APPENDIX TABLE A2. Distribution of Peanut
Production, Southern Region, 1978
APPENDIX TABLE A5. Distribution of Cotton
Production, Southern Region, 1978
|
Income |
Appalachian |
Delta |
Southeast |
Southern |
Total | |||||
|
Farms |
Pro- |
Farms |
Pro- |
Farms |
Pro- |
Farms |
Pro- |
Farms |
Pro- | |
|
Less cban |
3.4 |
0.1 |
53.2 |
2.5 |
--- Percent----- 6.1 0.1 |
3.7 |
0.2 |
6.0 |
__ | |
|
$2,500-19,999 |
45.8 |
5.7 |
32.7 |
3.5 |
30.3 |
5.3 |
38.9 |
9.6 |
35.0 |
6.0 |
|
$20,000-39,999 |
18.4 |
9.0 |
2.0 |
1.9 |
18.0 |
8.6 |
20.4 |
13.7 |
18.0 |
9.0 |
|
$40,000-99,999 |
26.7 |
26.2 |
3.2 |
6.3 |
25.0 |
25.2 |
24.7 |
34.4 |
25.0 |
27.0 |
|
$100,000 and |
5.7 |
59.0 |
8.9 |
85.8 |
20.6 |
60.8 |
12.3 |
42.1 |
16.0 |
58.0 |
|
Income |
Appalachian |
Delta |
Southeast |
Southern |
Total | |||||
|
Farms |
Pro- |
Farms |
Pro- |
Farms |
Pro- |
Farms |
Pro- |
Farms |
Pro- | |
|
-----ret ceι∣L —- | ||||||||||
|
l⅛ss .than |
6.9 |
0.2 |
5.1 |
0.1 |
4.9 |
0.1 |
3.4 |
0.1 |
4.0 |
— |
|
$2,500-19,999 |
32.9 |
6.5 |
28.1 |
2.7 |
29.3 |
3.7 |
27.7 |
5.3 |
28.0 |
4.0 |
|
$20,000-39,999 |
14.2 |
6.2 |
13.0 |
3.5 |
14.6 |
5.4 |
22.2 |
11.2 |
19.0 |
8.0 |
|
$40,000-99,999 |
20.7 |
18.3 |
20.5 |
12.6 |
21.1 |
17.0 |
28.4 |
30.3 |
25.0 |
23.0 |
|
$100,000 and |
1.6 |
31.2 |
33.3 |
81.1 |
30.1 |
73.8 |
18.3 |
53.1 |
24.0 |
65.0 |
Source: Calculated from 1978 Census of Agriculture,
Bureau of the Census.
Source: Calculated from 1978 Census of Agriculture,
Bureau of the Census.
APPENDIX TABLE A3. Distribution of Corn
Production, Southern Region, 1978
APPENDIX TABLE A6. Distribution of Rice
Production, Southern Region, 1978
|
Appalachian |
Delta |
Southeast |
Southern |
Total | ||||||
|
Farms |
Pro- |
Farms |
Pro- |
Farms |
Pro- |
Farms |
Pro- |
Farms |
Pro- | |
|
— |
—- Percent----- |
— |
— | |||||||
|
Less than | ||||||||||
|
$2,500 |
17.4 |
1.9 |
52.7 |
15.2 |
31.8 |
0.3 |
18.3 |
0.4 |
2.4 |
2.0 |
|
$2,500-19,999 |
46.6 |
17.1 |
34.5 |
24.0 |
40.2 |
4.5.3 |
38.6 |
3.5 |
44.0 |
14.0 |
|
$20,000-39,999 |
14.6 |
14.0 |
4.0 |
8.3 |
11.6 |
11.0 |
9.9 |
3.8 |
13.0 |
11.0 |
|
$40,000-99,999 |
13.7 |
26.3 |
4.3 |
13.7 |
14.0 |
22.3 |
15.0 |
17.2 |
13.0 |
23.0 |
|
$100,000 and | ||||||||||
|
over |
7.7 |
40.7 |
4.5 |
38.8 |
2.4 |
51.1 |
18.2 |
75.1 |
6.0 |
50.0 |
|
Income |
Appalachian |
Delta |
Southeast |
Southern |
Total | ||||
|
Farms |
Pro- |
Farms |
Pro- |
Farms pro^ |
.Farms |
Pro- |
Farms |
---Frd^ | |
|
Less than |
__ |
__ |
0.9 |
0.1 |
—— Percent----- |
0.3 |
__ |
1.0 |
__ |
|
$2,500-19,999 |
— |
— |
12.5 |
1.9 |
— — |
6.8 |
0.7 |
12.0 |
2.0 |
|
$20,000-39,999 |
— |
— |
12.1 |
4.3 |
__ __ |
8.4 |
1.8 |
12.0 |
4.0 |
|
$40,000-99,999 |
— |
— |
28.8 |
19.3 |
— __ |
25.6 |
11.8 |
28.0 |
17.0 |
|
$100,000 and |
- |
-- |
45.7 |
74.4 |
- - |
58.9 |
85.7 |
47.0 |
77.0 |
Source: Calculated from 1978 Census of Agriculture,
Bureau of the Census.
Source: Calculated from 1978 Census of Agriculture,
Bureau of the Census.
APPENDIX TABLE A4. Distribution of Soy-
bean Production, Southern Region, 1978
|
Appalachian |
Delta |
Southeast |
Southern |
Total | |||||
|
Farms |
Pro- |
Farms |
Pro- |
— Pro- ' Farms , , |
Farms |
Pro- |
Farms |
TP de- | |
|
________duction | |||||||||
|
Less than |
10.2 |
1.0 |
9.6 |
0 1 |
-— Percent—— 13.5 1.1 |
5.7 |
0.1 |
11.0 |
1.0 |
|
$2,500-19,999 |
43.1 |
15.4 |
34.7 |
6.0 |
40.9 13.9 |
31.2 |
8.0 |
40.0 |
10.0 |
|
$20,000-39,999 |
17.1 |
13.6 |
14.1 |
7.4 |
14.2 11.9 |
17.0 |
8.8 |
16.0 |
10.0 |
|
$40,000-99,999 |
18.5 |
27.0 |
19.1 |
19.8 |
17.0 25.0 |
22.9 |
21.7 |
18.0 |
23.0 |
|
$100,000 and |
11.1 |
43.0 |
22.5 |
66.7 |
14.4 48.1 |
23.2 |
61.4 |
15.0 |
56.0 |
|
Source: |
Calculated from |
1978 Census of Agriculture, | |||||||
|
Bureau of the Census. | |||||||||
APPENDIX TABLE A7. Distribution of To-
bacco Production, Southern Region, 1978
|
Income |
Appalachian |
Delta |
Southeast |
Southern Pla ins_ |
Total | ||||
|
Farms |
Pro- |
Farms |
Pro- |
Farms |
Pro- |
_ Pro- _______duction |
Farms |
Pro- | |
|
Less than |
19.6 |
2.8 |
__ |
__ |
---Percent---- 5.2 0.1 |
— |
19.0 |
2.0 | |
|
$2,500-19,999 |
56.1 |
26.8 |
— |
— |
32.7 |
7.4 |
__ __ |
55.0 |
24.0 |
|
$20,000-39,999 |
12.2 |
18.7 |
— |
— |
19.8 |
11.6 |
— — |
13.0 |
18.0 |
|
$40,000-99,999 |
5.9 |
26.7 |
__ |
— |
25.1 |
30.9 |
__ — |
7.0 |
27.0 |
|
$100,000 and |
6.2 |
25.0 |
— |
__ |
17.2 |
50.0 |
__ __ |
6.0 |
29.0 |
Source: Calculated from 1978 Census of Agriculture,
Bureau of the Census.
REFERENCES
Bishop, C. E. “Special Problems and Policy Needs of Southern Agriculture.” Second Annual Farm
Policy Review Conference, Raleigh, NC, 1961, pp. 212-30.
Penn, J. B. “The Changing Farm Sector and Future Public Policy: An Economic Perspective.” in
Agricultural-Food Policy Review: Perspectives for the 1980’s, AFPR-4, Economics and Statis-
tics Service, U.S. Dept, of Agriculture, 1981, pp. 28-58.
U.S. Dept, of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. Problems and Prospects for U.S. Agriculture.
Washington, D.C., December 1981.
Rudd, Robert W. “A Look at Major Events Impacting Productivity and Uncertainty in Southern
Agriculture During the 1970’s. 5. J. Agr. Econ. 2(1979):1-6.
37
More intriguing information
1. A Rational Analysis of Alternating Search and Reflection Strategies in Problem Solving2. Feature type effects in semantic memory: An event related potentials study
3. Knowledge, Innovation and Agglomeration - regionalized multiple indicators and evidence from Brazil
4. Delayed Manifestation of T ransurethral Syndrome as a Complication of T ransurethral Prostatic Resection
5. Luce Irigaray and divine matter
6. Gender and aquaculture: sharing the benefits equitably
7. Deprivation Analysis in Declining Inner City Residential Areas: A Case Study From Izmir, Turkey.
8. Distribution of aggregate income in Portugal from 1995 to 2000 within a SAM (Social Accounting Matrix) framework. Modeling the household sector
9. La mobilité de la main-d'œuvre en Europe : le rôle des caractéristiques individuelles et de l'hétérogénéité entre pays
10. An Attempt to 2