot, or livestock dealer, and 149 as estates and institu- tions; the 1935 Census lists 7,163 farms for which the operator did not report number of days worked off the farm. These figures, however, in- clude farms which might be very abnormal and not have any real opera- tor but do not indicate the actual number, because there were other reasons why farms could not be classified and why the operator did not report days worked off the farm. The operators of some of the part-time farms listed in the censuses of agriculture may have classified themselves as farm laborers or workers in other industries; on the other hand, a man may have called himself a farm operator even though his farm did not produce enough to be called a farm under the census definition of a farm, or his farm may have been missed if no one lived on it. The unemployment section of the 1930 Census of Population lists about 750 unemployed farm operators, perhaps the ones who lost or abandoned their farms before the census was taken. Other causes for discrepancies between the number of farms and the number of farm operators may be as follows : A few farmers may manage Bul. 630] Characteristics of Agricultural Population 23 farms for other owners besides operating their own. One manager may also manage two or more farms ; or a large farm may have two or more managers. The managing of a farm may be only a side-line activity and many of the farm managers, especially those who report more than 150 days' work off the farm, may be classified as workers in other industries. A few farms may be operated as partnerships and all the partners classi- fied as farm operators in the census classification of occupations. For corporation farms, only the hired manager can be classified as a farmer by occupation, while for privately owned farms operated by managers both the owner and the manager may be classified as farm operators. In some states these qualifications are extremely important, and the number of farms in the censuses of agriculture cannot be compared with the number of operators in the occupational classification of the censuses of population without making numerous adjustments. In California these differences cancel each other to such an extent that for some pur- poses no adjustments are necessary if foremen are included as operators. The 126,573 owners and tenants plus 8,639 managers and foremen in table 5 lack only 464 of equaling the 135,676 farms listed in the 1930 Census of Agriculture. This small difference understates actual condi- tions and arises mainly from the fact that many foremen are counted as farm managers. The 1930 Census of Agriculture classifies all farms as 127,908 oper- ated by owners and tenants, and 7,768 operated by managers. A com- parison of these figures with those above indicates a shortage of 1,335 owners and tenants and an excess of 871 managers and foremen. The number of colored foremen alone, however, greatly exceeds this excess. The 1930 Census of Agriculture lists 130,204 of the farms in the state as operated by whites (including Mexicans and Hindus), and 5,472 as operated by colored persons. Hindus are not listed separately in table 5 but are included in the small "other" group which contains 137 owners and tenants and 74 managers and foremen, or a total of only 211. If it is assumed that the number of Hindu farm operators included in this group is approximately equal to the number of Mexican foremen in- cluded in the 293 Mexican managers and foremen, then the sum of the owners and tenants plus managers and foremen in table 5 for all races except white and Mexican, or 6,961, can be compared with 5,472 farms with colored operators. The difference between these figures, or 1,489, is the estimated number of colored foremen included in the census classi- fication of managers and foremen. The real shortage of managers can be estimated as the difference between 1,489 and 871, or 618. This num- ber plus the shortage of 1,335 among owners and tenants equals 1,953, 24 University of California — Experiment Station or the estimated difference between farm operators in the census classifi- cation of occupations and the number of farms in the Census of Agri- culture. It may be that the Census of Agriculture included this many farms of the type for which no individual would classify himself as an operator by occupation. On the other hand, there is evidence that the under- enumeration of the number of farms was about 2,000 (see p. 10). This also implies that the actual operators of these properties not counted as farms also classified themselves in other occupations than agriculture. Throughout the rest of this bulletin it will be assumed that the above differences (under enumeration of farms and the counting as farms prop- erties for which no individual person would classify himself as a farm operator by occupation) cancel, and that the people who actually oper- ated farms as a source of part of their income and classified themselves as engaged in other occupations than agriculture were mainly persons not living on farms, especially rural farms. Classification of Farms by Residence of the Operator. — The farm own- ers and tenants and managers and foremen listed in table 4 under the heading "rural-nonf arm," by definition do not live on farms. The num- ber of foremen in each group can be estimated by prorating the 1,489 estimated total — 212 to the rural-nonfarm, 285 to the urban-farm, and 992 to the rural-farm groups — on the basis of the number of male man- agers and foremen in each group. The number of farm operators by place of residence can be approxi- mated by subtracting the above estimates of number of foremen from the total number of male and female owners and tenants and managers and foremen. The results show that 8,407 persons who called themselves farm operators were included in the rural-nonfarm population and did not live on farms ; 106,335 lived on rural farms ; and 19,039 lived in urban areas. Since there were only 10,877 maximum number of occupied urban farms (p. 14), apparently 8,162 of these urban-dwelling farm operators did not live on farms. These, combined with the rural-nonfarm group, make a total of 16,569 farm operators who classified themselves as farm operators but who did not live on the farms which they operated. These operators and their families may be as wholly dependent on agriculture as if they lived directly on the farms they operate, and they should be considered as part of the agricultural population even though they can- not be classified in the census as people living on farms. The farm oper- ators who did not classify themselves as farmers and who also did not live on farms should perhaps be included. They numbered 1,953 accord- ing to the estimate on page 23. Bul. 630] Characteristics of Agricultural Population 25 Farms according to residence of operator may be summarized as fol- lows: 10,877, or 8.0 per cent occupied urban farms 106,335, or 78.4 per cent occupied rural farms 18,464, or 13.6 per cent farms not occupied by the operators 18 135,676, or 100.0 per cent of farms listed in the 1930 Census of Agri- culture. The 18,464 farms not occupied by the operator are located both in urban and in rural territory. Since there was very little building con- struction and some movement of population to farms between 1930 and 1935, the data on dwellings on farms in the 1935 Census of Agriculture serve as a rough check on the above figure and indicate the minimum number of farm operators not living on farms in 1935. In that year there were 14,119 farms without any dwellings and 3,583 farms with only unoccupied dwellings, or a total of 17,702 unoccupied farms. The differ- ence between this figure and 18,464 is small considering that they are for different periods and that many of the farms with occupied dwellings may not have been occupied by the operator but only by some hired man or caretaker. Some writers treat census data as if the census number of farms repre- sented the number of farm-operator families living in the country. This is incorrect, since only about 78 per cent of the farm operators live on rural farms. A much smaller percentage of the farm laborers live on rural farms, and therefore the census total of farm population is much smaller than the population actually dependent on agriculture for a livelihood. RURAL-FARM POPULATION IN CALIFORNIA, APRIL 1, 1930 By census definition, "the farm population as shown for 1930 comprises all persons living on farms, without regard to occupation." By combining data from census tables on age groups, school attendance, homemakers, families without gainful workers, and gainful workers, it is possible to estimate the number of other dependents (aged, crippled, and children not in school and not gainfully employed) and to account for the total rural-farm population. These data are shown in table 11. On April 1, 1930, there were 42,608 gainful workers in other indus- tries than agriculture living on rural farms. These people are not really dependent on agriculture, and the income they receive is usually over- looked in considering the income to people living on farms. No similar 18 16,569 + 1,953 minus 58 is the net difference between totals in tables 4 and 5. 26 University op California — Experiment Station data are available for showing the number of gainful workers in other industries than agriculture living on urban farms or with families of farm operators who do not live on their farms but in cities and towns where the opportunities for such employment are much greater than in strictly rural areas. TABLE 11 Occupation by Sex of Rural-Farm Population, California, April 1, 1930 Occupation Total Male Female 166,735 40,156 19,298 85,774 20,837 3,827 80,961 19,319 15,471 226,189 101,419 5,908 82,100 6,021 1,255 110,438 96,157 5,692 80,226 5,339 1,136 115,751 5,262 216 1,874 682 119 196,703 941 1,963 10,412 5,029 8,861 954 5,744 7,175 1,529 188,550 926 1,940 9,312 4,495 6,316 783 1,993 2,036 1,262 8,153 15 23 1,100 534 15. Trade 2,545 171 3,751 5,139 267 42,608 29,063 13,545 21. Total gainful workers (lines 10 + 20) 239.311 3,108 110,742 579,350 217,613 1,554 329,605 21,698 1,554 110,742 24. Total population (lines 4 + 21 + 22+ 23) 249,745 * Assumed to be single-person families (see text, p. 28). Sources of data: Line 1: From: United States Department of Commerce Bureau of the Census. Fifteenth Census of the United States, 1930. Population, vol. 3(1): 233. 1932. Line 2: From: United States Department of Commerce Bureau of the Census. Fifteenth Census of the United States, 1930. Population, vol. 3(1): 237, 1932; vol. 2(2) :42, 1933. Line 3: Calculated by subtracting other classes from total population. Lines 5 to 21: From: United States Department of Commerce Bureau of the Census. Fifteenth Census of the United States, 1930. Population, vol. 3(1):241. 1932. Lines 22 and 23: From: United States Department of Commerce Bureau of the Census. Fifteenth Census of the United States, 1930. Population, vol. 6:165, 169. 1933. The importance of workers in other industries than agriculture among the farm population cannot be judged by their numbers alone. The chances are that their earnings are larger than those of farm laborers and in many cases larger than those of farm operators. They may also be a more permanent part of the farm population than farm laborers. Bul. 630] Characteristics of Agricultural Population 27 Table 12 shows that this group constituted 17.8 per cent of the total gain- ful workers and that the males represented 13.4 per cent of the gainfully employed males on April 1. If this census had been taken on January 1, the same as other censuses showing farm population, there would prob- ably have been a much smaller percentage of gainful workers as farm laborers and a larger percentage of these workers in other industries than agriculture. Who are these workers in other industries than agriculture who live on rural farms ? Do they have dependents whom they support from their earnings? Census data provide, no answers to these questions. Most of TABLE 12 Percentage Distribution of Gainful Workers in Rural-Farm Population, California, April 1, 1930 Occupation Total Male 42.4 44.2 2.5 2.6 34.3 36.9 2.5 2.4 0.5 0.5 82.2 86.6 17.8 13.4 100.0 100.0 Female Farmers (owners and tenants) . Farm managers and foremen . . Farm laborers, wage earners. . . Farm laborers, unpaid family. Farm workers, other 24.3 1.0 3.1 0.6 Total in agriculture Total in other industries . Total gainful workers . . . 37.6 62.4 100.0 Source of data: Calculated from table 4. them undoubtedly are members of farm-operator and farm-labor fami- lies — sons, daughters, wives, and husbands — others mainly lodgers, such as country school teachers. A farmer's married son with a business in town may make his home on the farm so that his parents can take care of the children while both he and his wife work. "Without a doubt some of the dependents shown in table 11 are dependents of these workers. On the other hand, some of the people classified as working in other indus- tries than agriculture while living on rural farms are really part of the population dependent on agriculture. This applies especially to domestic servants hired to work on farms. In making further analyses of the rural- farm population it will be assumed that these workers who are really a part of the agricultural population are as numerous as the dependents of other workers not connected with agriculture, and therefore the data will be treated as if the 42,608 gainful workers in other industries than agri- culture had no dependents. Families without Gainful Workers. — The rural-farm population con- tains another group of people who in most cases may not be directly dependent on agriculture. These are the people represented by families 28 University of California — Experiment Station without any gainful workers, which the census describes as "mainly those of widows and of elderly men who have retired from active em- ployment." They may have retired on savings and investments or they may be living on widows' or old-age pensions or relief of some kind. Un- TABLE 13 Families, Children, and School Attendance by Race in Rural-Farm Population, California, April 1, 1930 Total Native white Foreign-born white Negro Other races 579,350 145,000 4.0 20,129 3,108 8,264 62,855 43.3 618 0.4 48,430 181,344 136,917 75.5 123,594 85.2 11,298 9.1 5,190 6,108 397,104 88,431 4.5 11,365 2,113 5,620 40,682 46.0 217 0.2 35,777 145,608 113,103 77.7 76,841 86.9 7,356 9.6 3,445 3,911 86,723 40,023 2.2 6,149 739 2,148 17,089 42.7 212 0.5 110 3,920 2,378 60.7 33,245 83.1 2,319 7.0 1,432 887 3.461 822 4.2 182 17 35 404 49.1 11 1.3 391 1,204 871 72.3 633 77.0 54 8.5 15 39 92,062 15,724 Average size of families Single- person families Families with no gainful 5.9 2,433 239 Families with female heads . . . Families with no children 461 4,680 Per cent no children under 21.. . Families with nine or more 29.8 178 Per cent with nine or more 1.1 Children under 5 years 12,152 30,612 Children 5 to 20 years attend- 20,565 Per cent children 5 to 20 years 67.2 Families with homemakers Per cent families with home- 12,875 81.9 Gainfully employed home- 1,569 Per cent of homemakers em- 12.2 Homemakers employed in 298 Homemakers employed in 1,271 Source of data: . United States Department of Commerce Bureau of the Census. Fifteenth Census of the United States, 1930. Population, vol. 6:156, 157, 164, 165, 167, 169, 1933; vol. 3(1):235, 237, 1932. fortunately, the census gives only the number of such families classified by race and not the number of persons included in those families. In tables 11 and 14 it is assumed that these 3,108 families are only single- person families equally divided between males and females. These fe- males would also be classified as homemakers not gainfully employed and therefore must be added to the latter group as shown in table 11 to equal the number not gainfully employed. By the assumption that these families are only single-person families, any other members of such Bul. 630] Characteristics of Agricultural Population 29 families become included in the 19,298 persons listed as other dependents in tables 11 and 14. Gainful Workers among School Children. — In tables 11 and 14 no adjustment is made for the fact that some children attending school may also be classified as gainful workers. The total of persons attending school TABLE 14 Race, Sex, and Dependents of Rural-Farm Population, California, April 1, 1930 * Dashes indicate data not available, t Assumed to be single-person families (see text p. 28). Source of data: From preceding tables and calculations as explained in the text. Occupation White Negro Other races Male Female Male Female Male Female 1. Children under 15 years 2. Children over 15 years attending 67,637 18,655 3,410 63,831 17,606 13,785 626 95 19 608 89 77 17,511 2,087 398 16,522 1,624 1,609 89,702 95,538 4,946 _* 47,613 1,136 95,222 5,311 391 79,235 1,299 19,750 119 740 425 37 23 698 774 15 4 312 50 259 19,996 4,894 356 969 31,915 19,755 5. Farmers (owners, tenants, man- 152 287 7. Not gainfully employed home- makers of male operators 3,483 9. Farm laborers, wage earners 10. Not gainfully employed home- makers of farm laborers 525 7,703 12. Total workers in agriculture 13. Workers in other industries 149,233 29,063 106,105 11,650 1,183 640 107 38,134 12,150 1,788 14. Total workers (lines 12+13) 15. No gainful workers (families) f. . . 16. Total population (lines 4+14+15) 178,296 1,426 269,424 117,755 1,426 214,403 1,183 9 1,932 747 8 1,529 38,134 119 58,249 13,938 120 33,813 and also classified as gainful workers for the entire state is not large, and it is not divided to show rural-farm population data separately. By census definition (see p. 9) most farm tasks by school children are not considered as gainful employment, and the census states that "this group is made up partly of young men and women attending college and partly of employed persons attending night schools." The number of such per- sons in the rural-farm population would be very small and could not have any appreciable effect on the analysis of the rural-farm population, since people attending school and all other persons not specifically accounted for by census classifications are counted as dependents. 30 University of California — Experiment Station Racial Groups in Rural-Farm Population. — The rural-farm popula- tion of California on April 1, 1930, as shown in table 13, included 397,104 native-born whites, 86,723 foreign-born whites, 3,461 Negroes, and 92,062 other races. The census gives detailed data about Negroes because they are so important in some states. In California many of the races grouped as "other" are more important than the Negroes, especially in relation to agriculture. The importance of separate races in the rural-farm popu- lation in California on April 1, 1930, given as totals, is as follows : in Number of Race persons Mexicans 20 38,920 Japanese 33,673 Indians 5,985 Chinese 2,527 Unclassified 10,957 Total 92,062 The 10,957 unclassified in the rural-farm population must be mainly Filipino because the state total of all the other races not listed separately, excluding Filipinos, was only 3,444 persons, and only part of them would be living on rural farms. The census classifies the white rural-farm population into native white, foreign-born white, and native white of foreign or mixed parentage. The countries from which the largest number of foreign-born whites came are as follows : 21 Number of Native country persons Italy 15,068 Portugal 8,077 Germany 7,455 Switzerland 6,459 Canada 4,988 Sweden 4,496 The total number of foreign-born whites included in the rural-farm pop- ulation on April 1, 1930, was 86,723 ; of this total only 4,030 were under twenty-one years of age; of those over twenty-one years 52,270 were males and 30,423 females. Census Figures on Size of Families. — The usual method of calculating average size of families is to divide total population by the number of 10 United States Department of Commerce Bureau of the Census. Fifteenth Census of the United States, 1930. Population, vol. 2:66. 1933. 20 17,806 native-born, 21,114 foreign-born. 21 United States Department of Commerce Bureau of the Census. Fifteenth Census of the United States, 1930. Population, vol. 2:312. 1933. Bul. 630] Characteristics of Agricultural Population 31 families without making any adjustments for bachelors, lodgers, or groups of people living together in camps of various kinds. Size of fami- lies in the rural-farm population, calculated in this manner, is shown in table 13. A few other facts relating to size of families and differences between races in rural-farm population are shown in table 13 as data from the census or as percentages calculated from census data. The Negroes in the rural-farm population represent both extremes in that they have the highest percentage of families without any children under twenty-one and also the highest percentage of families with nine or more children under twenty-one. Foreign-born whites have the lowest percentage of children in school and also the lowest percentage of em- ployed homemakers. Native whites have the highest percentage of chil- dren in school, while "other" races, mainly Mexicans and Japanese, have the highest percentage of gainfully employed homemakers. Distribution of Rural-Farm Population by Race, Sex, and Occupa- tion. — Although the census does not classify gainful workers by race, a fairly accurate estimate of the division into race groups can be made from the totals shown in table 11 by using the data presented in other tables, the census data of race and sex, and by making a few assumptions, which in most cases apply only to small numbers and therefore have only a minor effect on final estimates. This distribution of total rural-farm population by race, sex, and occupation is shown in table 14. Derivation of Table 14. — Other dependents (line 3, table 14) were dis- tributed among races in the same proportion as families with home- makers, 89.1 per cent white, 0.5 per cent Negro, and 10.4 per cent other races. The sex classification of children and of the total of each race is given in the census. Therefore the approximate number of gainful work- ers of each sex of each race can be obtained by subtracting total depend- ents and families without gainful workers (assumed to be single-person) from the total of that sex and race in the rural-farm population. The estimated classification of these workers by occupations is made in the following manner : It is assumed that all Mexican and colored farm operators live on the farms they operate so that urban-farm families (table 3) plus rural-farm families (table 14) equals total Mexican and colored farm operators (table 5) adjusted for farm foremen as esti- mated on page 23. Female farm operators (table 5 ) and the unpaid family laborers (table 8) of other races are prorated 78.5 per cent to rural-farm populations on the basis of total number of urban and rural farms operated by other races. All 23 Negro managers and foremen are assumed to be foremen ; all unpaid Negro family labor (37 males and 4 females) are assumed to 32 University op California — Experiment Station be on rural farms. Female Negro farm operators are made equal to Negro homemakers employed in agriculture. It is assumed that all gainfully employed males of Negro and other races are either farm operators, farm laborers, or farm foremen. Male farm-labor wage earners of Negro and other races are then calculated by subtracting male farm operators, farm foremen, and unpaid family laborers from all male workers in agriculture. White male farm oper- ators, unpaid family laborers, and farm-labor wage earners are calcu- lated by subtracting corresponding classes for Negro and other races from total males in table 11. In estimating the distribution of females within each race group, home- makers, who, by census definition are not gainfully employed because they do only housework, were included in table 14 as workers in agricul- ture. These homemakers and those classified by the census as gainfully employed (table 13) were distributed between farm operators and farm laborers. Analysis of Female Farm Operators and Heads of Families. — A female farm operator may also be a homemaker or she may not. A homemaker engaged in agriculture may be the wife of a farm operator and counted as an unpaid family laborer. Table 10 shows that 604 out of the total of 898, or 67.3 per cent of the female unpaid family laborers were married. This percentage applied to the racial groups of unpaid family laborers (table 14) indicates that 263 white and 193 other races were wives of farm operators engaged in agriculture. There were so few Negro female farm operators that no attempt was made to segregate them on this basis (see p. 16). The difference between the total number of female farm op- erators of each race (table 14) and the number of homemakers engaged in agriculture (table 13) plus 263 or 193 indicates that about 697 white and 47 "others" were farm operators but not homemakers. The difference between total female farm operators and those who are not homemakers gives the female farm operators who are also homemakers — 4,614 white, and 105 "other." As stated above the 15 Negro female farm operators are all assumed to be homemakers. Female heads of families (table 13) less those without any gainful workers (table 14) less female farm operators who are also homemakers equals homemakers of families without male heads engaged in other in- dustries than agriculture. The estimated figures are 1,728 white, 12 Negro, and 236 of other races. These figures are not shown separately in table 14, for they constitute only part of the female workers in other industries than agriculture. Calculation of Distribution of Homemakers. — Homemakers of each Bul. 630] Characteristics of Agricultural Population 33 race employed in other industries than agriculture (table 13) less 1,728 white, 12 Negro, and 236 "others" equal 3,070 white, 27 Negro, and 1,035 other races as the estimate of number of wives of farm operators and farm laborers engaged in other industries than agriculture. The number of homemakers of each race less the number of families with female heads (table 13) equals 102,318 white, 598 Negro, and 12,414 other races as the total number of homemakers, or wives, of farm oper- ators and farm laborers. In order to estimate the distribution of these wives between farm operators and farm laborers, it is assumed that all the male operators in table 14 represent families with male heads. The differences between these figures and the total number of families with male heads (total number of families, table 13, less families with female heads, less male families with no gainful workers, table 14) equal esti- mated number of farm-labor families with male heads, as follows : White Negro Other races Male head farm-operator families 95,538 425 4,894 Male head farm-labor families 23,722 353 10,250 Total 119,260 778 15,144 The percentage distribution of these families is : White Negro Other races Male head farm-operator families 80.1 54.6 32.3 Male head farm-labor families 19.9 45.4 67.7 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 Some of these families with male heads represent single-person fami- lies and families without homemakers. However, the percentage distri- bution of these families for each race can be used in estimating the number of homemakers or wives as follows : White Negro Other races Homemakers of farm operators 81,957 327 4,010 Homemakers of farm laborers 20,361 271 8,404 Total 102,318 598 12,414 The same percentages were applied to homemakers of farm operators and farm laborers engaged in other industries. The resulting figures and those of homemakers for operators engaged in agriculture were sub- tracted from the above figures to obtain the numbers of not gainfully employed homemakers of farm operators and farm laborers as shown in table 14. 34 University of California — Experiment Station Percentage of Married Farm Laborers. — The percentage of farm la- borers who are married can be estimated as the ratio of homemakers of farm laborers, above, to the number of male farm-labor wage earners, foremen, and other farm workers in table 14. The percentages" are white, 41.8, Negro 37.6, and other races 25.6. If 10,957 (p. 30), representing mainly Filipino, are excluded, the latter percentage is raised to 38.3 for other races, mainly Mexican and Japanese. These percentages will be used in table 16 in estimating dependents of farm laborers not living on farms, April 1, 1930. Size of Families with Homemakers. — In estimating dependents, it is necessary to calculate the average size of families with homemakers. Most of the total dependents shown in line 4, table 14, are children ; even the other dependents (line 3) are mainly children over fifteen years of age not gainfully employed and not attending school. Children are found primarily in families with homemakers. Single employed persons are not dependent members of such families. The total number of families to be considered in calculating the average size of families with home- makers is obtained by adding the total homemakers of farm operators and farm laborers — 102,318 white, 598 Negro, and 12,414 "other" — and the female farm operators who are also homemakers — 4,614 white, 15 Negro (see p. 32), and 105 "other." This gives the total number of fami- lies with homemakers as 106,932 white, 613 Negro, and 12,519 "other." The total population to be included in families of farm operators and farm laborers with homemakers is obtained by subtracting the following classes from the total population of each race group : single male and female wage earners and farm foremen, single male and female farm operators, gainful workers in other industries than agriculture, and no gainful worker (families). The results obtained are 396,178 white, 2,739 Negro, and 64,099 other races, and the average sizes of families with homemakers are white 3.70, Negro 4.47, and other races 5.12. These averages, less 2 for husband and wife, indicate that the number of de- pendent children is 1.72 for white families, 2.27 for Negro families, and 3.12 for other races, mainly Mexican and Japanese. The above totals were divided between farm operators and farm laborers in proportion to the respective number of such families, then reduced by the number of families and shown in table 15 as dependents of farm operators and dependents of farm laborers. This method of calculating average size of family and number of de- pendents excludes persons gainfully employed for themselves even though 22 These percentages are too low if some of the married farm laborers on farms April 1, 1930, had homes and families in urban and rural-nonfarm areas. Bul. 630] Characteristics of Agricultural Population 35 for other purposes they might be considered as members of the family. The assumption is made on page 27 that the number of dependents of gainful workers in other industries than agriculture is just offset by the number in this group which really are dependent on agriculture. The purpose of the whole analysis is to make an estimate of the total popula- tion dependent on agriculture, by residence on or off farms, and to divide that population between farm operators and farm laborers. TABLE 15 Gainful Workers and Their Dependents in Rural-Farm Population by Race, California, April 1, 1930 Occupations Total White Negro Other 106,335 252,493 82,100 90,459 992 1,255 42,608 3,108 100,849 234,333 48,912 54,913 -t 1,255 40,713 2,852 440 1,186 748 940 23 107 17 5,046 Dependents of operators including unpaid family laborers 16,974 32,440 34,606 Farm foremen 969 Farm workers, other Workers in other industries No gainful workers (families) t 1,788 239 579,350 483,827 3,461 92,062 * Includes dependents of farm foremen and other farm workers, t Dashes indicate data not available. X Assumed to be single-person families (see text, p. 28). Source of data: Calculated from table 14. Farm-Operator Population Not Living on Farms. — Since it has been assumed that all farm operators except Negro and other races live on the farms which they operate, then the 18,464 farms (p. 25) not occupied by the operator are thereby assumed to be operated by whites. Since many of these may be operated by single persons as well as by families with homemakers, an average size of white farm-operator family per farm is needed to estimate total farm population represented by farm operators who do not live on farms. Such an average for occupied rural farms can be calculated from table 15 by dividing 234,333 dependents of white operators by 100,849 white operators. The average is 2.32, not counting the operator, or 3.32 if he is included. The average (2.32) mul- tiplied by 18,464 equals 42,836, the estimated number of dependents of farm operators not living on farms (table 17), and 61,300 as the total population dependent on such farms. If many of these farms are operated as side lines or hobbies by people fully employed in other industries or retired on other income, then this estimate is too large. 36 University of California — Experiment Station AGRICULTURAL POPULATION IN CALIFORNIA, APRIL 1, 1930 The agricultural population, as defined on page 6, consists of people dependent on agriculture regardless of where they live. The previous discussion has dealt primarily with farm population, number of farms, TABLE 16 All Farm Employees (Except Managers), and Dependents of Those Not Living on Rural Farms, California, April 1, 1930 Farm employees Dependents of farm employees not on rural farms Total On rural farms Not on rural farms Home- makers Depen- dents* Males: 109,865 1,816 56,993 17,485 186,159 3,185 1,489 1,309 50 2,504 47,613 698 20,958 10,957 62,252 1,118 36,035 6,528 26,021 420 13,801 — t 70,257 1,457 3. Mexican, Japanese, Indian, and Chinese 56,860 — t 80,226 1,136 992 1,299 50 525 105,933 2,049 497 10 1,979 40,242 856 190 416 128,574* 6. Other male workers in agriculture 2,311 783 Females : 1,298§ 3,8631 396 1,874 119 1,989 277 416 1,298 12. Other female workers in agriculture 13. Total male and female (lines 5+6+7+11+12) 195,092 84,347 110,745 41,704 130,538|| * Includes homemakers, percentages of workers with homemaker, and the number of dependents per family same as for rural-farm population. See text, p. 34. t Included in above. J Includes 2,428 married female wage earners from table 10. § 416 times 3.12 (average size family 5.12 less husband and widow, the latter being counted as a wage earner). 1 1ncludes 2,428 married wage earners and 416 widowed from table 10. II Excludes 2,428 married female wage earners, assumed to be wives of farm laborers. Sources of data: Calculated from tables 5, 8, 10, 14, 15, and pages 33 and 34. and gainful workers in agriculture regardless of where they live. De- pendents of the agricultural population not living on farms are not shown separately in the census, but an estimate can be made from the data already presented. The total population of those not living on farms but receiving a living or income from agriculture is estimated to be 302,583 (table 17) ; this is made up of 18,464 farm operators, 42,836 dependents of operators (p. Bul. 630] Characteristics of Agricultural Population 37 35), 110,745 farm employees, excluding managers (paid farm laborers, foremen, and other workers in agriculture), and 130,538 dependents (table 16). This estimate assumes that paid farm employees do not live with urban-farm families. The gainfully employed workers, male and female of each race living on rural farms, are subtracted from the total number in the state to obtain the number of gainful workers not living on farms. The male gainful workers not living on farms are estimated to have the same proportion of families with homemakers and the same size of families as for those living on rural farms. Married paid female TABLE 17 Residence of Agricultural Population in California, April 1, 1930 Occupation Total Number living on urban farms Number living on rural farms Number not living on farms Farm operators, includes managers Dependents, including family labor Farm-laborer wage earners, foremen, and other workers 135,676 325,608 195,092 220,997 877,373 10,877 30,279 106,335 252,493 84,347 90,459f 18,464 42,836 110,745 Dependents 130,538 Total agricultural population 41,156 533, 634 t 302,583 * Dashes indicate data not available. t Includes dependents of foremen and other workers living on rural farms. t Excludes 42,608 persons living on rural farms and working in nonagricultural occupations and 3,108 no gainful workers (families). Sources of data: Tables 1, 3, 14, 15, and 5, and estimate made on page 35. farm laborers are assumed to be homemakers and wives of farm laborers. This estimate of dependents of farm employees not living on farms April 1, 1930, may be too low if farm laborers not on farms April 1 contain a larger proportion of married men who travel back and forth to work from their homes in villages, towns, and cities. The total agricultural population by place of residence is shown in table 17. This total of 877,373 persons exceeds the farm population of 620,506 as shown in table 1 by 256,867 persons, or 41 per cent. The num- ber not living on farms is greater than this difference by 3,108 families with no gainful workers and the 42,608 gainful workers in other indus- tries than agriculture who lived on rural farms and were counted as part of the farm population although they were not dependent on agriculture for a livelihood. These estimates of residence are highly significant in that they indicate that about 34 per cent of the agricultural population did not live on farms as late in the season as April 1. If the estimate of 50,000 as move- ment to farms between January 1 and April 1 (p. 11) is subtracted from 38 University of California — Experiment Station farm population and added to that of the agricultural population not on farms, then about 40 per cent of the people dependent on agriculture were not living on farms January 1, 1930. Census data on farm population, whether taken on April 1 or January 1, are, therefore, not representative of the agricultural population in California and cannot be used as a basis for showing the importance of or changes in the population dependent on agriculture for a livelihood. The total agricultural population of 877,373 represents only 15.5 per cent of the total population of the state. This is a little less than the 16.5 TABLE 18 Distribution of the Agricultural Population between Employers and Employees in California, April 1, 1930 Occupation Total Workers Dependents 461,284 416,089 135,676* 195,092 325,608t Farm employees except managers and unpaid family- 220,997 877,373 330,768 546,605 53 47 41 59 60 40 * Made to check with the number of farms in the 1930 Census of Agriculture, t Includes unpaid family labor. Source of data: Table 17. per cent (table 9) that the gainfully employed males in agriculture rep- resent of the total gainfully employed males in the state. This difference is undoubtedly due to the large number of single men engaged in agri- culture, especially true of Filipinos. The importance of the two farm groups, employers and employed, shown in table 18, is of interest to many people. If managers are included with operators and unpaid family laborers excluded from this group, then farm operators represent 41 per cent of gainful workers to 59 per cent for employees. If managers are included with employees and un- paid family laborers with operators, the percentages stay practically the same, roughly 40 per cent for operators and 60 per cent for employees. When unpaid family laborers are counted as dependents of operators and dependents of managers are included with dependents of operators, the operator class has 60 per cent of the dependents and the employee class has 40 per cent. Some of the agricultural population represented by operators in table 18, such as managers, should perhaps be transferred to the employee class, which would make the percentage distribution more nearly 50 to Buk 630] Characteristics of Agricultural Population 39 50 than 53 to 47 as shown in the table. If this were done, however, addi- tional farm employers would have to be added for farms operated by managers and not owned by corporations. Census data do not permit of such estimates without numerous assumptions. Aside from including managers with employers, the distribution shown in table 18 makes no allowance for the fact that many farm operators work off the farm for pay or income, some of them as farm laborers ; farm laborers as such may also work at other occupations than labor in agriculture, but they cannot work part time as farm operators. OTHER ACTIVITIES OF FARM OPERATORS The fact that the censuses of population classify a person as a farmer by occupation does not mean that he devoted all or even the major portion of his time to farming operations. Farming may be the major source of his income and yet only require part of his time. The censuses of agricul- ture, by definition, have one farm operator for each farm, but the farm operator may spend his entire time, except the small amount needed to give general instructions to his hired help, in other activities. The 1930 census classification of part-time farms" 3 did not list a person as a part- time farmer unless he spent at least 150 days or more in work off the farm, and even then he was not called a part-time farmer if the products from the farm had a gross value of $750 or more. A farmer who worked 150 days off his farm, although the farm produced only $751 gross value of product, was counted as a full-time farmer under this definition. The 1930 Census of Agriculture total of 8,525 part-time farms in California in 1929 is therefore of little significance except as an aid in interpreting more clearly the data for number of days worked off the farm in 1929, which were first published in connection with the 1935 Census of Agri- culture and are shown in table 19. In 1929 at least 42,511 (table 19), or 31.3 per cent of all the 135,676 farm operators, spent some time working for pay or income off the farm. Of these, 21,929, or 51.6 per cent, spent 150 days or more working off the farm. Subtracting the census total of 8,525 part-time farms from the latter figures leaves 13,404 as the number of farmer operators who spent 150 or more days off the farm but whose farm products were worth more than $750. Some of these farm operators are managers or owners of large farms. Their work off the farm may consist in managing cooperative associations or private business enterprises or in the holding of public offices. It cannot be assumed that all operators who spend considerable 23 United States Department of Commerce Bureau of the Census. Fifteenth Census of the United States, 1930. Agriculture, vol. 3(3):385. 1932. 40 University op California — Experiment Station time working off the farm are operators of small farms and that they work as laborers when working off the farm. The 42,511 farm operators who reported to the census enumerator that they worked off the farm in 1929 worked a total of 6,844,941 days, or an average of 162 days each off the farm. Just what they did is not known, but more complete figures for 1934 show that 46,326 farm oper- TABLE 19 Number of Farm Operators Working for Pay or Income Off the and Days Worked Off the Farm, California, 1929, 1934 Farm Number days worked 1929 1934 off the farm Total* Total Full owners Part ownersf Managers Tenants Under 25 5,246 4,660 10,676 3,288 4,295 ( 4,368 \ 3,080 1 5,174 2,068 2,740 2,840 2,018 3,434 508 492 387 239 351 53 81 91 61 149 659 25-49 982 50- 74 ) 75-99 \ 1,050 762 100-149 J 1,240 All under 150 20,582 8,299 13,630 20,205 f 5,246 \ 4,676 16,199 13,100 3,632 3,355 12,956 1,977 296 200 534 435 176 165 488 4,693 150-199 \ 1,142 200-249 / 250 and over 956 2,221 150 and over 21,929 26,121 19,943 1,030 829 4,319 Total operators 42,511 46,326 33,043 3,007 1,264 9,012 Total days worked off the farm Average days per operator days 6,884,941 162 days 7,950,253 172 days 6,012,077 182 days 354,391 118 days 236,921 187 days 1,346,864 149 * The data for 1929 are not classified by tenure of operator, t Part owners are operators who rent some land in addition to what they own. Source of data: United States Department of Commerce Bureau of the Census. United States Census of Agri- culture, 1935. vol. 3:220-21, 229. 1937. ators, or 30.8 per cent of all 150,360 farm operators spent 7,950,253 days, or an average of 172 days each working off the farm; 10,948 of these operators specified that they worked in agriculture as the principal occu- pation off the farm ; 27,893 operators specified nonagricultural opera- tions ; and 7,485 did not indicate the nature of the major activity off the farm. Of those who specified their principal occupation off the farm, 28.2 per cent worked in agriculture and 71.8 per cent in other industries. The number of operators who specified that they did not work for pay or income off the farm is 96,871 ; and 7,163 operators are listed in the 1935 Census of Agriculture as not making a report in answer to this question. Bui*. 630] CHARACTERISTICS OF AGRICULTURAL POPULATION 41 About 33 per cent of these 7,163 operators not reporting probably repre- sent farms for which there was nothing but an assumed operator, and the remainder represent operators not at home or not living on the farms they operate and so far away that the census enumerator filled in the schedule by asking the neighbors and looking at the farm. If this is the case, then the chances are that some of those not reporting also worked at some other occupation besides operating the farm on which they did not live. These data for 1934 show that approximately one-third of the farm operators worked for pay or income off the farm, and that nearly one-third of those working off the farm worked in agriculture. The same proportions probably apply to conditions in 1929. These figures raise the important question of how to consider those farm operators who only devote part of their time to farming. The cen- suses of agriculture do not indicate where these operators live, whether on urban or rural farms, or not on the farms they operate. Therefore, these figures cannot be used directly in making a better analysis of the popu- lation living on rural farms. However, they can be used in connection with the figures for total agricultural population. If 275 days per year are taken as representing maximum full-time yearly employment, then the days worked by operators off the farms in 1929 represent the equiva- lent of 25,036 full-time workers, which may be divided into 7,060 as farm laborers and 17,976 as workers in other industries than agriculture on the basis of the above stated percentages. These figures indicate that the equivalent of 25,036 of the 135,676 farm operators,, or 18.5 per cent, are not dependent on the farms they operate for livelihood. In terms of the total farm-operator population of 461,284 in table 18, this is equivalent to about 85,338 persons, which, perhaps, should be deducted from the total population represented by farmers as owners, tenants, and managers, leaving a total of 375,946 persons in that group. About 24,065 persons out of 85,338 should then be added to the 416,089 total population repre- sented by farm employees, which increases this group to 440,154. The remainder of the 85,338, or 61,273, are dependent on other industries. If a similar calculation is made in terms of gainful workers in agriculture, then farm employees would represent about two-thirds and employers only one-third ; dependents of the two classes would be practically equal ; and the total farm-employee population larger than the total farm-oper- ator population. Probably, however, many of the farm laborers also worked part time in other occupations than agriculture. Therefore, if similar data were available for farm laborers, and corrections estimated for employees, their numbers would also be reduced, and the proportions might still be 42 University of California — Experiment Station the same as shown in table 18, except for the fact that many people classi- fied in other occupations and nonfarm children attending school work part time in agriculture. While working in agriculture they practically have to work as farm laborers and not as farm operators, which increases the total population represented by the farm-labor group, but not the farm-operator group. Proprietors or employers in other businesses than farming would not be apt to work part time in agriculture, and if they did they would have to work as laborers except as they are also classified as farm operators and included in the above figures. The total population represented by workers in other industries dependent on part-time work in agriculture may completely offset the population represented by farm operators working off the farm ; if so, the total agricultural population shown in table 18 really represents the total population dependent on agriculture and may be considered as the -best estimate possible of the agricultural population in California on April 1, 1930. Farm operators may be roughly divided into three classes : (1) oper- ators who hire laborers to work on their farms ; (2) operators who do all their own work and nothing more; and (3) operators who do all their own farm work, but who work off their farms for pay or income part of the time. These general classes will not cover all cases, since some farmers work off the farm and hire laborers to work on the farm because they can earn more per day in their trade or profession off the farm than they have to pay farm laborers for working on the farm. Census data can be used to give a rough approximation of the first class — farm operators hiring farm laborers. According to the 1930 Census of Population, 90,492 farmers reported that they hired laborers during 1929. Many of these farmers may have hired only one person for as short a time as only one day, and, therefore, this figure, which indicates that 66.7 per cent of the 135,676 farmers used hired labor, must be considered as the approximate upper limit of the percentage of California farmers using hired labor. The Bureau of the Census made a special tabulation 24 of large-scale farms with value of products of $30,000 or more in 1929. There were only 7,875 such farms in the whole United States and California had 2,892, or 36.7 per cent of the total. In California these large-scale farms repre- sented only 2.1 per cent of all farms in the state, but they represented 25.4 per cent of all land in farms, 21.4 per cent of all crop land harvested, 19.8 per cent of value of land and buildings, 28.5 per cent of total value of all farm products, and they had 34.6 per cent of the total expenditures for hired labor. The regular volumes of the 1930 Census of Agriculture 2i United States Department of Commerce Bureau of the Census. Fifteenth Census of the United States, 1930. Agriculture. Large-scale farming in the United States, 1929. p. 25. 1933. Bul. 630] Characteristics of Agricultural Population 43 group all farms with value of products of $20,000 or over. There were only 4,755 in this class in California and, if the 2,892 from the special tabulation are deducted, then only 1,863 farms had value of products between $20,000 and $30,000. There were 7,968 farms with value of prod- ucts between $10,000 and $20,000. The total number of farms with value of products of $10,000 or more was only 12,723 as compared with 122,953 with products worth less than $10,000. Since these large farms need to hire considerable labor, and the census data indicate that a part of them hired about 34.6 per cent of the labor while 33.3 per cent of all farms hired no labor, it is very evident that most of the farm labor in California is hired by a relatively small number of farms. The 1935 Census of Agriculture shows that only 45,458 farms out of the 150,360 farms, or 30.2 per cent, reported employing hired labor dur- ing the first week in January, 1935. This percentage can be considered as the minimum, since the first week in January is a poor time of the year to measure the proportion for such an estimate ; farms hiring labor the first week in January are practically only those that hire labor through- out the year. During the same week 11,403 farms reported the use of neither family labor nor hired labor. These farms probably represent part of the farms without dwellings on which nobody lived and nobody worked during the first week in January. The farm operators who do all their own work sell their products in competition with the farm operators who hire laborers. Those who hire laborers are interested in securing low costs, and, therefore, want an abundant supply of cheap farm labor. The farmers who do their own work have nothing to gain from such conditions, and in the long run can expect only about the same return for doing their own work as hired laborers get for doing similar farm work. The economic interests of the farmers who do their own work or work part time as farm laborers are more in harmony with the interests and welfare of hired farm laborers than with the interests of farm operators who hire laborers. Not only that, but when farm laborers are on relief part of the year, and relief is financed by property taxation, the small farmer who keeps off relief and does his own work has to help pay for relief and in a sense must help to subsidize the farmers who employ hired labor seasonally. Labor Supply Available to Do the Necessary Farm Work. — The figures presented in the preceding tables do not fully indicate the number of workers available to meet the seasonal peak-load requirements in agri- culture. In addition to all the persons classified as farm operators and farm laborers, there are the school children and the homemakers who are not considered as gainful workers if they only occasionally work at some 44 University of California — Experiment Station jobs. In the rural-farm population on April 1, 1930, there were 112,296 homemakers not gainfully employed who may have worked on the farms whenever their services in farm work exceeded the need or value of their services in the home. Many of these women helped with farm work dur- ing the extremely busy season. Also in the rural-farm population there were 136,917 children between the ages of five and twenty attending school April 1, 1930. Most of these children helped with farm work while attending school and during the summer vacation. If these children could do one-half as much work as an adult during one-fourth of the year, they represented the equivalent of nearly 17,000 agricultural laborers. There were also 190,401 children of the rural-nonfarm population at- tending school April 1. It is a well-known fact that many of these chil- dren, as well as others from the cities, worked on farms during summer vacations. No data are available to indicate the extent to which school children and homemakers on farms worked in agriculture for short periods. Like- wise, no data are available to indicate the movement of people from other occupations to agriculture during rush seasons. Therefore, it is very difficult to make an estimate of the total supply of farm labor, but any estimate which leaves school children, especially farm and rural non- farm, out of consideration is apt to be too low. Proportion of Farm Wages Paid to People Living on Farms. — Wages paid to farm laborers are usually considered as an expense in the produc- tion of agricultural commodities and sometimes as a reduction in net in- come to people living on farms. If the laborers live on farms, however, then the wages they receive become income to people living on farms as well as expenses to farm operators. From the preceding data a rough approximation may be made of the division of the total amount of wages paid for farm labor between people living on farms and those not living on farms. Since about 13.6 per cent of the farms are operated by people not living on farms, only about 86.4 per cent of the total wages paid can be considered as an expense to people living on farms. This may be too high because these farms may need to hire more labor than the average of all farms. The percentage of farm wages received by people living on farms cannot be approximated so easily because it is necessary to decide on the time of the year when peo- ple are to be counted as living on farms. Since three out of the last four censuses have been taken on January 1. this may be the best time to use, if any. Table 17 shows that on April 1, 1930, there were 84,347 paid farm laborers and other workers in agriculture living on rural farms and Bul. 630] Characteristics of Agricultural Population 45 110,745 not living on farms (on the assumption that none lived on urban farms) . On January 1 there would have been about 25,000 fewer workers on farms (on the assumption that about half of the estimated 50,000 movement to farms represents dependents). This leaves about 60,000 on farms to 136,000 not on farms. To the workers on farms must be added the full-time equivalent of work performed in agriculture by farm oper- ators for pay, or about 7,000 (p. 41) which makes the proportion 67,000 on farms to 136,000 not on farms. This indicates that at least one-third of the wages paid for farm work in California goes to people living on farms. The actual proportion is higher because many of the laborers on farms January 1 receive nearly full-time employment while many of the other farm laborers have only seasonal employment. If those living on farms January 1 average eleven months' employment and those not living on farms average seven months' employment, the proportion of farm expenditures for wages going to people living on farms is raised from 33 to 44 per cent. These estimates make no allowance for seasonal farm work by school children or by people classified as gainful workers in other industries. In the past, studies of farm income have either in- cluded or excluded the entire expenditure for farm wages in estimating income to people living on farms. Either method appears to be incorrect for California. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The California farm population on April 1, 1930, was 620,506. If the census had been taken as of January 1, the same as for other recent cen- suses, the total would have been about 570,000. The movement of popula- tion to farms between January and April appears to be about 50,000 persons. The census total on April 1 included 41,156 living on farms lo- cated within the city limits of incorporated territory of 2,500 or more inhabitants, and 579,350 living on rural farms. Included in the rural- farm population were 84,347 paid gainful workers in agriculture and 42,608 gainful workers who worked in other industries than agriculture. Of the 135,676 farms listed in the 1930 Census of Agriculture for Cali- fornia, 10,877, or 8.0 per cent, were occupied urban farms, 106,335, or 78.4 per cent, were occupied rural farms, and 18,464, or 13.6 per cent, were operated by people who did not live on the farms. Most of these un- occupied farms have no dwellings. The operators of these 18,464 unoccu- pied farms represent a total population of approximately 61,300 persons who may be as dependent on agriculture as if they lived on the farms which they operate. Paid farm employees not living on farms April 1, 1930, totaled 110,745 and they had about 130,538 dependents. Farm 46 University of California — Experiment Station operators and laborers not living on farms, therefore, represented a total population of 302,583 persons who were not included in the census data on farm population, although they are a part of the population depend- ent on agriculture. The total agricultural population of the state in 1930 was 877,373, or the sum of those living on farms and those not living on farms minus families with no gainful workers and the workers in other industries living on farms. The agricultural population in the state in 1930 was practically evenly divided between farm operators with their dependents and farm laborers with their dependents. The farmer operators of the state spent considerable time working for pay or income off the farm; 42,511 operators, or nearly one-third of the total reported that they had worked off the farms in 1929, and 21,929 of them reported that they spent more than 150 days each working off the farm. If 275 days represents full-time employment, then the work off the farm by all farm operators is equivalent to about 25,000 full-time workers. These may be roughly divided into 7,000 working in agriculture and 18,000 working in other industries than agriculture. The income earned by these operators working in other industries than agriculture and representing the equivalent of 18,000 full-time workers, and the in- come earned by the 42,608 gainful workers in other industries living on rural farms must be considered as an addition to the income from agricultural production in dealing with the income and welfare of farm- ers or people living on farms. Unfortunately, census data do not permit of a separation of these operators working off the farms by place of resi- dence, such as, rural farm, urban farm, or operators not living on farms, nor do the data give information on the gainful workers living with urban-farm families or with families of farm operators not living on farms. The total expenditure by farm operators for hired labor cannot be treated as an expense to people living on farms, because a considerable part is paid by operators not living on farms and over one-third is paid to people living on farms, part to farm operators who also work in agri- culture for wages and part to hired laborers who live on farms and are counted as part of the farm population. Most of the farm laborers in the state are hired by a relatively small number of large farms. In 1929 the largest farms in the state, represent- ing only 2.1 per cent of the total number of farms, had 34.6 per cent of the total expenditure for hired labor. Farming operations and the activities of people living on farms are becoming so intermingled with other industries and occupations that it is no longer possible to treat agriculture or people living on farms as Buu 630] Characteristics of Agricultural Population 47 isolated separate entities. Agricultural policy in the future must con- sider these complications. Of all the gainfully employed males in California only 16.5 per cent are gainfully employed in agriculture. As a source of gainful employ- ment, agriculture in California is not so important as either trade or manufacturing. Farmers as owners and tenants represent only 6.2 per cent of all of the gainfully employed males in the state, whereas persons employed on farms as laborers, managers, and foremen represent 10.3 per cent. Although male farmers and their unpaid male family laborers repre- sent only 39 per cent of the males gainfully employed in agriculture as compared with 61 per cent of the males working for hire, the farmers represent practically as many people because they have more dependents per gainful worker. A large proportion of the gainfully employed farm laborers are single men without families. However, if operators of small farms who also work off the farm as laborers are included with the farm laborers, then farm laborers represent about two-thirds of the gainful workers in agriculture, and one-half of all the dependents, so that in total population farm laborers outnumbered the farm operators. Native and foreign-born white people operate 95.1 per cent of all the farms in the state ; Japanese, Mexicans, Indians, Chinese, and all other races operate only 4.9 per cent. The Japanese operate 2.5 per cent of all farms, or half of the farms not operated by native and foreign-born whites. There are almost as many native-white farm laborers as there are na- tive-white farm operators. Native and foreign-born whites constitute 59.5 per cent of the farm laborers and 74.1 per cent of the farm managers and foremen. Mexicans account for 20.9 per cent of the farm laborers and only 3.4 per cent of the managers and foremen. Japanese account for 7.4 per cent of the farm laborers and 19.1 per cent of the managers and foremen. Filipinos account for 8.2 per cent of the farm laborers and only 1.1 per cent of the managers and foremen. Since there are very few Filipina women in the state, Filipinos as a race group in California will decrease in importance. The opposite conditions apply to Japanese and Mexicans, of which about one-half of the total represented by each race in 1930 were native-born citizens of California. Families of these races with homemakers average 5.12 persons each as compared with 3.70 for white families. Changing conditions since the 1930 Census was taken limit the use- fulness of the data to present conditions but not its historical value. In- creases in the number of farms and movement of agricultural population 48 University of California — Experiment Station from other states to California change the totals from what they were in 1930. In some cases the proportion between groups, races, and classes may remain nearly constant even though the totals have changed. A new census will be taken in 1940 and when it is published — about 1942 — these data contained in this bulletin will be useful in interpreting the changes that have taken place. 8m-6, '39(9286)