USA > North Carolina > Chowan County > Economic and social history of Chowan County, North Carolina, 1880-1915 > Part 5
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21
1 Cf. table 6, p. 269.
3 Ibid.
2 Cf. table 7, p. 270.
68
CHOWAN COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA [68
Sheep .- Like the horses, the sheep bred were a negligible quantity. The one great drawback to sheep-raising-that which kept it from being a highly profitable industry to the county - was the presence of so many good-for-nothing dogs. In 1878 the county had 684 sheep, and 768 dogs. During the year these dogs destroyed 85 head of sheep, while only 17 head were lost from sickness.1
Beef Cattle. For every head of cattle reported in the Tenth Census (1880), there were more than three head of people, and this in a county two-thirds of which was free range and much of which of such quality that cattle (except- ing the few that were milked) did not even need to be win- tered. In no case were they fed any at all (unless milked) more than four months of the year, and then usually only a very small amount of cheap forage, such as corn shucks and wheat and oat straw. The Tenth Census makes no mention of either the number or value of cattle annually sold or slaughtered, but in the census following, the number given as sold "living and slaughtered " is 135, and " slaughtered for home consumption," 45.2 Both the general conditions and the total number of cattle reported in 1880 being prac- tically the same as in 1890, it is highly probable that the number of cattle sold and slaughtered was about the same. Of those sold for beef, some were driven to Norfolk (sixty or more miles distant, depending upon the point in the county from which they started), some sold in Edenton, and some butchered on the farm and peddled out among the neighbors.
Milk Cows .- Nearly all the cattle of the country were the " piney woods," or scrub stock. Not until the census of 1890 was there any effort made to ascertain the quality of the stock. At this time the census enumerator was able to
1 North Carolina Hand-book, pp. 212-18, passim.
2 Cf. table 9, p. 272.
69] THE CHIEF FARM PRODUCTS IN THE EIGHTIES 69
find but ten thoroughbreds, and but fifty five others that were as much as one-half pure blood.1 It is well known that the scrub stock is a poor producer, both of beef and of dairy products, especially the latter.
Not only was the quality of the milk cows poor, but the number was small. In the Tenth and the Eleventh Censuses there are only three divisions of cattle: " working oxen," " milch cows " and " other cattle."2 In view of this fact it is quite likely that many cows used for breeding purposes only, were reported as " milch cows," and that the figures for the latter are therefore too large But, even taking the figures as given for 1880, there were only 10 milk cows in the county to every 107 people. The production of milk and butter not being one of the strong points of this native stock, even when accorded the best of treatment, under the treatment actually received little could be expected; and in this there were no favorable surprises.
It was customary to shut the calves up in small en- closure or else allow them to run loose in the fields, while the cows were forced to run in the woods and rustle their own feed. The calves were never taken from their mothers and raised by hand, but instead were turned to them once every day. In fact the time allowed the cows with their young was the one inducement to them to come home and be milked. The calf was allowed to suck for a very short time just before the cow was milked, and then after she was milked it was allowed to suck her dry. Sometimes one or two teats would be left unmilked for the calf, especially when it was young, or in an enclosure where it found very little to eat. During the first month or six weeks the calf was allowed to stay over night with its mother, but after then its mother was usually milked mornings, and it was
1 Page 300, volumes on Agriculture, Eleventh Census.
2 Cf. table 7, p. 270.
70
CHOW AN COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA [70
allowed with her from a few minutes to an hour or two only, immediately after the milking. As a usual thing, the cows were milked only once a day.
If the cows were fed any at all, it was frequently just enough to make them stand while being milked-sometimes a few nubbins, or green " shoots." 1 For the first eight or ten weeks they came up mornings regularly and early. But as their calves grew older, and the time allowed with them was cut shorter, mother-love gradually gave way to other considerations, and the home-comings were no longer either regular or early. They would begin by remaining away till the middle of the morning, then till noon. Being milked late one day, probably the next day they would not come at all. This irregularity made bad milk, and so very soon they would be allowed to dry up. Less than ten per cent of the cows were milked during the winter months. When allowed to dry up in the early fall, as was the common custom, if fed at all, the feeding did not start till December or January, and stopped about the middle of April when the grass and trees began to put out. The feeding being only barely sufficient to tide them over the winter, the spring found them thin and weak.
Most of the calves were dropped during March and April. May and June were the best months for milk and butter, for it was then that the free pasturage of the woods was at its best. Probably three-fourths, or even more, of the total annual dairy production took place during these months. By the spring, feed in the barn was getting low, so the cows that calved early were fed but little, and the calves allowed most of the milk. Thus the dairy product before May was small. By August, the flow of milk was slackening con- siderably, and by September many cows were no longer milked.
1 Forms of ears of corn bearing no grain.
71
71 ] THE CHIEF FARM PRODUCTS IN THE EIGHTIES
Dairy Products .- Under the conditions outlined, the dairy product was necessarily small. The Tenth Census makes no report on the milk production, but according to the butter report, the county produced less than 13 ounces of butter for each inhabitant during 1879. The first milk report was that of the Eleventh Census, for 1889. The dairy product in that year was under 23 quarts of milk and II ounces of butter for each person in the county. The milk production per cow was less than 85 gallons for the entire year. Reckoning 120 days as the average milking period for each cow, the daily output per cow was well under 3 quarts for 4 months of the year, and nothing during the other eight.1 Many a cow was milked that gave less than 2 quarts a day.
The milk and butter produced was largely consumed by the immediate producers. The few cattle sold 2 brought their owners, on an average, not over fifteen or eighteen dol- lars a head. Thus it is seen that cattle made only a very small return to the county, either financially or otherwise.
Hogs .- Of the domestic animals on farms, hogs were not only by far the most numerous but also the most general. Probably ninety per cent of all farmers (both owners and tenants) raised at least a few. The county more than raised its meat,3 though many people consumed but little. The more substantial farmers, especially farm owners, usually butchered from eight hundred to two thousand pounds, and a few as high as from five- to ten-thousand pounds.
1 These calculations are based upon the census data found in tables 7 and 9, pp. 270, 270. As noted above, it is quite likely that some mere breeders were classed as "milch cows." This, however, is prob- ably more than made up for by those milked more than four months in the year.
2 Cf. supra, p. 68.
3 In this treatise the word " meat," unless otherwise indicated, refers to hog meat, as is the local custom.
72
CHOW AN COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA [72
Except on special occasions, such as all-day religious meetings, when some of the families participating would kill a " pig " that had been put up and fattened for the particular affair, practically all pork was killed during the winter months. More than ninety per cent of it went on the rack between the middle of December and the last of January. Some farmers would occasionally keep a few hogs, if they were fattening well, over into February. There were two very salient reasons for killing at the time specified. In the first place, the hogs by this time had eaten up what was intended for them. In the second place, it is hard to save meat, especially large joints, unless the weather is fairly cool. The winters in Chowan being relatively short, only a limited amount of weather suitable for butchering was expected, hence everybody prepared to butcher when this weather came.
Whether destined for market or for home consumption, the hogs were always slaughtered right on the farm. Some- times one had a few he wanted to kill either earlier or later than he did his others, and so would have two hog-killings during the season, but the majority did all their killing in one day. Help was furnished by one's' neighbors without re- muneration, except what they ate and drank and the few haslets they carried home with them. (It was customary for each of those who helped to take a haslet or two home with him if he cared to.) On the day following the killing, the meat was cut out and salted down (except that which was sold right off the rack), the "lard dried up,"1 and the sausage meat chopped up.2 This work required about one-
1 The rendering of the trimmings of fat from the entrails, and from the meat in cutting it out, was known as "drying up the lard."
2 Possibly there were a few sausage mills in the county then, but if so they were not in general use, hence most, if not all, of the sausage meat was chopped up with a knife.
73
73] THE CHIEF FARM PRODUCTS IN THE EIGHTIES
third as much help as did the killing. In certain sections those who helped in this work would be given some spare ribs, or backbone, to take home with them. As a matter of course, in asking and receiving aid, one always entailed upon himself the obligation to give aid in return when called upon.1
Hog cholera was the one great drawback to the raising of pork. This dread disease claimed numerous victims almost every year. It was not an uncommon thing for cholera to break out in a neighborhood and destroy from 50 to 75 per cent of all hogs, and in some droves make a clean sweep. The Eleventh Census is the first and only one thus far to make any report by counties of the hog mortality. According to it there occurred among the hogs in the county in 1889, 2,100 deaths, a number more than 37 per cent as great as the number consumed .? Whether or not the death rate for that year was greater than the average, one is unable to say definitely. The fact, however, that, of the last four, this is the only census which reports the number of hogs as smaller than the number of people at the time of the enumeration, may indicate that for 1889 the hog mor- tality was above normal. At any rate, it is a well-known fact that the annual average mortality was relatively high, and was due almost entirely to the one disease-cholera. As a conservative estimate, I should say that one year with another twenty per cent as many died as were slaughtered; in other words, one died for every five killed. The loss of one out of every six, or whatever the proportionate loss was, if it could have been established as a definite tax, would not have been so calamitous. But much feed was raised for the express purpose of fattening hogs; consequently, when one lost all, or a large proportion of them, a good
1 Cf. infra, p. 181 et seq.
2 Calculations made from table 9, p. 272.
74
CHOW AN COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA [74
part of his feed was also lost. Thus there was a double loss, aside from the demoralizing effect upon the industry caused by the great uncertainty constantly prevailing.
If cholera could have been stamped out, dressed pork could probably have been produced at a profit for something like three cents a pound. For ten months of the year hogs secured much of their living right in the woods. Besides such feed as roots, grasses, bugs, and worms,-found in all parts of the county-in certain parts in certain years there were great quantities of chinkapins, acorns, huckleberries, and beech- and pine-mast. Thus it was that in some years in some sections hogs would be in "good order " (fair condition) when given the run of the fields, notwithstanding that since being weaned they had had little or nothing except what they themselves had foraged. Many people fed their hogs, except their brood sows and small pigs, scarcely at all until they were turned into the fields. In the fall, after crops were housed, all hogs to be fattened that season were put into the fields to pick them, that is, to eat the peas, potatoes, and whatever else they could find. Some killed their pork right out of the field, but the majority " put up " (penned) their hogs after they had cleaned the fields, and corned them for a time, the length of time depending, with- in certain limits, largely upon whether or not it was thought they were making sufficient gains to leave a fair margin, after deducting the value of the corn fed to them.
Not only did hogs entail comparatively small expense in feeding, but they also demanded very little attention. The sows pigged in the woods, making their own choice of loca- tion for the purpose. In fact, they seemed to do better when at large than when enclosed. If the weather was cold they began making a tremendous bed of bushes, leaves, and straw two or three days previous to the prospective litter.
Under existing conditions the breeds were necessarily
75
75] THE CHIEF FARM PRODUCTS IN THE EIGHTIES
those that could largely shift for themselves. This, how- ever, is far from saying that only poor breeds could do this. Now and then some good blood would be brought in, but since everybody's hogs ran in the woods together, no one could do a great deal toward breeding up his own stock, beyond the selection of his brood sows. Thus it was largely a case of the stock of all improving together. This would have been all right had not the ignorance, selfishness, and short-sightedness of some prevented them from cooperating in the general betterment. For instance, many would let their scrub males run till they were a year or more old be- fore castration. By and large, the hogs bred tended towards the long-nosed, heavy-shouldered, big-bellied, small-hammed type-the type which produces the least amount of the most desirable meat. Being scantily fed, their growth was slow. Many at twelve months old would not have dressed 50 pounds. As a rule they did not seem to fatten well till they were a year or two old, hence those butchered would have probably averaged a year and a half. Even at this uge they rarely ever dressed as much as 200 pounds. One that dressed 250 pounds was a "big hog."
Poultry .- The raising of poultry was well-nigh uni- versal among farm owners and the better-class tenants. The number kept by any one family, however, was seldom large, it being very rare to find as many as a hundred chickens attached to any one household, and chickens con- stituted some eighty per cent or more of all poultry raised in the county.1 Numerous families had fewer than a dozen head of grown poultry. For the rural popu- lation as a whole, there were on June 1, 1880, only 196 head of poultry (exclusive of spring hatching) of all kinds for every 100 people.2 From thirty to
1 Cf. table 7, p. 270.
2 Calculations based on U. S. Census data found in table 4, p. 264, and table 7, p. 270.
76
CHOW AN COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA [76
forty hens was the usual maximum per family. It had been found out from experience that this number produced about as many eggs (sometimes even more) as a larger number did. The reason for this seeming anomaly is not far to seek. When fed at all, the chickens were al- ways given corn, hence had to forage most of their nitrogen- ous or egg-producing food, and in many cases they had to forage all their food. Such things as bugs, worms and kitchen scraps found about the place, amply supplied a small number, but since they ranged only a comparatively short distance from where they roosted, a large number found these sources of supply quite inadequate to their needs.
While not usually keeping many laying hens, some of the more industrious housewives (this was the one outdoor in- dustry in which the women dominated) raised from fifty to two hundred spring chickens for sale annually. Nearly all who kept chickens sold a few young ones in the spring and summer, if nothing more than the roosters among those hatched for layers. In the fall of the year some of the old hens would be sold off to make room for the pullets just coming in.
Though chickens constituted the major portion of the poultry, there were also some turkeys, ducks and geese. The turkeys were raised almost entirely for market. Dur- ing the late fall and winter months they were dressed and carted to Norfolk. Except a few to raise from the follow- ing year, the entire flock was killed every season. Ducks, seemingly, were bred because some people fancied them, rather than because of the financial return they made. They were poorer layers than hens, their eggs sold for the same at the stores,1 and when the ducks themselves were put on
1 At Easter time retailers on the Norfolk market could get from two to four cents per dozen more for duck eggs than for hen eggs, but the producer seldom knew the difference.
77
THE CHIEF FARM PRODUCTS IN THE EIGHTIES
77]
the market they brought no more than the hens. Geese served in a double capacity-that of grass-killers, and that of feather-producers-besides selling well when put on the market dressed.
The first-named service of the goose, that of killing grass, was of no mean value to the cotton grower when crab-grass was the principal grass, as it was on many farms. This grass was considered a great delicacy by the goose and a great plague by the farmer. A flock of forty or fifty geese was probably equal to one hoe hand for keeping down grass in cotton after the cotton was once cut to a stand, provided they were put in on time. Geese lay early in the spring, hence could be set and hatched off in time for the goslings to be large enough to do good work soon after the cotton was ready for them to go into it. In the very act of killing the grass by eating it off they thereby obtained most of their livelihood. Since they were near maturity by the time cot- ton was laid by, their production necessitated but small ex- pense, and this was much more than made up for by the labor they saved. In the fall they were good for a half- dollar apiece, or they could be kept for feathers.
Practically all of the more substantial families slept on feather beds, except during a few months in summer, and some even all the year round. A newly-married couple usually started housekeeping with one or two beds, either given them by their parents or bought by themselves, and as the family grew, raised feathers for other beds. The best feathers, in fact nearly all feathers 1 used, were taken from geese and ducks. Since picking seems to go so hard with ducks, and since they are comparatively small and re- feather comparatively slowly, only a few were ever picked, hence geese were the main source of supply.
1 Some few people, when they dressed chickens, saved the feathers, but they were always of very poor quality, and were never used except by the poorer classes.
78
CHOW AN COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA [78
By far the greater portion of all poultry and eggs found its way to some outside market, principally Norfolk. Less than twenty per cent of either was consumed by the pro- ducers.1 Most people had them to eat only at rare inter- vals. At the big, all-day church meetings,2 with dinner on the grounds, it was customary to have chicken, also when company was expected for a Sunday dinner, usually a chicken was cooked. As for eggs, once in a great while they were served for Sunday morning breakfast, or when visitors were present. Also, when one was sick he was generally allowed to have what eggs he wanted; this was one of the few pleasant things about being sick. But the times when either eggs or poultry graced the family bill of fare, except on the special occasions mentioned, were few and far between for the vast majority.3
During six or seven months of the year there was neither much to sell, nor much to barter for the little necessaries and luxuries usually obtained from the country stores. For many, poultry and eggs constituted the principal articles marketed from, the last of February till the middle of Sep- tember, when the fall crops began to come in. They were either picked up by the carters (who, at certain seasons of the year, scoured the country buying anything and every- thing that was salable on the Norfolk market),4 or toted off to the stores and traded for such things as kerosene, coffee, sugar, molasses, tobacco, and snuff. And this was done in spite of the fact that the prices received were low. Grown ducks and chickens brought from twenty to thirty cents a head, geese from forty to fifty cents, and turkeys from eighty cents to a dollar. For months at a time-the time
1 My own estimate, based upon a general knowledge of conditions.
2 Cf. infra, p. 205.
3 Cf. infra, p. 223.
+ Cf. infra, p. 135 et seq.
79
79] THE CHIEF FARM PRODUCTS IN THE EIGHTIES
when hens were doing their biggest laying-eggs sold at the country store for eight and ten cents a dozen, and often went as low as six cents.
Cash Handled by the Farmers .- From the facts given in this and the preceding chapter it is seen that the vast ma- jority of farmers handled very little money. In fact many a fairly substantial farmer with a good-sized family, handled less than a hundred and fifty dollars a year. For the simple life they were leading, however, they did not need much money. They were producing most of what they con- sumed, whether it was little or much, and consuming most of what they produced. If they hired labor, much of it was paid in supplies, so they got along quite well with very little actual cash.
CHAPTER V
AGRICULTURE, FRUIT CULTURE, ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND POULTRY RAISING IN 1915
AGRICULTURE
HAVING described somewhat fully the general conditions of agriculture and its allied industries in the eighties, it will suffice to sketch rather briefly the changes which have since occurred in the industry. These changes have been largely along three lines-principles and methods, variety of crops, and production.
Changes in Methods and Principles .- In 1880 it could hardly be said that many people of Chowan had any prin- ciples of farming other than to imitate their fathers and grandfathers. But we now come to a period in which we find a few people who want to understand the underlying causes of things-the whys and wherefores. For the vast majority, however, it is still enough for them if they know that a certain action is likely to produce a certain result. Of course, the voluntarily blind-those who refuse to see the results obtained by the new methods-are still present.
What are the changes in method? In the first place some farmers are actually breaking up their land, instead of merely scratching the surface.1 A few break up their land with two-horse teams. Not only is the ground plowed deeper, but many put their seed-beds into much better con- dition than formerly. Discs and various types of special harrows are now freely used. Nearly every one is doing all
1 Cf. supra, pp. 52, 61-62. [80
80
81
AGRICULTURE, FRUIT CULTURE
81 ]
his planting, except the setting-out of sweet potato sprouts, with special planters. A beginning has been made in scien- tific crop-rotation, that is, a rotation which returns some- thing to the soil as well as takes something away. Now and then a farmer is found who is actually radical enough to plow in a crop of clover or peas. Some few act as if they had learned that they cannot take more off their land than they put on it. without making it poorer to just that extent. While there may not be much more manure per capita made on the farm than formerly, quite a few have discontinued the practice of burning all the vegetation off their land in the spring of the year, and the great majority are using some commercial fertilizer. According to the 1910 census the expenditure for commercial fertilizer per acre of im- proved land in 1909 was 13.5 times what it was in 1879, just three decades previous.1 Most people have also de- cided that they can spend their time to better advantage than in hauling common dirt from the woods into their fields.
One of the biggest changes is in the actual working of the crops. They are now much more properly worked, and with far less human labor than in the eighties. Harrows, cultivators, weeders, combination plows, and other special machines, some of which work a row or more at a time (while at the same time permitting the operators to ride in- stead of trudging along behind), have, by many, been largely substituted for the turn-plow and weed hoe. Many farmers have told me that while formerly it required from two to three hoe hands to follow one plow, now one can follow from two to three plows. The up-to-the-minute farmer no longer waits for his crop to become covered with grass before working it, but instead, often begins before it comes up and keeps right on as long as he can get into it
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.