The Dutchess County Farmer by D C H S

•

THE NORRIE FELLOWSHIP REPORT

•

. ,.

MARTHA COLLINS BAYNE

•

• •

•

1935-1936

D C H S | NY

•

THE NORRIE.FELLOWSHIP REPORT 935- 1936

-·. ..

. ··

....,_

•

MARTHA COLLINS BAYNE �

A.B. VASSAR COLLEGE, 1935 MARGARET L. NO·RRIE FELLOW 1935 - 193 7

•

.. .

•..

. Publi.�hed by

THE. WOMEN'S CITY AND COUNTY CLUB . AND VASSAR COLLEGE .

POUGHKEEPSIE, NEW YORK · '

D C H S | NY

.. '

•

Author's Note The author wishes to thank all tho.se farmers and their wives, whose friendly cooperation aided the col lection of data con·tained in ·this book, and others who have given editor· ial suggestions and criticism. Especial thanks must be e· xpressed to Pro,f-essor Genieve Lamso-n of Vassar College, without whose constant assistance this survey accomplished. been have not would .

•

M. C. B.

September 15, 19 3 6.

•

D C H S | NY • •

•

a eo ....__ontents Page

Introduction ............................ , .............. _........... . ......... . ......... . . •

•

General picture of Du,tchess County Methods of· gathering material Basis of selection o,f towns Comparis·on of the eight towns studied

C:hapter I. Wh-o is the Dutche.ss County farmer? ........ ;.............

Native and foreign born farm families Farm families and numbers of children ,

Chapte· r 2. Stab i· lity and previous residence of ,the Dutchess County farmer ............................................. _.. •

Source and st·ability o·f farm population General county popula.ti9n trends

Chapter 3. Dutchess County farm economy.... . ..... ...... .. . . . .... .. .. .

•

General history of local farming Present farm econo1my, comparing different areas Economic sta.tus as indicated by equipmen,t and relief re�iords Farm problems in differen·t areas

•

·Chapter 4. The farmer's social life and social problems..............

,Chap.ter 5. His wife's soc· ial life and social problems..................

· hapter 6. His children's social life and social problems... _........ C

Chapter 7. What- is the future o·f the Dutchess County farmer?..

The suburban ·trend and :its effects on rural life

· onclusions and recommen-dations.......................... Chap·ter 8. C

•

INDEX OF TABLE.S Page Table 1 Composition of Farm Population................................. , ........ _. ........ . 16 Table 2. Numbers and Present Locations of Farm Children............................ 20 Table 3. Average Years of Operation of Present Farms..................................... 22 Table 4. ·Previous Residence of 6 05 Farm Families ........................................... 24 Table 5. Population Changes. 1890-1930.................................................. 27 . 34 Table 6. Cat,tle and Milk Market, ing............................................................. . . Table 7. Dutchess County Agriculture, 1920-1935 ...................................... 37 Table 8. Farm Equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 40 . ize, and Stability of Tenant Farmers............................. . 48 Table 9. Numbers, S Table 10. Numbers and Previous Location ,of .Non-Farm Families..................... 68 ·Table 11. Dutchess County Land Utilization....·............................................. . 71 --

•

D C H S | NY ·-

•

• •

• • •

•

, •

•

, •

•

• •

•

Set up and printed by

L,nsing-Broas Printing Co., Inc. Poughkeepsie, N. Y .

•

D C H S | NY

•

., ..

••

. ··- .. ,

• I

•

I I

•

-. tau

· ··

. ·. t"l . A P .- 0 F . ..

.. .

DUTCHESS COUNTY_, N.Y.

6HOWtNG TOWNS STUDlEO.

D C H S | NY

SCt=fLE

J'':::: 6-.MILES.

I IW

ES ; IGNED to analyze the economic and social problems of the Dutchess County farmers under varied existing conditions. , this study attemp·ts to pro.vide an accurate picture of their family life and farms. Not all t,w-enty o,f the towns1 could be stud . ied in detail in the course of one year's research. However, selection of those towns that present a cross section of different agricul·tural conditions will give a fair picture of the entire county. Tow , n lines do not necessarily limit the vario-us: kinds o, f farming areas, but it is practical for field work and statistical records to divide communities by towns. Eight towns were selected for· study, on the basis of differences in soil, topography, position in the county, pop · u lation characteristics, and the type of agriculture predominant. Dutch·ess Co-unty has an area of, only 800 square miles, but within its boundaries are striking contrasts in farm people, farm life, and farm problems. A comparison of the eight towns studied preceded by a general . f the geograp,hy and the social characteristic;s o·f the entire p-icture o county clarifies the more detailed discussion to follo·w. Dutchess County lies on the Hudson River, bet·ween Putnam and Columbia Counties. Its sou · thern border is approximately sixty miles from the City o;f New York. The topography is llneven and diversi fied, cro·ssed diagonally fro·m northeast to soiuth·west by glaciated hills, and drained by small rivers and creeks. Along the Hudson River there is a t· errace o·f fertile ''Hudson River'' loam ·, five miles wide in the north, and tapering to a point in the southern part o.f the county. The land is rough and hilly and co·nsidera1bly eroded in the nor· th central section of the county. Near the southern and eastern boundaries there · are rugged hills and mountains. Along the river valleys in the central and eastern townships the land is open and rolling; beautiful farming country which has made Dutchess ,County famous for its far views and fertile hillsides. As this county has always been primarily a farming di.strict, there are few woo,ded areas, with the exception o·f the mountains in th� 1

In New York State a ''town'' is ,the civil division of a county, equivalent to the New England ''township." [ seven ]

D C H S | NY

i south and east. Small glacial lakes dot the co,untrysiae,

adding to its picture3que character, and enhancing its attractions for summer resi dence. To the tourist on the many dirt roads of the county, the im pression is one of· quiet prosperity. Substantial farm houses, many built by early Dutch and English settlers, and spacious barns, each with a silo, create an atmosphere of rural stability disso-ciated from the city roar of twentieth century life. As we drive by one farm ho-use, with spacious wings sheltered by old larch and maple trees, the nearby barns busy with the aftermath o, f morning milking, we may wonder, ''Who is the man living on this farm? How long has he lived here? How do he and his family live their lives, cut off from the constant stimulations o,f urban life? And how does he run his farm?'' And, if we pursue our thought about this man, we are sure to ask o - urselves, ''What are his pro-blems? And what is the future of this old farm?'' It is to answer these que1stions and o-thers that this survey �ras made in 19 3 5- 3 6. The method of gathering the ma-terial has been through personal interviews with each family, organizing the con versation about a short questionnaire. Other important information has been obtained through living in each township as it was studied, attending church suppers, Grange meetings, and local entertainments, as well as thro-ugh many informal conversations in general stores and post-offices. Every farm in the tow-ns studied, outside villages and hamlets, was visited, making a total o - f- more than one thousand farm families recorded. For the purposes of this survey, a ''farm'' is considered to be all the land directly farmed by one person, either owned, rented, or under dif ferent tenure·s. When a land-owner has on · e or more tenants, the land operated by each is recorded as a farm. This classification is similar to that used by the United -States Censu.s of Agriculture. Ho-wever, it has been less arbitrary concerning the size of the tract of land counted as a farm, than is the census classifica.tion. No tract of, la-nd less than three acres was considered, unless, as in the case o-f many p-oultry farms, it contributes a major part of the family income, in which case it is as clearly a farm as the larger dairy farms.Contrary to United States Census: practice, large estates raising farm products solely for their own use were not included in farm statistics, as such estates would confuse the accuracy of our picture of rural life. On the other hand, there are some small farms in the less prosperous areas o-f the county which are _ still operated on -the old-fas: hioned ''self-sufficient'' basis, selling no [ eight ] D C H S | NY

extra products. Such farms were, of course, included in this study, Throughout the county there are many new houses and ''ex-farms'' which are situated outside the village limits but are not operated as farms. These have been carefully counted, and many o-f the families recorded as to their previous resid-ence and length of tenure. Thus: in each township s t u d i e d some r e co r d has been made of every rural dwelling. Four types of agricultural communities are included in this study. Pawling, Amenia, and Stanford, in the easte: rn and north central parts of the county, are. examples of prosperou · s dairying to-wns. They lie in the mos· t fertile land of the county, and their farms are larger than those in the more hilly parts. Red Hook and Milan, in the northwestern cor ner o·f the county, present a contrast in succe.ssful and s.truggling farm ing towns, respectively, with many foreign born among the farm popu lations. Representative of ''general farming'' to be found in any agri cultural area, are the to-wns of Pleasant Valley and Hyde Pa· rk, situated in the west central part o·f the county. Hyde Park also ha·s a large per centage of its land in non-farm estates, similar to other such areas in the town.s of· Washington and Rhinebeck. The town of- Fishkill, at the extreme south of the county, was chosen for its proximity to the city of Beacon, and because it represents a fourth type of, farm economy: small poultry and truck farming. In order to clarify the differences between these eight townships, we may comp-are t. hem in pairs, noting similarities and outstanding contrasts. Pleasant Valley, in the ''general farming'' group, and Stanford, a dairying to·wn, have certain condition.s in- common. In the case of topography, soil, and population charact�ris t- ics they are similar. Each · has a strip of valley land cro·ssing it from northeast to southwest, with low r-olling hills on each side. Considerable Dutchess s.late loam is found in both towns, .characterize- d by a granular texture with much fine sand, and rapid drainage resulting from partings in the underlying rock. Saine sections of Pleasant Valley have a thin, ro·ugh surface, les.s ·adapted to farming than Sta,nford's: areas of Dutchess silt lo-am, but in general fertility and topographical regularity; Stanford is only slightly better · or, Pleasant Valley. favored than its n-eighb In the composition o·f their population, thes. e tow , ns are also much alike. Twenty-five of· Stanford's 145 to,tal farm families, have one or both heads foreign born, while 26 of the 14 3 farm families in Pleasant Valley are headed ·by foreign born p-arents. · Despi· te 1similarities, the two ,towns haye distinct individualities. [ nine ]

D C H S | NY

•

Loc· ated only se.ven miles from Poughkee,psie, Pleasant Valley has been increasingly ab.sorbed by the city, losing its local independence to a marked degree. Stanford f on the other hand, unites its -economic and social interests in the villages of Stanfordville and Bangall. While many Pl· easan t- Valley farmers purchase groceries in Poughkeeps·ie markets in pre·ference to loca� stores, the general stores of: Stanfo·rd supply neigh boring _farmers. with nearly all of their daily needs. Stanford ,farmers make occasional trips ·to- the city for clo-thes and banking, but Pleasant Valley farmers buy near 1 y .all general merchandise outside their neigh borhood. Saturday night. movies attract many of the Pl-easant Valley farmers to Poughkeepsie, the older as ·well as the younger people. Stan fordites depend on the church and the Grang·e for their amusement; e·ven the young peo·ple attend Grange dances more than the movies. A.s the villages of Stanfordville and Bangall are practically one village, farmers and villagers alike are provided with a p-leasant group life, as a social unit. Follo,wing the lo·ss of local independence in Pleasant Valley, has come the sta•bilization o,f th,e village as a non-farming community. Thi·s has been accompanied by a split betwe·en farmers and villagers. On the other ha·nd, in Stanfo·rd there is no such split, the farmers joining with villagers in the direction of local affairs. Added .to the factors com,bining to make Pleasant Valley a socially diverse to·wn, in contrast to Stan ford's unity, is the p · ers: from Nev\r. - resence o,f many subur·ban newcom York and Po·ughkeep·si.e. Stanford has only 8 8 dwellings o·f 25 0 classed as rural non · -farm; Pl-easant Valley has 15 5 out of a total of 206 rural dwellings. The type of farming pursued in each town has ·been adapted t. o· the locality, Stanford concentrating on dairying, P·Ieasant Valley diversi fying its prod , ucts. Fa· rm,s are larger in Stanford and fewer are producing · the c-ombinatio,n o·f milk, poultry, and vegetables than in Pl' eas: ant Valley. Stan·ford is more prosperous than Pleasan.t Valley. This comparison between two neighboring towns indicates that the differenc-es b,etween farming communities may be caused by geo graphical location. If the area lies near a larg-e city, its ,s·ocial life i· s , f local inde directed toward,s urban diversification, not o,nly by los·s o 1 ur;ban development. If the. area is pendence bu.t also by incoming sub sufficiently remov · ed from city .attractio-ns, it may· keep its rural unity long after other near·by communities have ·followed the city-ward trend. The towns of Am,enia and Hyde Park offer a-nother interesting con tras,t, chiefly because 01f differences in histori.cal backgro,und. Am·enia has [ ten ] D C H S | NY

•

been a high! y prosperous region for many generation:s, with the largest farms in the county, and the most high Iy specialized dairy industry. It lies in ·the open Harlem Valley, on the eastern bord€r of the county, drained by Ten Mile River and its tributari-es. Hyde Park is on the western border of the county, with small farms and rough hi.lly land. Twenty-five per cent o,f all the land in Hyde Park is owned by 13 men, proprietors of large river estates. (This figure does not include the acreage o-wned by schools and institutions.) The river esta.tes vary in size from 39 to 2000 acres, and average 482 acres. The agricultural and social life ·of the to·wnship has grown up about these estat-es, which, like the estates of other townships along the river, were develo,ped dur ing the Ia.st two decades of, the nine:teenth century, when D·utch-ess County was a fashionab , le s. ummer resort for New York Society. The village o-f Hyde Park was developed to fill the needs, o,f o·wn-ers and e·m ploy-ees, and other small farms never needed to grow to the point of specialization found in Amenia. Large scale dairy-farming in Amenia demands extra help beyond the immediate family o,f the owner or manager. Hence, Amenia has the highest percentage of tenancy of any .town studied. Hyde Park farm ing, on the other hand, is not sufficiently exten.sive or profitable to sup port tenant families. (Thirteen of 113 farm families are tenants, com pared with 5 6 of 9 7 total families in Amenia.) The his.torical back ground of the two towns has largely determined the .scope and char acter of agriculture in each. Uni:fied farm intere.sts influence- d Amenia to become a solid agricultural community, prosperous enough to afford many hired hands; fas: hio·nable landed gentry made Hyd-e Park a ''split'' town, divided between estate.s employing non-farm workers, and small farms using few extra hands. The towns of Red Hook and Fishkill, at opposite ends of- th·e county, present a dual ,contrast in farm economy and local ind-ep-end enc-e. Red Hook, in the northwestern co-rner o-f the county, is flat and rolling land, with easily cultiva.ted, w-ell drained soil, admirably suited to- orchardst The town of Fishkill, in the southwestern corner of the county, is little adapted to large scale farming, because of its rough, hilly topography. The Fishkill Mountains occupy the- entire south eastern half o,f the town, and the City of Beacon the southwestern corner. Red Hook farmers specialize in fruit growing, shipping their high grade apples all over the world. Eighty-four per cent of all Red Hook farmers are selling fruit, and most o,f thes, e ar,e very prosp,erous. The land is rough and stony i·n Fishkill, and was original!y settled by [ eleven ] D C H S | NY •

•

aristocrats not depend·ing on farming for support. Consequently Fish kill has never been a truly agricultural community, and its farms are smaller than those of, R€d Hook. Ho,wever, its farm.s are being operated in.creasingly by Beaco·n workers, who raise poultry and vegeta·bles in addition to continuing city employment. These two towns are strikingly different not only in farming char acteristics, but also in recent social d-evelopment. In Fishkill the non farm population is more importa11t numerically than the farm popula tion. The to_wn is do-minated by the growth -of Beacon, and also wel c. omes a rapid influx of clerical workers from New York and West chester. The village of- Fishkill is b-ecoming a 'fsatellite suburb'' for Beacon, housing many of its higher paid workers. Urban decentraliza tion is apparent throughou.t the rural areas near Beacon. Many of these new non-farm families raise chickens and vegetabl-es for their own use. Red Hook's non-farm families are in gr· eat contrast ,to this Fishkill group. The majority of non - -farm dwellers of Red Hook are not a suburban group from New York or Poughkeepsie, but rather ex farmers or for· mer residents of one of the nearby villages. The only su-burban trend to be found is that. ou - t of Red Hoo-k village itself. Fishkill's social life is almost e- ntirely conditioned by its proximity · d Hook is . s orption of city habits. Re to Beacon and the consequent ab , an independent community in both economic and social relationships. It is too far from Poughkeepsie and Hudson (in Columbia Co·unty) to be influenced by either, and consequently maintains considerable ind.e pendence. In c.ontrast to the marked split in Fishkill between farmers, suburbanites, and Be. acon workers, there is no cleavage in Red Hook be, tween farmers and villager.s. Red Ho-o-k is a farming village with its own bank, clothing stores, and newspaper, and in constant contact with the neigh·boring farms. Fishkill has never been an agricultural center, and consequently has been subject to the first influence of urban. ization: diversification o - f interests. The most striking contrast in the county lies between the to-wns of P·awling and Milan. Opposite extremes in their economic life and standards of living are caused large! y by variations in soil conditions. Pawling, in the southeast corner of the county, is well adap·ted to large scale dairy farming, with rich, well-drained soils, heavy enough to resist erosio-n. The soil of Milan has been classed as the poorest in the county, having been su·bje{:t to severe sheet erosion · during the past fifty years. The surface of the land is rough, ,the slatey loam shallow, and many of th-e once fertile pasture hills are now stony s-lopes. It is

•

[ tu)elue ]

D C H S | NY

•

fair to say that farming in Mil.an is rapidly declining. The only· farms still successful are fruit and poultry fa.rms. Pawling's population has increased in the past twenty years from 45 to 5 3 persons per squa,re mile. In Milan ,the population has sharply decreased from 28 to 17 person.s per square mile, now having the low est density of any town in the county. The average value of Pawling' s farms is the highest in the county, while in Milan it is the Io.west. Since the coming of the railroads, Pawling has been one of the most impor.tant dairy centers in the county. Large and prosperous dairy farms have recently attracted New York· ''gentleman farmers'' who are operating their estates on a business basis, with excellent equipment, and college-trained managers. Dairying by '' dirt farmers'' with no out s· ide capital is d-ecl· ining in Pawling, giving way .to ''hobby farming'' by weal.thy newcomers. Because of poor soil, Milan's farming is in many cases highly un successful. Fifty years ago, Milan was a good dairying to·wn, raising fine oats and rye. Now there are few hills not washed bare of soil, and the tributaries o.f the Wappingers Creek have become clogged and swampy. Ins· tead of concentrating on . a cash crop, Milan farmers at tempt to raise enough livestock and crops to feed their own families, and sell ex,tra products only. This type of farm economy is a sure indi cation of· old-fashioned self-sufficient methods. In contrast -to Pawling' s well-painted ! , spacious farm buildings, some of Milan's farms p·resen·t a picture o·f poverty rarely equalled in other parts of the county. With the exc,eption of nine or ten successful fruit or dairy farmers, Milan's farm fam.ilies have become _accusti omed to a bare subsistence level, maintained by raising a few cows, chickens, and hogs. Cons. equently, they have experienced few effects of the recent economic depression, and h · ave not applie· d for government relief. As might be .expected, Milan has not attracted wealthy ''gentle men farmers." I·ts n·on-farm population is largely com · posed o,f depre· s sion victims fr,om New Yor, k, who have c:hosen Milan because of its inexpensive land. They have. bought small places, and hope to raise enough eggs and vegetabl-es to last them un·til times are better. Indica tions are that Pawling land i s. sufficiently fertile to encourage dairying for many years to come. I·t would seem th.at Milan's decre·asingly pro ductive land is better adapt-ed to reforestation and parks than to farm ing. A land utilization pr,ogram, whe· the.r administered by local or federal aid, may be the best solution · for Milan's pro·blems. · These four comparisons have been made in ord-er to acquaint the [ thirteen ]

D C H S | NY

r-eader with the outstan.ding c,haracteri.stics of the to,wns studied. No p,rinted co,mp,arison, however, can give the reader ,as vivid an impres sion of the eight t·owns' individualities as he w-ould gain by actually Iiving in each co·mmunity. farm farm of g· e neral aspe. c ts In ·the fallowing discu.ssion life and of . people throughout th·e county, it should be remembered that all larg£ pi.ctures are made· up of widely divergent ele·ments, diff·ering in some re.spects as sharply as P.awl. ing and Milan. Fr,om these wi,dely separated extremes, w-e derive ce, rtain means, which will cl.arify our understand-· ing o.f the Dutchess County farmer.

•

[ foucteen ]

D C H S | NY •

Chapter 1

Who is the Dutchess County Farmer?

HO is this man who spends his working hours plowing his fields, milking his cows, or tending his orchards? Is he a rural hermit, springing from the soil, with no thought but for his own daily bread? Is he a restless product of American efficiency meth ods? If he does not fall into either popular category, what sort of a person is he? What does he think about as he drives with his milk to the creamery each morning, past sweeping fields and pastures? As we meet this farmer, we are impressed by his lean strength, his capable hands, and his look of self-confid0nce and independence. He is probably descended from solid English or Dutch farmers, who settled in this fertile county to lead a quietly prosperous life, and bring up their children to be God-fearing, honest citizens. With this background it is not surprising that he is conservative to a marked degree. Politically he is usually Republican, and regards most new schemes for spending the taxpayers' money with open scorn. He is as independent as he is conservative, minding his own business, and resenting interference from any outsiders. He is the first to tell you that life on the farm is a losing business, and to complain of high taxes and low milk prices, yet he displays his fertile fields and shiny apples with intense pride, and would not leave his farm unless forced to do so. For years he has watched his apple trees bud and bloom, his grain ripen, and new calves born, but these experi ences never fail to bring him deep satisfaction. He eyes the stranger with cautious reserve, but is more tolerant of others' habits than is his neighbor from the city. A keen sense of humor helps him through the most trying of farm crises. The typical Dutchess County farmer is American born, of native parentage, owning his own farm, and belonging to Dutchess County by heritage and inclination. But in some townships as many as 24 per cent of all farm families are classed as foreign born. Since the farm population has been recorded by families, not by individuals, a "for eign born family" is one of which one or both parents were not born in this country. [ fifteen ]

TABLE 1 COMPOSITION OF FARM POPULATION By Numbers of Families, Including Numbers of Farms Amenia Fishkill .. Hyde Park. Milan Pawling Pleasant Valley ... Red Hook . Stanford

Total Families 97 57 115 113 71 143 200 145

Total..

941

Native born One or both heads Negroes foreign born White 94 3 JO 46 27 88 27 86 65 6 26 5 112 29 171 5 25 1I5 777

153

Numbers of Farms 90 44 99 105 50 143 187 143 861

The town of Milan has the highest proportion of foreign born farmers; 24 per cent of the total number of farm families in the town have one or both heads foreign born. Twenty-seven of Hyde Park's 115 farmers are foreign born, nearly the same proportion as found in Milan. Pleasant Valley has 26 such families, and Stanford 25, while of 200 families in Red Hook, 29 are foreign born. The lowest percent ages of foreign born were found in the towns of Fishkill. Pawling, and Amenia. One explanation of the location of these families is found in the land values of the various towns. The absence of a foreign born group in Pawling, for example, is a clear indication of the fact that these farmers are unable to pay the high prices demanded for Pawling farms. The same is true of Amenia and Fishkill which have consider ably higher average values per farm than do Pleasant Valley, Milan, or Red Hook. It is significant that Milan, which has the lowest land values in the county, should have the highest prop·ortion of foreign born among its farm population. The origin of the total 15 3 foreign born families is evenly di vided between Italy, Austria, Poland, and Czechoslovakia. Isolated families have one or both heads from England, Russia, France, or the Netherlands, but the only farmers to locate in groups are the Italians and the Slavs. In Red Hook and Milan there is a total of 56 foreign-born families, the majority of whom are from Austria or Poland. Cheap land and excellent fruit growing soil attracted them to this a.rea, and gave them opportunity to use the skills they learned in their childhood. In Fishkill there is a small group of Italian families, 10 in all, half of whom have moved out from Beacon, and half from New York. [ sixteen ]

Those from Beacon were forced out at the time of the collapse of the hatting industry, and have returned to semi-subsistence farms, selling extra eggs and vegetables in the near. by city. Such Italian families are also living in the towns of Wappinger and Poughkeeps,ie, not included in this report. In Pleasant Valley, Stanford, and Hyde Park foreign born fami lies are evenly divided between Italians and the Austrian-Czech group. They are likely to live in gay, independent communities along coun try roads, some of them converting their homes into boarding houses in the summer. Most of the 16 per cent foreign born families came to Dutchess County from New York in order to take up farming. This point is borne out by the fact that there are relatively more such families on farms than there are in the villages. For instance, in the town of Hyde Park, only 10 per cent of the total population of the town is listed in the 1930 census as foreign born, whereas 24 per cent of all farm fami lies have one or both heads foreign born. Allowing for the fact that children of foreign born parents are not included among the foreign born group in census figures, these figures nevertheless indicate a higher percentage of foreign born on farms than in the villages. In some cases, Poughkeepsie or Beacon may have been used as temporary residence by newly arrived immigrants, moving up from New York soon after landing in America. A few years' stay in a city or village near farm land allowed them to select farms which were fertile as well as cheap, and to save money from factory earnings to buy the farm and a little equipment. Occasionally a group of several brothers has fol lowed the first member of the family to come to Dutchess County, settling on adjoining farms, and aiding each other at harvests, plow ing, and barn-raisings. This is true of a Polish group in Red Hook, and an Irish group in Stanford, as particular instances. When considering the Dutchess County farmer, we must not for get that his life centers in his family. He spends considerably more time at home than the average business man, consequently he takes more part in the daily life of his family. If he is an average American farmer, he has two or three living children. (The average for the whole group of farmers is 2.19 per family.) If he is among the 16 per cent foreign born farmers, he is likely to have more than two chil dren, and in some cases he has as many as eleven. (The average for this group is 2.62 children per family.) In addition to his immediate family, the farmer may include one [ seuenteen J

or two hired men in his household, or possibly his own or his wife's parents. His total family ranges from an average of 3.3 members in Pawling, to one of 4.4 members in Pleasant Valley. This figure seems low when compared with the average number of children per family, but all farm children do not live at home. The average farm family, although having 2.19 children, has only 1. 6 children living at home. It is not unusual to find more than one family living in a large farm house. Families were larger 75 years ago, when many of the Dutchess County farm houses were built, and eighty farms are recorded as hous ing more than one family. In most cases this extra family is that of a son or daughter who has choseh this method of weathering the first years of married lik Occasionally a tenant house is built to accom modate two families. If the farmer has taken in his married son or daughter, he is less likely to have a well-ordered home than if the household is managed by and for one family. If our farmer is from the foreign born group, he is likely to have a slightly larger family than his native born neighbor. Not only does he have more children, but he is very hospitable to his friends and rela tives, who may make their home with his family for indefinite periods of t�me. Tenant families are on the average larger than those of the entire group of farmers, but smaller than those of the foreign born families. Tenants have an average of 2.46 children per family, and have as many as 6.52 members per family, in the town of Pleasant Valley. Fishkill, the least rural of any town included in this study, aver ages the smallest families. There are on! y 1. 5 8 children per family in Fishkill. and even the foreign born families have fewer than the aver age for the whole group of county farmers. But in Pawling and Amenia, prosperous agricultural communities, there are more children per family than the general average, Pawling averaging 2. 77 children per family, the highest figure of any town studied. It seems fair to assume, therefore, that the more truly rural dairying districts of the county are continuing the tradition of large families to a greater degree than the more urbanized townships. An important element in understanding the typical Dutchess farm family is the proportion of children remaining at home, compared to those leaving home for other parts of the county, or New York. It has been stated recently that the city-ward trend of farm young people has been checked by the economic depression of the past six years. In order to verify this statement, a record was taken of the numbers of [ eighteen ]

farm children who have left -home, and where they have gone. It is not surprising to find that the large majority of farm children are liv ing at home. Seventy-three per cent of the 2,062 children recorded still live with their parents. Those children who have left home have tended to settle in other parts of Dutchess County, frequently in the same township as their parents. Of the total group of farm children, 15.4 per cent are living in other parts of Dutchess County, many of whom are farming, or have entered other occupations such as running garages and road stands, or are working in Poughkeepsie. The group of 236 children who are living outside the county are scatternd throughout the East, in some cases living in the towns of their parents' previous residence. As is to be expected, more girls than boys move outside the county. Whereas most young men would not attempt to find farm work in a distant county, their sisters are never economically restrained from marrying outside the county. The record of farm children at home brings out an interesting point concerning the type of farm which "holds" its children as they grow up. The town of Amenia has the highest proportion of chil dren at home of any town studied: 82.9 per cent of its 194 children are living at home. But the town of Milan has the poorest holding power of any town studied. Only 67.6 per cent of its 161 children are now living at home. Obviously the economic success of the home farm is the principal determining factor in the location of farm chil dren. Amenia has the most highly organized and prosperous dairy farming in the county, whereas Milan has the poorest of the towns studied. Farm children, just as city children, are educated to believe in America's "universal success" ideal. Therefore, if they have spent their childhood on a poor farm with little hope for improvement, after they leave school they seek for better locations. On the other hand, a young man brought up on a prosperous farm is often eager to con tinue his father's work, profiting by his experience with the soil and drainage conditions. This fact has important consequences for the future of Dutchess County farming. If farm children are not content to continue unsuccessful farms, the decline of the mediocre farming townships of the county as primarily agricultural centers will be greatly accelerated in the next generation. Another important element in considering figures on the location of farm children is the ages of their parents. If the majority of farm owners were under 35 it would not be surprising to find that most farm childre. n are living at home. Although it was not possible to [ nineteen ]

Table 2 - - Numbers and Present Locations of Farm Children By Birthplace of Parents I CHILDREN AT HOME

TOTAL CHILDREN

"' -5 C

c"'

;:,

«: Amenia Fishkill Hyde Park Milan Pawling Pleasant Valley Red Hook Stanford TOTAL

---

234 90 250 238 158 351 415 326

&�

bi,"§ > "' <: ...

�P<"' 0 CJ ..... >" C\I·- d)

0 � 1-, ._P=I (\I 1-, g_C)>, O\.oP-;g_

1-, »g,C>.

bo�e

�.;] ] �� bo�] ,_ > "'cii oC . > .eo.! >Vc,;1

0"'"'

E-<Zil< <Z,.. E-<0,.. <,..,.. <E-<,..

f-<

225 69 153 177 139 267 345 286

2.38 1.50 1.73 2.05 2.13 2.38 2.01 2.48

9 21 97 61 19 84 70 40

3.00 2.10 3.59 2.25 3.16 3.20 2.41 1.81

2.72 1.72 2.17 2.00 2.40 4.10 2.9 2.92

194 74 173 161 123 253 296 235

2.19* 1,161

2.14

401

2.62

2.46

1,509

2.49 1.58 2.17 2.28 2.77 2.40 2.08 2.08

-- --

2,062

-0

-- -- -- -- -- --

CHILDREN IN DUTCHESS COUNTY

"' -5 C

0 <I) _i:q � 0 1-,P., -0 .

::� -�z�- ,_ E-<0,.. .;0 ll<< - <I) CE " 0 <I)-

82.9 82.2 69.2 67.6 77.7 73.0 71.3 72.0

-73.2

P< � "' 0 C),._j

> ::: CO·- V

� oi::Q O C

185 58 111 121 112 193 244 204

9 16 62 40 11 60 52 31

1,228

281

- - - -

f-<

"' -5 C

.SU

::: ".c u .., ";, ll;Q

._i:q If) 0 dJ..., - > c::

0 � _i:q C\I 0 s..P-; - 0 .

0 Cl:! C\I

O C::

- "'

...

- �·;:: � .s �

c;i::Q

E-<Zil< E-<0,..

23 10 49 41 25 54 65 50

9.8 11.1 19.7 17.2 15.7 15.3 15.6 15.3

23 8 23 39 21 41 60 47

317

15.4

262

-- - - - -

CHILDREN ELSEWHERE

0 2 26 2 4 13

-3 55

-" ,_

f-<

"' -5 C

.._i:q /f) 0 dJ...,

0 � ._i:q (\I 0 i..A-4

�-.;:: �

� vi::Q

.,.c

u::

-> t: _o .

i:,.,�

E-<Zil< E-<0,..

�]

0 Cl:! C\I

17 6 28 36 10 44 54 41

7.3 6.7 10.1 15.2 6.6 I 1.7 13.1 12.7

17 3 19 17 6 33 41 35

236

11.4

171

-- -- --

O C

0 3 9 19 4 11 13 6

* In all tables, Total Averages are weighted according to the numerical importance of the township averages. Therefore they are not a simple average of township averages.

include age groupings in this survey, it was apparent that most Dutchess County farmers are in the "middle" age group, between 35 and 50. Therefore, their children are between 15 and 30: the usual age for independent locations. Most tenant parents are younger than the average owners, since tenancy is often an apprenticeship in the farming trade. Balancing this group, which has many young chil dren, is the group of elderly and retired farmers, whose children are usually over 30. Hence, the fact that the majority of farm children is living at home is made more significant when we realize that most of this group is of an age to move elsewhere. Before we leave the question of Dutchess County farm children, it is pertinent to consider chidren under 20, before they have faced the decision as to adult occupation and location. Winter and summer are more sharp! y divided for the farm child than for his city neighbor. During the winter ·he attends the local one or two room school, picked up by the school bus at the corner of his lane. He eats a box lunch at school, and returns home in time to help with the afternoon chores: bringing in wood for the kitchen stove, or milking, if a boy, or help ing with supper and the younger children if a girl. In the summer, farm children help with the farm work as much as they are able, but they find time also for more extensive Boy and Girl Scout activities than in the winter, providing they live near enough to a village to join in its social life. The 4-H Clubs through out the county provide farm children with comhined recreation and education in scientific farming, and are instrumental in encouraging future farmers to use modern methods. Most of the children of Dutchess County farmers are both men tally and physically healthy. The level is not as high for the children of some foreign born and tenant parents. Because of the lack of mod ern methods of child training and food preparation, the children of many families appear undernourished and undeveloped, suffering from colds in the winter, from lack of sunshine and from poor food.

l I wenly-one ]

Chapter 2

Stability and Previous Residence of

the Dutchess County Farmer

HEN we first drove through Dutchess County and asked about the farmer we saw working near his red barn, we wondered not only what sort of man he is, but also how long he has occupied his farm, and where he formerly was located. If he is one of the 18.5 per cent classed as living on a "home farm," he was born on this same farm, and his father and grandfather before him. In every town studied, between 10 and 20 per cent of the farms has been in the family of the present owner for from two to four generations. Dutchess County has many old Dutch and English colonial houses, which are proudly displayed by the descendants of the original settlers. The English houses closely resemble their con temporaries in New England, and the Dutch farm houses are built long and low, often of brick or stucco, with great fireplaces and closet beds. If one of every five farmers has such a background of family tra dition, it is not strange that conservatism is one of his outstanding traits.

TABLE 3 AVERAGE YEARS OF OPERATION OF PRESENT FARMS And Numbers of Home Farms Total Farm Families Amenia Fishkill Hyde Park .... Milan . . . . . . Pawling Pleasant Valley. Red Hook. Stanford TOTAL

I 0.6 I0.6 14.1 13.8 11.0 12.7 13.5 13.9 12.88*

One-or Both Heads Foreign Born

Per cent Number of Tenants Home Farms Home Farms

12.2 13.1 15.4

6.4 6.4 4.8 6.1 6.5 4.8 7.9 2.9

10 IO 15 21 12 25 38 28

11. 25. I 6. 20. 24. 17. 20. 19.

11.28

5.73

159

18.5

8.1 4.1 12.9

* See note for Table 2 concerning Total Averages. [ twenty-two ]

Whether or not he lives on his family's old farm, he has probably operated his present farm about 13 years. The length of residence on a given farm has been recorded as the numlber of years the present head of the family has been operating it. In the case of farmers living on so-called "home farms," the number of years he has run it himself are considered the length of residence. The average farmer has lived on his present farm 12.88 years, which would indicate a high degree of stability in the rural popula tion of the county. The foreign born farmer has lived here a shorter length of time, averaging 11. 28 years on his farm. The tenants form the least stable group in any community, averaging only 5.73 years in a single location. This last figure is misleading for it includes the length of residence of both groups of tenants: renting tenants ( who are as stable a group as the owners), and employee tenants who are con stantly moving from one farm to another throughout the county, never expecting to live on one farm longer than two or three years. The town having the greatest stability of residence is Hyde Park, where the average is 14. I years. Amenia ranks the lowest in length of residence, averaging only 10. 6 years. These figures indicate that Hyde Park, only fairly successful farming land and located near Poughkeepsie's disturbing influence, has a greater degree of stability than Amenia, where prosperous dairy farms abound. Although Hyde Park's high figure reflects considerable local pride and stability, Amenia's average is considerably lowered by the presence of a tenant group actually larger numerically than the owner group. It is interesting to find that Fishkill, in this respect as in others, has the characteristics of an urban rather than a rural town. Like Amenia, this town has an average residence of 10. 6 years, less than the average for the farm group as a whole, and unexplained by a large tenant group. It is clear that Fishkill's farmers are not old Dutchess County stock for the most part. They have moved to the rural parts of the town during the past ten years, and in many cases are intending to move again when the occasion presents itself, quite in the manner of the city apartment dweller. Foreign born farmers almost without exception average shorter length of residence on their farms than the farm group as a whole. The average for the foreign born group is 11.28 years. This average should be split, however, to apply to two quite different groups of foreign born. Those who came to this county in the early part of the century, and have settled on prosperous fruit and poultry farms are a stable [ twenty-three ]

part of the community compared to the other division of foreign born farmers who have come from Poughkeepsie, Beacon, or New York within the past five years. The latter is a restless group, in many cases still looking for a permanent location. The only town where the foreign born farmers average longer residence than the farm group as a whole is the town of Stanford. Here the 39 Italian, Austrian, and Irish families average 15.4 years' residence on their present farms, compared to 13.9 years' residence by the whole farm group of the town. In Hyde Park the foreign born farmers constitute a very recent invasion, having lived on their present farms an average of only 4.1 years. This is obviously a group of de pression victims from New York and Poughkeepsie, which has turned to poultry and vegetable farming when city livelihood became difficult. Where did the Dutchess County farmer live before he came to his present farm? In the large majority of cases recorded, he lived in other parts of Dutchess County, often merely moving from one farm to the next in the same township. More than half of the 764 farmers recorded as to previous residence have lived in other parts of the county, and one farmer in every four recorded has previously lived in another part of the same township, moving only a few miles from one farm to the next. Many farmers boast of never having lived outside their own township.

TABLE 4 PREVIOUS RESIDENCE OF 605 FARM FAMILIES Number Not S.ame Dutchess New York Home Families Recorded Township County or envuon Elsewhere Farm Amenia 38 97 25 11 I3 I0 Fishkill 13 57 11 3 14 6 10 Hyde Park .. 115 21 27 21 12 15 19 Milan 113 14 8 39 4 21 27 Pawling 71 28 14 3 10 4 12 Pleasant Valley .. 143 10 21 51 26 IO 25 Red Hook. 200 73 20 19 23 38 27 Stanford 145 15 39 30 15 28 18 Total..

941

177

197

162

159

Of Red Hook's 200 families, 60.6 per cent has previous:ly lived only in other parts of the same town, a fact which may account for much of its independence. This high degree of attachment to Dutch ess County is another phase of the average farmer's great conservatism. It is interesting to find that Pleasant Valley has attracted more Dutch ess County farmers seeking new farms than any other town studied. r twenty-four l

There are 51 farms occ,Upied by former residents of other towns who did not previously live in Pleasant Valley. The excellent roads in this town, as well as its location near Poughkeepsie, are probably factors in its popularity. The town of Milan's reputation for poor farm land is apparently more clearly appreciated by Dutchess County men than by New York ers, as only 8 of its farms are occupied by farmers from other parts of the county. Thus, the farmer's local pride does not blind him to the practicalities of his location. He may prefer Dutchess County to any other spot in the world, but within that county he chooses his resi dence with an eye to the soil conditions. It is surprising to find a large proportion of farmers were from New York or its immediate environs. One of every six farmers re corded as to previous residence has come to this county from New York. This, combined with the fact that the average length residence of the whole group is 12.88 years, points to the fact that Dutchess County has been turning into an outlet for New York's "back to the land movement." New Yorkers from the clerical workers class are largely responsible for the growth of poultry raising in the county. The capital investment and financial risks are less than in other kinds of farming. This group is most numerous in the towns of Milan, Hyde Park, and Pleasant Valley, where land prices are low. The town of Mi.Jan's foreign born farmers have almost entirely come from New York. Of the native born families, about half have lived in New York City before coming to Milan. This group has been attracted by the very low prices to be found here, and by the bright talk of city real estate dealers. Milan also has a large group of New Yorkers living on small plots of land, not large enough to be recorded as farms, although used for poultry and general farming. The second division of New York farmers comes from a higher economic group than those located in the poorer farming sections of the county. In the town of Pawling, we find an interesting group of New Ymk business men, who have bought old farms as hobbies, liv ing in the city during the winter, and spending winter week-ends and summer vacations in the country. Of the 17 large estates recorded in Pawling, 11 are being farmed and are raising a crop for market. Such specialties as raising silver foxes, trotting horses, and beef cattle can be tested owt 'by these "gentl€men farmers" as they have sufficient capi tal to spend on experiments. Of this group of 11 farmed estates, only two are used as permanent residences by their owners. [ twenty-five]

The 1935 Federal agricultural census shows an increase of 2 per cent since 1930 in the number of farms in the county. In 1930 there were 2,190 farms in the county; there are now 2,236. (See Table 7.) This increase is readily explained by the steady influx of New Yorkers taking up small part-time farms in the poorer areas of the county, or building up old farms as summer residences. A study of the previous location of Stanford farmers will sum marize the general trend in population movements in the county. Stanford's location in the central tier of semi-independent towns, and its fairly prosperous dairy farming make it representative of other towns of the county. Of 145 farm families, 28 are living on "home farms" and 18 have merely moved from another part of the same town. Knowing the local farmer's attachment for Dutchess County, it is not surprising to find 39 families from nearby towns: Washing ton, Clinton, or Amenia. Twenty American born families and 10 foreign born families have come from New York or its environs. They are not recent comers for the most part, and have settled down to be as stable members of the community as the 28 families who have lived in Stanford for generations. Only 15 families have moved to Stan ford from other parts of the state. Thus, Dutchess County is not attracting farm families from other counties of the state as frequently as it is welcoming new residents from New York. General movements within the county are rarely more extensive than from one town to the adjacent one, and more di rected to the towns of average prosperity than to either the very fine dairy farm land, or to the very poor soil areas. Movements from one farm to the next do not complete the picture of population changes in the county, however. Not only must we know how long the farmer has lived on his farm and where he came from, but we are also interested in changes in his neighborhood: whether there are more or fewer farms on his road now than there were forty years ago. From 1820 to 1880 there was an increase in total population of Dutchess County of 32,569, or an average gain of 11½ per cent in each decade. In the next ten years there was a slight loss in population, but between 1890 and 1930 there was a gradual increase amounting to 35.4 per cent of the 1890 total. Nearly 50 per cent of this increase occurred between 1920 and 1930. Do these figures point to an increase in the rural population of the county? No, for accompanying this general increase in population has [ twenty-six ]

come a steady decrease in the rural population of most towns, balanced by a rapid growth in the incorporaited villages. Table 5 illustrates this point. Of all the towns studied, Pawling ailone shows a fairly steady population increase, which is explained by the unusual con tinuation of old dairy farms there. Milan, on the other hand, shows a steady decrease from 1,026 in 1890, to 622 in 1930.

TABLE 5 POPULATION CHANGES - 1890-1930 NUMERICAL POPULATION Incorporated villages

8,640 11.145 11.933

DENSITY PER SQUARE MILE Excluding incorporated Entire villages town 52 48 45

Amenia

1890 1910 1930

Entire town 2,326 2,123 1.969

Fishkill

1890 1910 1930

11,840 13,358 14,823

Hyde Park ................

1890 1910 1930

2,821 3,019 3,388

73 76 86

Milan · · · · · · · · · · · ·

1890 1910 1930

1.026 893 622

28 25 17

Pawling .....

1890 1910 1930

1,949 1,927 2,391

630 848 1,204

43 42 53

Pleasant Valley . . . . . . . .

1890 1910 1930

1.531 1.358 1,520

427

48 43 45

· · · ·· · · · · · · ···

1890 1910 1930

4,388 3,705 3,404

2,285 1,994 996

129 109 l 01

Red Hook

493 556 618

133 92 120

29 24 26

61 50 70

36 1,859 1890 29 1,520 1910 25 1930 1.269 Source: United States Fifteenth Census, Population, Vol. III. Part 2, p. 314.

Stanford . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The trend of the past forty years has obviously been away from the country to the towns and villages. Towns with no large village show a steady decline in population. In many towns this trend has been checked in the past ten years: first, by the end of the city-ward migra tion of young people; second; by the gradual suburba.n growth from New York, Poughkeepsie, and Beacon. [ twenty-seuen ]

When, as in the town of Amenia, the number of persons per square mile drops from 62 in 1890, to 45 in 1930, or, as in Hyde Park, it drops from 13 3 to 120 in the same period, what is the effect on the rural areas of the towns? Of the 1,685 rural dwellings recorded in this study, 4.4 per cent were permanently closed. This does not include summer dwellings unoccupied in the winter, but is a record of abandoned farms. As would be expected, the town of Milan has the highest proportion of unoccupied far.ms. More than one of every ten

DESERTED FARM HOUSE This desolate farm is typical of many others on little-used roads in Dutchess County.

farms in Milan is abandoned or closed. Red Hook and Stanford rank next in line, having 8.7 ·per cent and 7.2 per cent unoccupied farms respectively. The towns with the fewest closed farms are Fishkill, Hyde Park, and Pawling, the three most important outlets for subur ban· growth. Each town has several half-abandoned roads, lined with barren houses and decrepit barns, mute testimonials of a declining population. [ twenty-eight ]

It is safe to say that the majority of these farms have been abandoned for more than ten years; the aftermath of the city-ward migration of young people in the last generation. These farms will neuer be returned to cultiuati.an. Added to their numbers are many non-farm dwellings classed as "ex-farms," which have been farmed within the last ten years, and are now owned either by newcomers or by the original owners who have grown too old to operate them. In the town of Stanford there are 12 such "ex-farms," in addition to 18 abandoned -farms. Thus, if this study had been made 20 years ago, there would have been 30 more farms in operation than there are now. This figure is higher than for other towns studied, where city people have recently taken over old farms, but it is fair to assume that in relatively inaccessible parts of the county, such as the towns of U nionvale and Beekman, the same situation would be discovered. Coinciding with the influx of New Yorkers into certain townships during the past ten years, a gradual decline of farming throughout the county has been taking place. These are the two most important pop ulation movements to be found here in 1935. They are slow to affect the rural scene, but will become increasingly important when com bined with the great loyalty and attachment for the county shown by farmers of the old Dutchess County stock. So our friend will tell us, "Yes, on my road there used to be a whole row of farms. We used to have our own school and feel like one big family. But now the farm below me is closed and the one be low that belongs to some summer people from the city. And the one up the road there hasn't been really farmed for two years and is for sale."

[ twenty-nine]

Chapter 3

Dutchess County Farm Economy

UR study of farm families would be incomplete without a con sideration of how the farmer operates his farm, what he grows and sells, and to what extent he is helped by modern equipment and hired men. Since the farmer must undertake the responsibilities of both capital and labor, he has many problems of which an industry minded person is ignorant. There are many situations peculiar to Dutchess County farming which are not apparent to the general ob server. Although the conservative farmer is especially reserved con cerning his economic status, a year spent visiting fifteen to twenty farms a day has brought out several local economic problems of im portance. Dutchess County's farming consists, according to the 19 35 farm census, "mostly of intensive dairying, part-time farming, and inci dental agriculture on country estates." 2 This statement would lead one to suppose that those farmers not occupied on large-scale dairy farms were merely part-time farmers or estate managers. On the con trary, Dutchess County is still an agricultural county, predominantly interested in dairying, but with hundreds of farms producing poultry, fruit, and meat. A brief history of Dutchess County farm economy will help to explain the present concentration on dairy farming." Prior to 1835, Dutchess County farmers' most profitable cash crop was wheat. More than one-third of the grain shipped from New York State came from this county, transported down the Hudson from Poughkeepsie by flat boat. Wheat yielded 20 to 25 bushels per acre in the western part of the county, where moist soil and good drainage as well as proximity to Poughkeepsie encouraged large wheat crops. The opening of the Erie Canal in 1825 caused the gradual decrease of the wheat produc tion as a result of Western competition. Another factor in the decline "Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census, Preliminary Report of 1935 Farm Census, Modera-te Crop Expansion in Dutchess County, New York, September, 1935. "Mooney, Charles N. and Belden, H. L., Soil Suruey of Dutchess County, New York, Washington, 1909, pp 10-14.

[ thirty ]

of the local wheat production was the practice of continuous cropping. Just as in countless American communities from coast to coast, the land here seemed unendingly fertile and plentiful. Why trouble to fertilize or rotate crops, when by moving to the next field one could produce enough crops for one life-time? By 1840, wheat ranked fifth instead of first among the staple crops of the county. In the eastern part of the county, where lack of streams made less wheat profitable, farmers turned to raising cattle and sheep. The Harlem Valley towns, such as Dover Plains and Pawling, were originally stopping points for cattle drovers en route to New York. Throughout the county before 1850 there was little or no specialization on the part of even the most prosperous farmers. A farm was a self-sufficiernt unit, growing its own food and clothing, dependent upon neighbors only for shoes, flour milling, and cloth fulling. One farmer might have a mill on his land and the other make shoes in his spare time, but specialization in either milling or cobbling, carpentry or coopering would not have yielded sufficient income, since most purchases were paid for in farm products. Similarly, few farms produced a large cash crop. Wheat, cattle, and hay were shipped to New York by many farmers, but no one produced more than a small quantity beyond the amount needed by his own family. Cash was rare, but life was comfortable and secure. With the coming of the railroads, the self-sufficient farm economy of early days was suddenly revolutionized. A main railroad line con nected Poughkeepsie with New York in 1850, and, in 1869-73 the interior of the county was opened up by the Dutchess and Columbia Railroad, and the Poughkeepsie and Eastern Railroad. 4 Western beef began to flood the New York market at prices disastrous to Dutchess County cattle men. Their only choice was to turn their self-sufficient cattle and wheat farms into dairy farms, taking advantage of the rail roads to ship milk to the city as they never could before. By 1880 the county reached the peak of its agricultural expansion. About 95 per cent of the total area of the county was in farms, amounting to 490,620 acres. Milk distributing plants were built throughout the county, some shipping to New York, some canning condensed milk. Towns such as Pawling grew up on the railroad, as shipping- centers for the surrounding areas. From a sleepy drover's settlement, Pawling grew into a bustling milk center, at one time shipping 200,000 quarts of milk a day, and boasting of being the greatest milk shipping center 4

Platt, Edmund, The Eagle's History of Poughkeepsie, Poughkeepsie, 1905, pp. 215-216.

[ thirty-one ]

in the world. The town of \Vassaic was built about the Borden plant there. Small centers in every part of the county were suddenly enliv ened by the daily stream of prosperous dairymen bringing their milk to the "factory." Since 1880 there has been a steady decrease in farm acreage. (See Table 8.) In 1910, 89 per cent of the tota,l land of the county was in farms; by 1930 it had fallen to 65 per cent of the total. In 1935 this figure fell to 63.3 per cent of the total area, indicating that the general decrease of county farming has not been checked. In the past thirty years, Dutchess County has witnessed 30 per cent of its farm land turned to other uses. What is the cause of this steady decline in a county well suited to agriculture? Some understanding of the situation may be found by looking back I 00 years to the sudden decline of wheat production. Just as in 1835 farmers could not compete with western wheat brought down the Hudson River in canal boats, so the 1935 farmer cannot compete with western milk brought down the Albany Post Road in refrigerated trucks. The largest milk distributors, Borden and Sheffield, are operating most of their Dutchess County plants at a loss, and are closing many small local centers, following the policy of shifting bottling to the distributing point, rather than keeping it at the producing point. This shift of center is a clear indication of the fact that New York City's milk is being drawn increasingly from up State and other sources. Many creameries are closed: the abandoned creamery beside the small railroad line is a common sight in the rural areas of the county. Other creameries report a steadily decreasing number of farmers bringing in milk. In January 1930, there were 37 farmers bringing milk into the Pawling creamery. In January 1935 this number has fallen to 29. In view of this steady decrease in dairying, it is at first surprising to find that the total number of farms has increased in the past five years. This increase coincides with a decrease in the percentage of land in farms, indicating that the average size farm has become smaller. In point of fact,. the average farm in 1930 was 154.3 acres, and 1935 it was 146.8 acres." Thus, from one of the greatest dairy counties of the state, Dutchess County is shifting to more intensive farming of a specialized nature. No new dairy farms are being bought. The increase in numbers of

•

:. See Table 7. [ thirty-two ]

farms does nof mean the revival of the dairy industry, but the quiet secession of dairying in favor' of smaller, par;-frme farms and suburban growth. The present-day dairy farmer has fewer cows than his father had, and is often contemplating a further decrease in his herd. Unless he lives in Amenia or Pawling on a large scak dairy farm, he probably has a herd of twenty cows and young stock. He sells the milk to the local creamery, or he may possib-Jy retail his own milk. Of the 374 farmers recorded as marketing milk; only 3 2 retail their own milk, and 28 sell their milk to dealers other than the Bairymen'� League, Bor den, or Sheffield. The town of Amenia has the highest average numb�r- of cows per farm of any town studied. ks farms average -48.9 cows and young stock, nearly four times as many as the average for the town of Milan. Pawling comes second with an average of 35."8 per farm, Stanford and Fishkill have between 25 and 30 cows and young stock per farm, while Hyde Park and Pleasant Valley each average -15.3. Since Red Hook is not primar.ily a dairy township, its farms have fewer cows, averag ing 10. 6 per farm. Not all farmers owning cows are selling.milk. Only_ 64.5 per cent of the 5 79 farmers owning ca<ttle are actually selling milk, the remain ing 35.5 per cent are fattening calves or consumi�g all the milk in family use. As would be expected, only 38.5 per cent of Red Hook farms having cows are selling milk. But in Amenia, 85 per cent of 60 farmers owning cows sells milk. Other towns average about 75 per cent milk selling, with the exception of Milan, only 59 per cent of whose general farms sells milk. This- indicates that Milan has fallen back on "general farm" economy, since crop specialties do not net enough income to pay for themselves. Very few farmers seU cream, butter or other dairy products. Fifty years ago the general pattern or dairy farms was to sell cream and feed the skim milk to pigs. Now whole milk is the p�incipal product and pork and butter are no longer important farm products. With the gradual decline of dairying, the trend of farm economy is towards increasing the riumber of cash crops. If Milan is an exam ple of an advanced stage of agricultural decline, its rapid turn to self sufficient, general farming is very significant. Instead of concentrating on fruit or milk, Milan farmers raise vegetables, poultry, meat, milk and fruit, in an attempt to feed their own families first, and then sell [ rhirry-rhree ]

Table 6 - - Cattle and Milk Marketing

�

§-_ Amenia

·f Fisnkill

E; Hyde Park

SUMMARY OTHER I MILK SOLD TOTAL STOCK PRODUCTS Total Average Cows Cows Milk Milk Cows and and Sold in Sold Butter Calves I Raising Selling Selling Date of Young Young Sold to Sold to Record Stock Stock Borden Sheffield Retailed Connecticut Elsewhere Selling Fatting Total Total PerCent 25

15.3

....

12/'35

1.061

l/'36

1.434

35.8

10/'35

1.158

10.6

2/'36

11/'35

Pleasant Valley

8-9/'35

Stanford

4/'36

Red Hook

2,938

Milan

Pawling

48.9

3/'3.6

TOTAL

845

960

1.429 2,916

26.4

13.5

....

15.3

28.03

--- --12.741

22.00 264

....

-50

. ...

....

-32

. ...

....

-14

3 1

-10

85.

72.4

-33

109

104

-579

71.8

59.1

64.8

-374

77.5

38.5

71.1

-64.5

•

any extra products. More Milan farms are raising hogs than in any other town studied. A record of farmers in three average Dutchess County towns, Pleasant Valley, Stanford, and Hyde Park, illustrate this tendency to extend the numbers of cash products. Of the 349 farmers recorded in these three towns, only 9 7 are specializing in milk, and 32 in poultry. The remaining 220 farmers are combining two or more products, 73 selling milk and eggs. Thirty-one of the 349 are classified as general or self-sufficient farms, selling few if any products. Amenia, on the other hand, has continued to be a very prosperous dairying town, and recent years have not diminished its concentration on this industry as they have in many parts of the county. Of the 65 farms recorded as to farm economy, 4 3 are selling milk alone, not even oombining it with poultry. This is important in indicating that the highly successful farming area of the county has maintained a special ized form of farm organization. Only 6 farmers are combining milk and poultry, and 5 are general farms: a striking contrast to the large numbers of farmers in other townships who combine all products in a desperate effort to remain solvent. No discussion of dairying in Dutchess County is complete without mention of several large-scale commercial dairy farms, such as the Penney-Gwinn and the Sheffield farms in Pawling, and the Emma dine farm near Hopewell Junction. With more than 300 acres, J. C. Penney, the chair-store magnate, operates a leading Guernsey breeding farm, and his cattle are acknowledged leaders of the breed throughout this country. This activity, using more than 300 head of cattle, has its milk outlet through a separate organization, under the same owner ship, that reta'ils milk to Beacon and Poughkeepsie. With the decline of the dairy industry and the arrival of many farmers from New York has come the steady increase of poultry farm ing. As previous!y poin'.ted out, it requires less capital and less risk than dairying, and is better suited to the newcomer's abilities. There are several successful large-scale poultry farms in the county: in Wap pinger, Stanford, and Pleasant Valley. Some of these farmers raise breeding stock to be shipped throughout the country and to distant points all over the world. But the majority is interested in commercial poultry raising rather than in breeding stock. Fruit farming is another specialty which the Dutchess County farmer may choose, provided he lives in sufficiently sandy soil. The [ thirty-five J

FRUIT FARM Aboue is a large and successful fruit farm. wi1h uineyard in the immediate foreground, and extensiue apple orchard just behind the barns.

DAIRY FARM The spacious barns below tell a story of moderate prosperity on a typical dairy farm.

•

towns of Red Hook and Rhinebeck are the most important fruit cen ters of the county, concentrating on orchards to the exclusion of dairy ing. Red Hook is famous for its quality apples. Of 15 3 owners of farms, 129, or 84 per cent, are raising fruit to sell, or combining it with milk, eggs or vegeeables. Tihe soil of ,this region is well adapted to fruit-growing, consequently it is possible for a farmer to be eco nomically successful raising only one crop. Whereas in the small dai, rying towns milk alone yields insufficient income for a farm family (causing the aforementioned increase in cash crops per farm), in Red Hook there is little diversification of crops. Apples are the largest crop, but some pears and peaches are usually included in the l,arge orchards. Fruit farming in other parts of the county is rapidly dying out. In the town of Fishkill there were several peach orchards four years ago, but severe winters destroyed them, jus-t as in other parts of the East. Occasional large o'rchards in the towns of Stanford, Unionvale, and LaGrange are located on patches of sandy soil, operated on the one crop basis found in Red Hook. But the majority of small farm orchards is falling into decay. Spraying is expensive and apples are easily bought at general stores. Consequently, many country roads are lined with gnarled old orchards, webbed with tent caterpillars in the spring, and unpruned for many years. The Dutchess County farmer is most likely to be selling milk, eggs, or fruit, but he may be interested in one of the many small specialties

TABLE 7 DUTCHESS COUNTY AGRICULTURE- 1920-1935 1920

Number of farms · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 3,114 Acres in farms 436,730 Proportion in farms ...... 84.6 Average si.ze of farms (acres). 140.2 Cattle and calves of all ages 41,080 Sheep and lambs of all ages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • 6.745 Swine of all ages 14,677 Horses and colts of all ages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9,053 Chickens raised · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 294,045 Apple trees of bearing age 284,846 Bushels harvested . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.079,651 Grape vines of bearing age .. 116,979

1930

1935

2,190 337,901 65.5 154.3 33,967 6,788 5,794 4,832 385,546 301.311 499,968 344,030

2,236 328,303 63.6 146.8 35,590 3,420 3,721 4,511

Sources: 15th Census of United States, 1930, Vol. II, part I. Table 4; 14th Cen sus, Vol. VI. Part I, p. 223; United States Census of Agriculture, 1935, Table II, p 12. [ I hirty-seven ]

found in every county. Most farmers sell extra calves to the local butcher, but only a few have given up selling milk for raising calves. Of the 7 4 3 farms recorded as to products sold, 42 were selling meat and no milk. Newcomers from New York are often interested in raising beef cattle. There are two large estates in Pawling concentrating on this. There are also several large herds of Aberdeen Angus cattle in the county; one in Hyde Park, and two in Pine Plains are especially well known. Beef cattle have a place in thz future of this county's agri culture, since Eastern beef farmers receive a one to two cent premium on beef per pound over the Chicago market.. The cost and care for beef cattle is less than for dairy cattle, since the steers are kept in open sheds during winter months, and require no grain feed. Just as in the case of dairy cows and poultry, Dutchess County is becoming the proving ground for new methods, and an ideal center for large experi mental breeding farms. Should dairying become even less profitable than it is now, it w,ill not be surprising to find many local farmers turning to raising beef cattle. Sheep raising has steadily declined as a Dutchess County specialty, but there are a few herds of sheep raised for breeding stock. Two of the largest are in the towns of Beekman and Pine Plains. Other herds are located in Red Hook, Milan, Dover, and Hopewell Junction. Turkeys are increasingly popular as a cash crop for part-time farm ers. They can be raised on very poor land, and do not demand a large capital investment. There are four turkey farms in Red Hook, and two in Milan. Only recently have many Dutchess County farms been turned to truck gardens. With the growth of Poughkeepsie and Beacon and the arrival of suburbanites, the demand for green vegetables has grown apace. Of the 7 4 3 farms selling products in the towns studied, 70 are specializing in raising vegetables. The majority of these farms are near cities, in Hyde Park and Fishkill. Truck gardening is most suc cessful in the Hudson River loam along the river terraces, so it seems probable that truck gardening will increase in the western part of the county. It will never compete in the New York market with the truck farms located in the superior black loam across the river, however. Other specialties such as trotting horses, goats, silver foxes, and flowers are found throughout the county, depending on the soil condi tions and the capital demanded. At one time Red Hook and Rhine beck were important violet centers, but there are now only a few large houses shipping to New York.. The East Park Road, the Beacon [ thirty-eight ]

•

North Road, and the Pawling environs each has a few greenhouses catering to local trade and New York wholesale houses. The 16 per cent foreign born farmers do not in general operate large scale dairy farms. With this exception foreign born farmers raise the same crops in about the same w:ay as their American neigh bors. Many Italian farmers raise poultry and vegetables, retailing them in nearby towns. As previously pointed out, many of Fishkill's Italian families operate small truck farms while continuing small jobs in Beacon. A record of how a farmer operates his farm is incomplete without an appraisal of his economic success. There is no subject upon which one is more reticent than one's economic status, and the farmer is no exception to this rule. No direct questions were asked -him on this subject; the economic status of each farm was determined by the gen eral condition of the buildings, the amount of house and farm equip ment, and in some cases the mortgage and relief records. A record of the equipment of every farm visited revealed that most farmers have automobiles, but a surprisingly high percentage have no water in the house or electricity. Fifteen per cent of all farms in the eight townships have no improvements of any kind in the house. The numbers of farms having no improvements is a good general index of the economic status of a given township. Pawling had the lowest percentage of unequipped farm houses, closely followed by Amenia and Fishkill. Milan had the highest percentage of unequipped farms: 22. 8 per cent of all its farms have no modern improvements. Electricity is a necessity on a farm, just as in the city. The major ity of county farms are using electricity, or 66.4 per cent of all farms recorded. Wires are brought through when subscribers are found, the Central Hudson Gas f1 Electric Company charging $21 per mile for installation. Although this price does not seem exorbitant, many iso lated farms are cut off from electricity by 'the cost of installation. The more farms per mile, the more farmers to divide the $21 among them. In the towns of Red Hook, M,ilan, and parts of Stanford, where many farms are isolated or located on long private roads, the percentage of electric equipment is lower than the average. In these towns there are many farmers who have been promised electricity for several months and are impatiently waiting for the wires to be brought through their road. Where the electric comany has covered an area only slightly, there are many Delco plants on individual farms. For example, many [ thirty-nine ]

---- ·-

=---=--=====o..... · - ................---�

Table 8 - - Farm Equipment

TOTAL ······· . ..., Amen1a .. ................

Per Cent Per Cent With All With No Improvements Improvements In House In House

Equipment Rating Among Towns Studied

Per Cent Having Radio

Per Cent Having Water In House

Per Cent Havfog Furnace

57.5

69.0

69.7

36.6

14.9

68.6

85.

76. l

53.6

10.4

46.2

85.

82.5

55.

10.

47.5

95.

69.6

36.3

14.1

27.2

94.9

5 8

Per Cent Farms Having Electricity

Per Cent Having Telephone

66.4 76.1

,:'.:.. Fishkill ..................

80.

67.5

80.

Hyde Park ..............

67.6

52.5

74.7

Per Cent Having Automobiles

89.2

26.7

44.5

43.5

54.4

58.4

20.8

22.8

12.3

89. l

Pawling .... ...........

69.0

60.8

67.4

73.9

41.3

09.1

24.0

97.8

Pleasant Valley .....

79.

56.

70.

60.8

27.8

16.

22.0

90.

Red Hook ..............

61.5

54.2

59.8

66.

39.5

15.5

25.0

83.6

Stanford . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

64.9

69.3

76.3

67.5

35.9

10.5

31.5

90.3

Milan

...... .....

•

�

..-

•

,. /

more farmers have such plants in Red Hook than in Pleasant Valley. The effect of electricity on farm life has been often discussed, especially since recent Federal interest in "Rur.al Electrification," and it should not be overlooked that besides light for houses and barns, electricity has also brought with it the electric iron, refrigerator, washing mach ine, and radio-important urbanizing influences on our farms. The percentage of farms having telephones is no lower than the average for the entire United States." Only 57.5 per cent of all farms recorded have telephones, ranging from 43.5 per cent in Milan to 69.3 per cent in Stanford. There are two reasons for this s,ituation. The first is the responsibility o.f the telephone companies in allotting ex change areas. In several parts of the county the telephone exchange areas do not correspond with economic and social areas, so that a farmer living ten miles north of his shopping center is in the exchange of the next town· to the north, and must pay a toll charge on all calls to his village. This explains the low percentage of telephones in the town of Pleasant Valley, for example, where many farmers are in the Clinton Corners exchange. The second explanation of the low per centage of telephones lies in the recent economic stringency felt by farmers and city-dwellers alike. The telephone is the first luxury to be cut out when the farmer feels the pinch of hard times. Unlike the city housewife, the farm woman rarely markets by telephone, since peddlers pass her door nearly every day. The farmer does not trust the telephone for business deals, since few rural lines lack, the inter ested participation of other parties on the line. Hence the telephone is truly a luxury, used mainly for social purposes. More farms have radios than have electricity or telephones. Seven of every ten farms recorded have radios, and in Amenia and Fishkill more than eight of every ten are so equipped. In Milan, more than half of all farms have radios. The importance of the radio in bringing city viewpoints and interests to farm dwellers cannot be overestimated. Many a farm woman listens to news digests and beauty talks while she cooks and irons, and the daily market reports are an important part of her husband's noon hour. The children listen to adventure stories and citified romances in the evenings-important forces in moulding the ideology of rural young people. Besides bringing the city to the farm, the radio tends to reduce contact with the family's immediate neighborhood, by providing entertainment in the home which was "World Almanac, 1936, p. 342. [ forty-one ]

formerly found in visiting friends. Evenings and Sunday afternoons are spent listening to the radio, whereas a few years ago family re unions, spelling bees, and religious revivals filled these leisure hours. One farmer even said that he rarely takes a local newspaper now that he has the news over the radio all interpreted without the effort of deciphering it. There is a great variation between towns in the record of water in farm houses. As high as 76. l per cent of all Amenia's farms have w.ater in the house, in contrast to 58.4 per cent in Milan, and 66 per cent in Red Hook. By water in the house is meant, in the majority of cases, a cistern pump or a sink in the kitchen. Only a very small per centage of farms have bathrooms. The effort of installing a cesspool prevents the removal of the old-fashioned outhouse from most farm yards. Whereas the lack of bathroom may mean inconvenience and certain health hazards, the lack of water in the house is a source of constant drudgery to the farm woman. The pump may be just out side the kitchen door, or it may be fifty yards from the door; in either case heavy buckets must be carried for cooking, drinking, washing and cleaning. Among the farm houses visited, those having no kitchen pump were much less likely to be clean than those equipped with an efficient sink. The implications of food preparation and child care in a dirty kitchen are obvious. The effects of back-b.reaking and time devouring work on our farm women are equally disturbing. Yet in three of euery ten farms uisited such unhygienic and inefficient condi tions exist. In the towns of Milan and Pleasant Valley, less than 60 per cent of the farms have water in the house. Yet in each of these towns 9 0 per cent of the farms have automobiles, and in Pleasant Valley 70 per cent have radios. These figures, added to the fact that two of every ten farms have automobiles and no water in the house, seem to show that the family purse strings lie in the hands of the farmer, not his wife. If he had to carry an average of eight buckets of w.ater a day to his cattle, he would soon find a way to cut down this expenditure of time and energy. His wife continues medieval methods while he plows his land with a tractor, drives an automobile, and may even have a radio. Foreign born families tend to be content without mod ern improvements more than do American born farmers. Before im provement is general, the entire group of farm dwellers must be given instruction and help in inexpensive ways of installing kitchen pumps. When we find that only one-third of all the farm houses visited [ forty-two ]

have furnaces, we presume that this reflects poor economic conditions. However, few farm houses demand general heat throughout all rooms, since all the winter leisure time of the family is spent in the kitchen. Every farm kitchen has its large wood-burning stove, which provides sufficient heat for the room. Meals are eaten there, and in the majority of farm families, evenings are spent about the kitchen table. The re mainder of the house is used in the summer months, but during the winter the family does not expect to use the dining room or living room, unless it's supplied with an oil or wood stove. Life would be healthier in the winter if the entire family were not crowded into one room without ventilation, but this habit is stronger than the urge to use the rest of the house. Also the cost of coal is a prime deterrent in many cases. In summarizing the equipment found in farm houses, it is only fair to state that although 26. 7 per cent of the farms studied have all modern improvements in the house, a complete record of all tenant houses was not available. If all tenant houses were included in the equipment figures, the percentage of houses having no equipment would be larger, and the percentage having all improvements would be small er. It is interesting to find that 47.5 per cent of Fishkill farms are equipped with all improvements,-the highest figure of any town studied. · This is a clear reflection of Fishkill's proximity to Beacon. More telephones means that city telephoning habits have spread to the surrounding area, more farms with water in the house indicates the influence of urban insistence on modern sanitation. Fishkill farm ers spend money on equipment because their habits demand it; Amenia farmers spend money on equipment because their high level of eco nomic success provides extra cash for "luxuries." Nine of every ten farms have automobiles. That this is a fairly recent development is shown by figures compiled by the Dutchess County Planning Commission, showing that in 1922 there was one automobile for every seven people, whereas in 1932 there was one for every four people. The effect of easy and rapid transportation on farm life cannot be ove.rlooked. Before the automobile, the farmer took his milk into the plant, bought the groceries, passed the time of day with the villagers, and brought the news home to his family. Now his area of social and economic cor,tacts has been broadened, following in creased mobility, and his wife and children are no longer tied to the farm and the immediate neighborhood. His wife joins him in shop[ forty-three ]

ping expeditions to the distant city, where they not only purchase city wares, but also receive city ideas through the Saturday night movies. It is especially interesting to find that in a given locality there is a corr.elation between the distance from a large city and the numbers of automobiles on farms. Only 83.6 per cent of Red Hook farms have automobiles, while 94.9 per cent of Hyde Park farms have automo biles: in Fishkill, 9 5 per cent are so equipped. What is the cause of this geographical alignment of percentages? The number of automo biles does not reflect the degree of prosperity, when Amenia has com paratively few and Hyde Park has many. The explanation lies in the shopping habits of the farmers of each section. In Red Hook there are many small villages and hamlets accessible to many farmers not own ing automobiles. The village of Red Hook supplies all the needs of local farmers for food, clothes, banking, and recreation. Independent of distant cities, Red Hook demands less transportation than the less self-sufficient township of Hyde Park. Hyde Park has few small vil lages and depends on Poughkeepsie for everything but groceries. Hence all its farmers need automobiles. It is apparent that this situation is merely a repercussion of the decline of small independent villages, which was chiefly caused in the first place by the coming of the auto mobile. Thus a complete circle of social change has taken place, in which the source of original development is now being affected by the secondary adjustment. When the eight towns are ranked according to comparative stand ards of equipment, we find Fishkill and Amenia first and second, re spectively. This helps to summarize our discussion of farm equip ment in demonstrating that good equipment may oe the result of two circumstances. First, the town is near enough to a large city to be in fluenced by its urban habits, or, second, its farming conditions are suffi ciently profitable to provide extra cash for modern comforts. Con versely, poor equipment may be the result of isolation from city eco nomic and social changes, or it may merely reflect poverty in farming conditions. Occasionally both geographical position and soils may influence adjustment to modern standards of living, as in the case of Pawling, ranking third among the eight towns. Or one factor may counteract the other, as in the case of Red Hook. There, in spite of moderate prosperity, few automobiles and radios reflect its isolation from Poughkeepsie. If it were possible to make a more extensive study of this subject, it would be interesting to discover whether location is [ forty-four ]

alway,s a stronger factor than economic condition in the determination of progress in living standards. Through the courtesy of the Dutchess County Emergency Relief Bureau, a further analysis of the economic status of the Dutchess County farmer has been made from relief records of the past three years. Of nearly 1,000 families included in this survey, only 50 are on the files of the relief bureau, as either open or closed cases. The towns with the largest numbers of such cases are Pleasant Valley and Red Hook, having 16 and 13 farm cases respectively. No Fishkill farmers are on relief, and only three are recorded in Amenia. It is in teresting to find that, with one exception, the town of Milan has a lower relief burden than any other town in the county. Only five of its farm families have been on relief. It seems clear, therefore, that poverty in Milan., has been a chronic condition, not greatly increased by the recent economic depression. Farmers of other towns may have experienced a sudden loss of income, and have applied for relief when they were in no worse condition than some Milan farmers have en dured for many years. The customary standard of living has consid erable influence on application for outside help. It has been suggested that one cause of farm failures in this county is the presence of many inexperienced operators from New York. A record of 45 farm families on relief shows that only 8 have come from New York, whereas the large majority has moved to its present loca tion from other parts of Dutchess County. These figures further show that there are no large numbers of foreign born farm families on relief. Only 9 of the 45 families have one or both heads foreign born. Aside from generalizations concerning the comparative economic success of the towns studied, the most important fact brought out by these relief figures is the type of family operating the unsuccessful farms. The 45 families on relief average only 6. 7 years on their pres ent farm, and only one is operating a farm which has been in his fam ily several generations. Furthermore, 28 of the relief cases are tenants or renters, as against 1 7 owners. These figures show that the least successful farms of the county are being operated, for the most part, not by old Dutchess County stock on worn out farms, but by a group of unstable tenants. A few marginal farmers, selected from county relief rolls and from non-relief applicants, are being helped toward economic independence by the Rural Rehabilitation Division of the Federal Resettlement Ad ministration, making loans to needy farmers who have adequate farm [ forty-five]

experience. Although recent arrivals may apply for assistance, they rarely possess sufficient farming skill to merit loans. MR. ALLEN B. DOGGETT, Rehabilitation Supervisor, states that it is most difficult to assist the group which has recently moved from city to country. In all generalizations about the economic success of Dutchess County farmers, it should be remembered that foreign born farmers are no less successful than native born farmers. Not only do the relief figures show this, but the proportion of foreign born helped by the Rural Rehabilitation Administration is no larger than their numer ical importance in the farm group as a whole. In some cases it seems apparent that the Central European farmer is more successful than is the Italian. There are few highly successful fruit or poultry farms operated by Italians, whereas many of the prosperous farms of Red Hook, Hyde Park, and Milan belong to Austrian or Polish farmers. The Polish fruit farmers of Red Hook are an industrious group and their farms are without exception well cared for and prosperous. For eign born farmers place emphasis upon standards of success different from those of native born farmers; consequently, they are often criti cized for maintaining a "low standard of living." Nevertheless, the foreign born farmer sometimes operates a more profitable farm than his American neighbor, because he and his family are stronger and more healthy than occasional cases of defective American stock, and because each member of the family is willing to work seven days a week in the fields. He also spends a minimum on modern equipment, variations in diet, and recreation. Dutchess County is called a "rich county," and so it is in many places. But in evaluating the economic success of the average farmer, we must not ignore the number of farms which are· not making ends meet. The above discussion has shown that in towns like Amenia, Pawling, and Fishkill, equipment is good and failures are few. The towns of Washington, Pine Plains, and Dover, not included in this study fall into this group. But in other towns, equipment has had to wait for cash on hand which never materialized, and some farmers have fallen into the sub-marginal class, beaten by poor soil, lack of initial capital, lack of experience, or lack of that kind of luck which every farm venture needs. The majority of Dutchess farms are mod erately successful, but it should not be forgotten that 15 per cent of all farms studied have no improvements in the house. We have seen that, as in any community, there are many failures, but that the general average is fairly high. What are the farmer's prob[ forty-six ]

!ems in maintaining this moderately high level? Similar to the busi ness man, he has adjustments of overhead, prices, and production costs. What are the most important of these problems in Dutchess County? The first and most constant of his problems are soil conditions, drainage, weather, and insect pests: the natural conditions any one of which may ruin his crops. He must be careful to locate his farm on good Dutchess silt or Dutchess stony loam, with a minimum of the rough slate loam which is so difficult to till and subject to summer droughts. In the Harlem Valley he finds more consist·ently good soil than in other parts of the county; in Milan, Pleasant Valley, Clinton, and Hyde Park he must be careful to avoid sub-marginal land. Once he has chosen his farm, he must constantly labor to maintain and in crease the productivity of the soil, adding manure and other fertilizers, and rotating his ·,crops to avoid exhaustion. The farmer cannot con trol the drainage or the weather, except through choosing a heavy soil in preference to a light sandy one. But he can and must control the insects and germs which attack his corn, oats, fruit, chickens, and cows with renewed vigor each year. After the original expense of planting young trees, the greatest expense of a Red Hook apple grower is mul tiple spraying of the trees. If this is poorly done, he will lose his crop to worms. The farmers receive assistance in combatting insects and animal diseases from the State Agricultural Department, with the co operation of the Cornell Agricultural Experiment Station, and the local Farm Bureau. The next important problem facing the farmer is the overhead expense of running his farm: the cost of labor, equipment, and taxes. An important revolution in farm labor has taken place throughout the country during the last generation. Fifty years ago a farm hand was happy to work for his board and a few dollars a week. The labor market was flooded with farm boys seeking apprenticeship in thei-: trade. The growth of industrial cities, offering more cash for shorter hours of work, reduced the supply but not the demand, thus raising farm wages. This sudden change furnishes one explanation for the seeming decline in the prospe�ity of local farming. In 1900, the fairly prosperous farmer probably had four hired men, who more than earned their board and weekly stipend by operating the farm on a large scale. Now that a hired man must be paid $3 0 a month in addition to his board, or paid $3 a day, the farmer must cut down his help to one or two men, and decrease his farmed acreage [ forty-seven ]

and numbe.r of cows, if he is to avoid drastic action by the Law of Diminishing Returns. Several farmers have attributed their approach ing failure to ,the lack of cheap farm help. Land which was profitable fifty years ago has become sub-marginal with the increase of labor costs. Another factor in the rise of labor overhead is the arrival of New York estate owners. They often pay local farm help higher wages than the prevailing rates, thus spoiling the market for the longer estab lished farmers. One of the most constant problems, not only to the individual farmer but also to the whole country, is the tenant farmer population. In the eight towns studied, there are 247 tenant families, classed either as employee-tenants, living on the farm of their employer, or as rent ing-tenants, paying cash shares to the non-resident owner.. The former group is by far the larger of the two. In Stanford, 26 of the 39 families in the non-owner group are employee-tenants; in Amenia 39 of the 56 non-owner families are also employee-tenants.

TABLE 9 NUMBERS, SIZE, AND ST ABILITY OF TENANT FAMILIES Amenia Fishkill .. Hyde Park Milan Pawling Pleasant Valley . Red Hook Stanford

Total Families 57 28 13 11 38 21 40 39

Total..

247

Average Number Average Members Average Residence of Children per Family on Present Farm 2.7 6.4 4.37 l. 7 3.18 6.4 2.2 4.8 3.80 2.0 6.1 5.10 2.4 3.20 6.5 4.1 6.52 4.8 2.9 4. 15 7.9 2.9 8.6 4.73 2.49*

4.26

8.75

* See note for Table 2 concerning Total Averages.

The more prosperous the dairying, the more tenants are found in the township. I.n Amenia 5 7 per cent of the total farm families are tenants, but in Milan only 9.5 per cent are tenants. Red Hook also has a low proportion of tenancy, because fruit farming requires more seasonal help than dairying, not needing tenant families in constant residence. If the farmer has a sufficiently large dairy farm to warrant employ ing a married man and housing his family, he is met with a real prob lem in finding efficient help. He must pay a married man approxi mately twice as much as a single man, in addition to giving him his house rent-free, his milk, and his wood. [ forty-eight ]

The average tenant's family has 2.46 children, and in some town ships averages as many as four children per family. In every town but Milan and Pawling, tenant families are considerably larger than the average for all farm families. Not only are tenant families large, but they are often augmented by extra hired men who are housed with them instead of at the main farm house. The most outstanding characteristic of these families is their insta bility. The average tenant family has lived in its present location only 5.73 years. This figure also includes the tenure of many renting tenants who are just as stable as the owner group. In Stanford, where the majority of tenants are of the employee group, their average resi dence is 2.87 years. Many of these families have moved regularly every year on the first of April for four or five years. Owner farmers regard a tenant of more than three years' standing as most unusual. The employee·-tenant lives in the farm "tenant house," usually an old, poorly equipped dwelling, sometimes housing more than one family. Since the occupants change so rapidly, there is little incentive for either owner or tenant to keep up the building or grounds. Conse quently, the usual tenant house is without paint, the surrounding area is decorated with old automobile tires, a fallen-down fence, and per haps a spindly tree. The interior of the house is rarely clean, well lighted, or adapted to the use of a large family of children. The question arises as to whether the average tenant has a large family and is uninterested in contributing to the owner's farm because ( 1) he is of a lower social or educational level than the average owner, or (2) because economic pressure has driven him from the city to the country for cheaper housing, where he is the victim of poor employing habits on the part of the owner farmers. It is clear that he has not moved his already large family out from the city seeking better living conditions, since the large majority of tenant families has previous! y lived in various other locations in Dutchess County. Some tenant em ployees are young couples, hoping to save enough money to buy their own farms within a few years. It is also important to remember that the tenant group is more unstable than any other group in the county, averaging even shorter residence than the non-farm group. Part of his instability may be due to the fact that most owners hire by the month only, giving no lease on the house and no assurance of a steady job. This condition of course increases the feeling of insecurity of both man and wife. But the bulk of evidence from both tenants and owners seems to [ forty-nine]

indicate that this group includes many of the rural drifters and poorly adjusted individuals, lacking the initiative to settle on their own farms. Although the average tenant house is poorly planned for gracious liv ing, the average tenant's lack of interest in efficient upkeep would further point to the conclusion that tenant farmers and their wives lack training in their tasks, and are of a lower level of ability than the owner farmers.. A contrast to the employee-tenants are the estate employees and the renting tenants. The estate employees are not classed among the farm population, as their chief duties are to keep up the grounds. Nevertheless, it is interesting to find that this group holds sharply aloof from the general farming population, maintaining its own so cial life independent of the Grange, or the social life of the churches. The renting farmers, on the other hand, are an integral part of the farming population in most cases. Some of these families have lived on their present farms as long as thirty years, and are often as success ful farmers as their owner neighbors. The town of Pleasant Valley has 16 renting tenants, most of whose farms are located on poor soil. Eleven of this number are on the rolls of the Emergency Relief Bureau. This situation is unusual, however. Pleasant Valley has attracted rent ing farmers from other parts of the county more than other towns studied. Since the renting tenant has a double problem in paying rent and providing for his family, he must locate on superior land in order to succeed. The future of the tenant farmer in Dutchess County is difficult to forecast. Many tenant houses are either closed, or rented to summer residents, as their owners turn to hiring single men, or labor by the day. The increase of such farm machinery as threshers, tractors, and milking machines has of course decreased the need for large numbers of hired hands. One farm which formerly employed five men has in stalled a milking machine and now employs two. 7 But the present minimum of farm help will continue to be needed. If the trend toward hiring only single help continues, the county will have a real problem in employing the young married farmers, who have insufficient funds to buy their own farms. The deciding factor will be the Dutchess County owner-farmer himselif. He will choose between cheap single hired men, and the more costly tenant families, who, however, could 7

Total tenants in the county have decreased from 558 in 1920 to 290 tn 1930. United States Fifteenth Census, Agriculture, Vol. III, p. 24 3, Table 1. [ fifty ]

.. •• TENANT HOUSE

This typical tenant house shows a picture of rural neglect to be found on many otherwise beautiful farms. be encouraged to be more reliable by longer leases and better housing conditions. Another problem facing the Dutchess County farmer is the whole structure of farm buying and selling, which makes the presence of cash r fifty-one ]

such a rarity on the farm. Before we criticize any farmer for not in stalling a refrigerator, a bathroom, or a furnace, we must remember that financing such improvements is frequently beyond the farmer's means. The only cash which comes into the average dairy-poultry farm is the monthly milk check. Eggs are traded in for groceries, a calf or a broiler returns to the kitchen in the form of bacon or a new broom. The little cash coming in is immediately expended for clothes, shoes, feed, taxes, and the hundred daily necessities of life. Since the farmer has no definite salary per year, he cannot plan to save a specified amount for farm improvements. He dislikes to borrow money or "get into debt," just as he hates charge accounts. Unless he can pay cash for the new improvement, he is unlikely to decide on it. This is an other explanation of the difference in equipment records between the urbanized Fishkill, and the rural Red Hook. Fishkill residents have the city attitude toward installment buying, whereas the Red Hook farmer hesitates to commit himself to a year's burden of debt. Pay ments on the mortgage have absorbed so many farmers' extra cash all their lives that they fear any similar responsibility. Although soil, labor, and financing are not all the problems the farmer faces, they are the most important under his immediate con trol. subject to his personal decisions. T,here are other problems which we may call "variables affecting his economic success." These are for the most part unaffected by his industry or his psychology; they are results of a complex economic set-up which is not organized to benefit the American farmer. An important item in rach farmer's overhead expenses is his tax assessment. Taxes vary from town to town, and according to the acreage and assessed valuation of the property. It i� interesting to find that the value of the land as farm property does not influence the assessment or the tax rate as much as the presence of New York estate owners, or many paved roads. The town of Stanford had, in 1933, the highest tax rate of any town in the County-2.828 per $100 assessment. The towns of Pawling and Fishkill had the lowest rate of the towns studied, and are second only to Rhinebeck in the county. Why does the Pawling farmer pay lower taxes than the Stanford farmer? The principal reason is that Stanford has no central town as Pawling has, and its land values have not risen with the coming of New Yorkers. Pawling receives enough taxes from its village receipts so that it does not need as large a contribution from the farms as Stanford needs. The same comparison could be made between the r fifty-two ]

towns of Milan and \Vashington. Milan had a tax rate of 2.525 in 1933, while Washington's rate was only 2.061. Since there is no connection between land value as farms and tax assessments, the farmer has no control over the amount he pays each year to the tax collector. Although exact figures on the percentage of farms under mort gages are not available, in those towns checked between 50 and 65 per cent were listed as mortgaged. In Pleasant Valley, 62 per cent are mortgaged, and 53 per cent of Red Hook's farms are mortgaged. Of course, it is impossible to tell whether the farm was mortgaged to add to its improvements, or whether the mortgage reflects poor economic condition. If the Dutchess County farmer is among those who must meet regular payments on his mortgage, it is easy to understand his fre quent feeling of economic pressure. When cash is scarce, each added demand for taxes or mortgage adds to the farmer's sense of insecurity. Another variable ove•r which the farmer occasionally has no con trol is disease among his cattle. Periodic herd testing by health officials often leaves real tragedy behind it. One farmer spent his entire sav ings on a new herd of Guernsey cattle and lost all but one the follow ing year. Many farmers, when asked the size of their herd, answer, "We used to have a big herd, but we lost so many in the test last year that we can't get started again." Although the condemned cattle are paid for, the amount seldom represents their true milking value. Such testing is imperative for the development of clean cattle and for the public health, but individual farmers are often ruined by infection in their herds which they cannot prevent. In one case a farmer's cows were infected by the roaming scrub herd of his neighbor. The variable which controls the fundamental economic success of the dairy farmer in Dutchess County is the price of milk. From his milk check are paid taxes, mortgage interest and farm improvements, as well as everyday running expenses. The majority of farmers in the towns studied are selling their milk to Borden, via the Dairymen's League. Of 3 7 4 farmers recorded selling milk, 264 are selling to the Dairymen's League, 5 0 to Sheffield, 32 are retailing their milk inde pendently, or are selling to local retailers, 14 are shipping milk to Connecticut, 8 and 14 are shipping to other points, such as Emmadine Farms, or Peekskill. Thus, the prices paid through the Dairymen's 8 The State of Connecticut requires that the farmer be paid 7.75 cents per quart. Dairies in Stamford and Bridgeport collect milk from 14 farmers in the towns studied, who are naturally attracted by the higher prices to be obtained in this way.

( fifty-three ]

League have more far-reaching effects than those paid by any other single distributor. Dutchess County farmers receive slightly more for their milk than up-State farmers, because freight rates fr.om the plants to New York are lower. Milk prices vary according to the location of the farmer, the butter fat content of his milk, and the season of the year. During December prices reach their peak, and sink to their lowest point in June at the time of greatest milk production. During the last fiscal year (19 3536) the Dairymen's League base prices ranged from 1.79 in December to 1.32 in June.n The base price indicates the price per hundred weight for 3.5 milk, before differentials are added or subtracted for each individual farmer. The butter-fat differential adds or subtracts .04 per cent for each ½o of 1 per cent deviation from the 3.5 normal. The freight differential adds .05 perr cent for erach additional zone from New York. Thus, Red Hook lies in the adjacent freight zone to Pine Plains, resulting in a .09 5 differential in Pine Plains, and a .10 diffet� ential in Red Hook. The volume differential adds or subtracts .06 to 12 cents depending on the number of cans received per day at the plant which the farmer uses. The importance of producing superior milk is well illustrated by the difference in pri.ce paid for Grade A and Grade B milk. A farmer producing 3.5 milk before freight and volume differentials are ad justed, receives 3.58 cents per quart at the time of December high prices. But if his butter-fat count were in the Grade A division, or 4.3, he would receive 5.18 cents per quart at the same time of year. Few farmers can continue to make ends meet until they have improved their average butter-fat .content above the 3.5 level. A rough estimate of the receipts of the farmer having the average 18 milch COWS, giving an average of 8 quarts per cow per day, at the time of his greatest in come during the year, not allowing for freight and volume differen tials, shows that if he is making only 3.5 milk he will receive $36.29 per week. If he can improve his butter-fat count to 4.3, he will re.ceive $52.21 per week during these winter months. This estimate is greatly influenced by the volume of milk and the season of year, and is in tended only as an illustration of the importance of herd improvement to the farmer's economic status. Sin.ce the Dutchess County farmer is a.ctually receiving more for his milk than up-State farmers, why has he the strong feeling that he n This information has been kindly supplied by the New York office of the Dairy men's League, Inc. [ fifty-four ]

receives too little for his milk, and that "farming is a losing business"? The reason for the difference between the two locations lies in three factors: taxes, labor, and feed prices. The Dutchess County farmer has a much higher overhead expenditure than the up-State farmer; conse quently his net milk receipts are less, when his gross receipts are slightly greater. Taxes in this county are high because of its proximity to New York and its recent development as a surburban center. Labor costs are estimated to be 20 per cent higher than in up-State New York, be cause of higher standards of living, and greater competition with near by factories. The New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets records average farm wages for the New York State hired man to be $22 per month in addition to board. In Dutchess County he re ceives $30 per month. Similarly, the cost of concentrated feed in this county is higher than it is nearer the source of supply. When these three overhead expenses 11ise beyond the point at which they are over balanced by gross intake, the farms in this county will gradually dis appear. The economic basis of farm operation here will continue to be sound, however, until overhead expenses, actually cancel the profits now made from Grade A milk. Farms producing Grade B milk will continue to diminish, gi, ving way to the movement towards scientific breeding of high grade herds. Such herd improvement agencies as the Guernsey Breeders' Association, sponsored by the local Farm Bureau, are leading the way to the economic salvation of our farmers. It is dangerous to generalize about the economic level of all Dutch ess County farmers. Var, iations according to locahity, farming ability, available capital, and ordinary luck condition each farmer's success. The area is in a transition period, shifting from a dairy center of aver age quality to a more specialized producer of super,ior milk, beef, and poultry. This shift is forced by the rise in overhead costs, and the competition from up-State farms. Many farms unsuirted to produc ing Grade A milk are caught by the economic pressure incident to such a transition. Their owners will either sell them to newcomers from New York, or will return to raising poultry. They may continue for many years, as an increasing problem to the county, bwt the time will come when land unsuited to high cla·ss farming will go out of culti vation entirely.

[ fiftv-five l

Chapter 4

The Farmer's Social Life and

Social Problems

HE Dutchess County farmer is a hard working man, concentrat ing on his job from early dawn until dark. While the city busi ness man arrives at his office at eight or nine o'clock, depending on his importance, the most prosperous farmer must be at his work by five-thirty or six in the morning. The business man's work is usually over when he leaves the office, but the farmer lives in his office, so to speak, listening for trouble in the barns or the hen houses, and al ways on call in case of a sick horse or a calving. The farmer knows no week-end vacations. His cows are seven day machines, demanding his undivided attention twice each day, Christmas and the Fourth of July not excluded. While the business man may take a Saturday off for golf or hunting, or perhaps motor to the country for the week-end, the farmer is needed as much Saturday afternoon and early Sunday morning as he is in the middle of the week. Since this is the case, has the farmer any time to "enjoy himself"? Has he any of that newly important commodity, leisure time? And if so, what does he do with it? Although his free time does not come in large parcels, the farmer has evenings and some ti ri e on Sundays to spend on non-farming pursuits. While the sedentary worker has ex cess physical energy when his job is done, it must be remembered that the farmer's job involves the most strenuous outdoor exertion. He does not need or desire sports or excitement in his free time; he wants to listen to his radio, read the paper, and meet his friends in informal gatherings. The social life of farmers and their families is becoming increas ingly significant since it has begun to be affected by the decrease in small hamlets in favor of large villages. A glance at Table 1, popula tion changes since 1890, reminds us that, although the total popula tion is increasing, the density per square mile is decreasing. The decline of the rural population has been previously discussed. Our interest now is to note its effect upon the social life of the families involved. [ lift y-six ]

The social life of the farm family was once centered about two focal points: the immediate neighborhood, and the nearest village. The first of these, the rural neighborhood, has almost disappeared as a factor in rural social life. Many small isolated churches are closed, and the central school movement will close increasing numbers of little red school houses. The arrival of summer residenits has split up many old community groups. The radio and the automobile have added their bit to the dissolution of neighborhood gatherings. Sunday afternoons once spen,t in local visiting are now given to a ride in the car, or listen ing to the radio. Throughout the county farmers ask, "Why don'•t we feel a part of our own neighborhood any more?" The answer is that social interests are following economic ties from small hamlets to larger villages. The second focal point, the village, has greatly changed in nature in the past fifty ye-ars. Pleasant Valley and Pawling are excellent ex amples of the urbanization of old-fashioned villages. Both used to be farming villages, centered about the life of the outlying dairy farms, and occupied by retired farmers, a few professional men, and the pro prietors of the general store and the feed store. Recently both villages have become stabilized as non-farming communities, and village affairs are conducted by village men, not farmers. Villagers have no idea of farmer's problems, and there is a not,iceable split between the two groups in church and Grange social gatherings. Although centralized schools will soon overcome this spli-t, the present generation of farm ers feels dissociated from village affairs in most cases. Two exceptions to this generalization are found in the towns of Red Hook and Stanford. Because they are sufficiently removed from Poughkeepsie to feel economically and socially independent, they are at an earlier stage of social developmen,t than other towns studied. Red Hook has its own newspaper, and is forced on its own company more than is its neighbor, Rhinebeck, only six miles nearer Poughkeep sie. Consequently it possesses a unity of interest rarely found in the county. Constant contact between villagers and farmers forces the farmers to absorb their attitudes and habits. Every morning many farmers bring in their milk to the creamery and spend a half an hour talking to village men outside the postoffice. They come in to the local movies, and summer Saturday evenings find many farm families sit ting in their cars along Broadway, passing the time of day with the passers-by. This is a great contrast to Pleasant Valley, where Pough keepsie is the principal Saturday night objective. [ fifty-set:en ]

The town of Stanford is similar to Red Hook in the unity be tween farmers and villagers. Many of the villagers are retired farmers, and there are few village home owners who do not have their own large gardens. The villages of Stanfordville and Bangall form a com plete social unit, providing nearly all the economic and social life which the locality needs, with the exception of banking facilities and a newspaper. The local Grange, in contrast to some others in the county, is a farmer-led group, and offers some form of recreation one or two nights a week. The two churches, the P. T. A. and other women's clubs combine farmers and villagers without thought of a division between the two groups. Red Hook and Stanford are exceptions, however. Small hamle,ts are declining, and larger villages are no longer farming communities. The effect of this change on the social life of the farmer is at once limit ing and broadening. He no longer has the variety of social outlets in his own community, and informal gatherings have crystallized into the church and the Grange. On the other hand, the automobile makes it possible for him to buy his groceries in distant villages, to "shop around" for the best meat and the lowest prices. He still goes to church in his own village, but the time wiU come when his social ties will follow economic ties from the small to the large village just as surely as they progressed from the tiny hamlet to the small village. Recreation is leading the way in this newest step of social change. Villages such as Red Hook, Pine Plains, Amenia, and Pawling, having moving picture houses, attract farm people from the entire surround ing area. The older farmers have not developed the movie habit, but their children and the young married group depend on movies for their principal amusement. An important repercussion of the decline of small villages as farm centers is the loss of farmer prestige in the county as a whole. His voice is rarely heeded in the small villages, and is not even heard in the larger ones. Influential coun.ty leaders are now mostly "city men," from Poughkeepsie, Beacon, and Millbrook. Unless the farmer happens to be living in a predominantly farming township, he feels cut off from county affairs. This is a problem which should be faced by the farm ers themselves, and which could possibly be met by concerted action on the part of Granges. The farmer's leisure time uses present problems caused by the shift in his social fulcrum. The church10 and the Grange11 still occupy most of the free time which he wants to spend on social affairs. In any [ fifty-eight ]

consideration of his social problems, it should be remembered that his season of greatest mobility coincides with his busiest farming months. During the winter, when farm work is less demanding, he is often snowed in, or must depend on horse and sleigh for transportation. Then he is thrown back upon his own resources, and even village social life for him is reduced to a minimum. Any project to increase the scope of his social existence must remember the practical limitations of his free time and mobility. 10 Many village churches count 60% of their enrollment as farm people. There are 25 local Grange units besides the Pomona, each having general meetings twice a month, and frequent group meetings.

[ fifty-nine ]

Chapter 5

His Wife's Social Life and Social Problems

HE working hours of the average farm woman are just as long and arduous as those of her husband. In addition to cooking the meals and bringing up the children, the usual city house wife's tasks, she usually does all the washing and ironing, more bak ing than the city woman, and makes many of her own and her chil dren's clothes. On a dairy farm, the family chickens are her respon sibility, and usually the small vegetable garden as well. During the summer, she cans fruit, vegetables and meats for winter use. Whereas the farmer is as well equipped for his tasks as the indus trial worker is for his-tractors, electricity in the barns, threshers, and even milking machines constantly help his work-the farmer's wife has in many cases little better equipment than her grandmother had. The discovery that 14. 9 per cent of all farm houses have no modern equipment of any kind assumes new importance when we relate it to the daily routine of farm women. Fifteen of every hundred women are trying to operate efficient households with equipment belonging to the eighteenth century. No electricity for heating irons, cleaning carpets, or refrigerating food. No water in the kitchen, and 'of course no bath room. Thirty women of every hundred are still carrying water into their kitchens as their great-grandmothers did, and are not as well off in this respect as Cretan women of 2000 years before Christ! It is true that needs and standards differ between city and country, making a bathroom and city plumbing less necessary and more expensive on a farm than in the city. But every woman needs a kitchen pump. If these women lived on farms which could not provide any im provements such as an automobile, radio, or tractor, we would under stand that they are making the best of a difficult economic situation. The important point is that many of them are living on farms of med ium prosperity, which already have automobiles and radios. The automobile is important to the husband in marketing his milk, but [ sixty ]

the operation of an efficient and healthful house is not considered as important as the successful operation of the farm. Of those farm women whose kitchen equipment is somewhat bet ter, including a pump in the sink and electricity, there are few who do not spend the entire day at housework. The kitchen stoves generally burn wood, and require more labor than a city stove using gas or elec tricity. Washing and ironing clothes for a farm family takes the better part of two days a week. Caring for small children without adequate bathroom facilities requires constant effort. City women never cook a large midday dinner for their husbands and hired men. It is not surprising, therefore, that farm women's leisure time is practically non-existent. Their social life is, of necessity, limited to occasional afternoons and evenings. Women's clubs, either connected with church or school, claim most of their free time. The village women are usually very sociable, giving constant card parties through out the winter. Farm women are more likely to be included in church. school, and Grange affairs than in informal parties in the villages. This reflects the split between farm and village previously mentioned. Many farm women say that the number of social affairs offered them is greater than the amount of time they have to spend outside their homes. This indicates that the opportunity of a fuller (if not more varied) social life is not lacking. Of course, this type of amusement is strictly limited to women's afternoon meetings for one purpose or another, and Grange meetings in the evenings. Farm women take no outdoor exercise, which may explain the seemingly high percentage of small illnesses among farm women. Nor do they indulge in unpro ductive sitting in the evening. Their free time is always filled with knitting, darning, or sewing. A word should be said here concerning the foreign-born farm women. In contrast to their husbands, who are usually accepted into the farming community without comment, since they are good farm ers and "mind their own business," the foreign-born women are look ed down on by native-born women. No native-born woman would think of doing farm work, except to ra.ise chickens and help sort apples. But foreign women are always to be found in the fields, cut ting grapes, picking apples, or making apple crates. They never leave the farm for social meetings, and are completely cut off from the social life of neighboring native women. They are scorned by their neigh bors because they have different housekeeping standards, spending more time in the fields than in cleaning the kitchen. With rare exceptions, [ sixty-one ]

they do not belong to local women's clubs, and have no social outlets of any sort. Any rural welfare or recreation program should try to reach these women, but it must be remembered that their native cus toms do not encourage women to leave the narrow limits of the farm except to go to church or market. Many rural women in Dutchess County lead full and interesting lives, taking part in Poughkeepsie clubs, in local politics, and myriad church and school activities. The important point in this connection is that these women are the exception, and are able to pursue interests outside their homes because their farms are so successful that they can afford a hired girl, or because they are unusually well versed in efficient home management. No woman can take part in clubs or recreation projects if she has no leisure. Before the average farm woman can be reached by new or already existing agencies for the use of leisure time, she must be given help in organizing her job to allow more free hours in the afternoon. Many farm visits were made in the middle of the afternoon; rarely was the farm woman found who was not baking or ironing at that time. The combination of poor equipment and no in struction in housekeeping methods is constant drudgery for even the best-intentioned woman.

r sixty-two ]

Chapter 6

His Children's Social Life and Social Problems

URAL young people are the farmers of the future, so it is im portant to learn how they are being educated and how they spend their non-school hours. As has been pointed out, 73.2 per cent of all farm children are living at home. This means that the city-ward drift of the past._generation has been arrested by the scarcity of jobs in the cities, and that young people are remaining on their father's farms, or settling in rural Dutchess County. How are these children being educated for their future as farmers and farmers' wives? Most farm children go to small local grade schools, often walking long distances to school. or waiting on cross-roads for a school bus. One-room schools still educate the majority of farm children, combin ing all ages and grades in one group, and often taught by inexperienced teachers. From these schools the child progresses to the village high school. where he is brought into contact with village children. Reflect ing the general increase in high school enrollment, there has been a ten per cent increase in farm children attending high school during the past fifteen years, according to the estimate of two high school prin cipals. In some village schools as many as 60 per cent of the enroll ment is drawn from outside the village, and in most high schools this figure is as high as 5 0 per cent. Few farm children finish high school. however. No figures on this point are available, but incomplete records show that less than half of all farm children who have started high school have completed the course. As would be expected, more girls finish high school than boys, s.ince sons are more needed on a farm than daughters. It is apparent that only the most successful farmers can spare their sons to further education when they reach the age to be useful on the farm. This is even more marked than in the previous generation, when hired help was more abundant and cheaper. In the towns which have no high schools, the incentive to go to the adjoining town to high school is not [ sixty-three ]

great. This situation was found in Pleasant Valley, Hyde Park, Milan, and Stanford, which have no high schools. Since at least half of the enrollment of Dutchess County high schools is from the rural areas of the county, and since these children tend to stay on farms after completing their education, it is important to know how they are being trained for their future lives. With the exception of the Pine Plains High School, no high school in the county has either an agricultural course or a homemaking course! Farm chil dren are being trained in languages, civics, mathematics, music, art, history, and other standard high school courses. Besides these aca demic subjects they may also take a commercial course, training them in typewriting and bookkeeping. These courses have a certain value in mental training, but have little or no bearing on the future prob lems of farm children. One farmer made a most illuminating com ment, when asked if his son had gone to high school: "No," he said, "I didn't send my son to high school. Why, I wanted him to be a farmer!" This man reflects the general assumption that high schools are training children for city life and city jobs. The social consequences of this lack of adjustment on the part of the educational system are far-reaching. The most immediate effect is that farm young people are less content to lead rural lives, when they have been trained to be efficient business men and women. The second effect is more serious. Improved methods in agriculture and home making can most easily be developed when our future farmers and their wives are young. To perpetuate only the methods of the older generation eliminates the use of new discoveries and short cuts which will raise the standards of county farms. .. Why do not all Dutchess County high schools teach agricultural and home-making courses? It is not lack of vision on the part of their principals, who are for the most part eager to start these courses. The obstacle is financial. Until school districts are centralized as in Pine Plains, bringing more tax money into single schools, high schools must limit their courses to the more inexpensive types. The need for centralizing schools is recognized on all sides, but few townships can undertake such a project, because of heavy bonded indebtedness, or local jealousies preventing cooperation between districts.. The town of Red Hook, which is in particular need of a central school, as it is serving part of Milan, could not decide on a central school when the local building burned down, as the neighboring village of Tivoli pre ferred not to join the plan. Pawling's new high school is still being [ sixty-four ]

paid for. It is to be hoped that when new schools are built to replace old ones, central schools may be erected, in order properly to educate the farm children of the county. How do rural young people spend their summers and free time away from school? They are expected to help with farm chores on their return from school in the afternoon. In their remaining free time, various amusements present themselves, according to the season and the location of the farm. The schools and churches provide the centers of organized recreation. In Red Hook (before the school burned) the school gymnasium provided a place for dances and ath letics. The Pawling school also conducts weekly dances for high school students. In other communities the churches are increasingly interested in offering recreation for young people. The Pleasant Val ley Presbyterian Church has recently built a recreation room in the cellar, which provi.des shuffle board and other games for an interested group of young people. A church in Pawling has an auditorium which can be used for community dramatics. In Stanford, the Scouts, allied with the school, fill a large place in the lives of the fa.rm girls. In gen eral, the young ministers of village churches are alive to the need for young people's recreation, and are eager to offer any programs within the means of the parish. Village churches are not moribund. They fill the largest part of the leisure time of both villagers and farmers, and "hold" young people considerably better than city churches. Unorganized recreation occupies much of farm children's free time. Stanford children may swim in Hunn's Lake, Red Hook children in Spring Lake, and Sylvan Lake attracts young people throughout the county. Farm young people, like their elders, are not so social during the summer as they are in the winter months. The Grange satisfies much of their desire for d:rnces and "socials." Most farm children look forward to being old enough to join the Grange, as they are soon conscious of the important part this organization plays in the social lives of their parents. In some towns where the influence of Beacon or Poughkeepsie has been felt, the old style "socials" and Grange dances are not as popular as formerly, because of competition from Post Road and Pleasant Valley Road "taverns." Young people in Pleasant Valley, Hyde Park, and Fishkill seem considerably more sophisticated in their recreation tastes than those of more isolated towns. The movies attract all farm young people in proportion to the amount of cash they have, and the distance they live from the moving picture theatre. Movies play a large part in the lives of Hyde Park, [ sixty-fiue ]

Pleasant Valley, and Fishkill youngsters, not only because they live nearer the cities, but also because they attend high school with city friends, with whom movies have become a necessity. Those who can not afford the trip to Poughkepsie or Beacon are left to their own de vrices in the evenings, in villages which have ceased to provide the same amount of local amusement as the more rural villages. Children in these three towns, therefore, seem to be more of a problem to their parents than those of more unsophisticated townships. The children of Milan reffoct the general lack of independence and self-sufficiency found in that township, and must depend on nearby towns for recrea tion. There is no central town, high school, or church in the town ship, so local young people are forced to go to Red Hook or Rhine beck for amusement, or center their activities in a Lafayetteville road house. Any rural recreation project should remember Milan farm children. How do farm children compare with village chi,ldren in school and social activities? Are they backward in high school, forming their own cliques? Are they shy in social matters? The answer to both these questions is emphatically no. High school principals report that farm children do as good if not better work than village children in their studies. Foreign-born farm children have an excellent record in the schools, occasionally managing to get to college, an unusual feat for a farm child. It is clear that there is no split between farm and vil lage children when they have spent a few months together in the high school. Far from forming a small, retiring clique in the high school, farm children have more social sense than village children. Farm chil dren have considerable social training in the Grange and in large fam ilies. Many farm girls of eight are responsible for· the entire care of the youngest baby, which develops leadership and self-confidence rarely found among village children. The Pawling high school principal pointed out that farm children take the lead in school affairs and clubs, having unusual poise and social judgment. No summary of the activities of farm young people would be complete without mention of the excellent work done by the 4-H Clubs of the cournty, allied with the Farm Bureau. There are 25 such clubs in the county, with a total enrollment of 615 children, 270 girls and 345 boys. Since these clubs were started in 1925 they have steadily grown in popularity and usefulness. The majority of the members are not allied with a local club, but are directly connected with the Poughkeepsie office. Between the ages of 10 and 20, farm children [ sixty-six )

raise beef calves or poultry under the careful supervision of local lead ers or the Poughkeepsie office, learning scientific methods of breeding and raising live stock. They take their stock to shows, which is a fur ther stimulus to zealous farming. The importance of this type of training for farm young people cannot be over-estimated. Once start ed in an intelligent approach to farming, they continue to keep in touch with the many services of the Farm Bureau, and are interested in progressive farming. Farm children lead healthy, calm lives for the most part, and their principal need is further education to make their adult lives as happy and useful as they can be.

[ sixty-seven ]

Chapter 7 What is the Future of the Dutchess County Farmer?

T WAS stated at the end of Chapter Three that those farms which are not suited to producing Grade A milk, beef, or superior poultry will gradually go out of cultivation, and be turned to non-farm uses. Such a statement is easy to make, but should be followed by a con crete discussion of the actual process of such a transition, and its effect on the farm people who have been caught in this change. Frequent mention has been made of the "suburban trend" in Dutchess County What does this trend mean to various areas of the county? In the five towns studied, there were nearly as many non-farm dwellings as real farms. A non-farm dwelling was taken to be any house outside villages and hamlets which was not operated as a paying farm, whether occupied all the year or not, and whether raising a few

TABLE 10 NUMBERS AND PREVIOUS LOCATION OF RURAL NON-FARM FAMILIES

"' .n ....

104 86 127 97 69 155 90 89 817

48.0*

E <=

zz ::, 0

Total..

.. 00

.;: u , �o..Zg 49.7 63.7 48.8 35.5 56.5 49.5 30.3 35.6

Amenia Fishkill Hyde Park Milan Pawling Pleasant Valley .. Red Hook . Stanford

.. =� .. 5>- > �-� ·::: :s

�.. e C

u C

"'"' M -0 M

-<>--o:::

c .::0

. :: C

"' 0

.;;o

�z2

>- :s

� E M "'

O..t/l

9 I 6 3 4 10 9 6

8.75* 122

* See Table 2 note concerning Total Averages. [ sixty-eight ]

,._u

.. ..

·-gf--

11 14 31 11 21 12 20

I 0.9 8.8 8.7 6.7 9.6 8.3 9.1 8.6

C ·0

.;; "' "' ::, 01:u ·:,. � ::, ci:o 4 2 5 2 3 l0 12 11 49

>- ..

]]

-� �"' ci:uJ 2 I 4 1 5

I9 27

chickens or not. This record has clearly indicated that Dutchess County is rapidly becoming the latest suburban outlet for New York. As Putnam and Westchester Counties have filled up, Dutchess is the next in line for the gradual influx of city families looking for "a lovely old farm house to fix over," a "week-end shack beside a stream" or a gracious summer estate. As this study was not focussed upon the non-farm population, it was not practical to record all non-farm dwellers. Of the 817 non farms numbered, the owners of 280 were recorded as to length of residence and previous location. (See Table 10.) This non-farm group has lived in its present locations an average of 8. 7 5 years. There fore, it is not a very recent invasion. When these figures have been split up, they show that the group divides into those who have been in the county more than 15 years, and those who have come within the last six years... What kind of land is being bought by New Yorkers, and from what economic groups do they come? The highest type of New York suburbanism is to be found in the town of Pawling. Quaker Hill es tates have been sold by their original owners to New Yorkers because they brought a price considerably higher than their value as farm property. Because Pawling soil is superior for hay and pasture, these estates are being operated as paying farms, for the most part by non resident owners. The town of Washington has been almost entirely given over to this type of "hobby-farming." A contrast to this type of development is the non-farm population of Milan. It is interesting to find that 31 of the 45 families recorded have come from New York City, and that 22 of their number have come since 1930! Thus they plainly represent the "back to the land movement" precipitated by the recent economic depression. Often we find men keeping house and raising a few chickens and children, while their wives continue their jobs in New York, coming out for week ends. Land is cheap in Milan, but they do not realize the reason for its cheapness. Those who are attempting to revive old farms which have been abandoned for economic reasons seem destined to failure, but those who have enough capital to use old land for week-end and sum mer places will probably increase. New Yorkers often take over non-paying farms, either remodel ing them for week-e1nds, or building small cabins and bungalows. The county is dotted with summer camps, both large and small, some of which add very little to the attractiveness or the social life of their [ sixty-nine ]

locality. Such developments along Whaley Lake, Sylvan Lake, Spring Lake, and Hunn's Lake are only a few of the many summer colonies of New Yorkers. Their numbers have not been included in the non-farm figures, as they have settled in close-built hives, similar to small vil lages. They would swell the non-farm figures considerably if included, however. Whether farming or not, New Yorkers form a group apart from other farmers and villagers. In spite of their real interest in their com munities, they have occasionally stirred up antagonism because of at titudes interpreted as patronizing. Among farm people, therefore, the New Yorker is usually politely ignored. There is a local saying, "If he lasts two years, he may stick," showing a certain skepticism of the newcomer's purpose in moving out from the city. The new prosperity of many villages depends on the generosity of newcomers in patron izing church bazaars, giving to libraries, and contributing to churches, not to mention patronizing local stores, and hiring local help. Still, many villagers are short sighted enough to resent the unpreventable intrusion of newcomers. The New York newcomers living in small bungalows or week-end cabins have fewer social ties with the locality than the wealthier estate owners. They come from the anonymity of an apartment in Westchester, and have only economic ties with the immediate neighborhood. The suburban movement is not restricted to New Yorkers. Mov ing out from Poughkeepsie and Beacon is an ever-widening circle of small bungalows. The town of Pleasant Valley is an example of Poughkeepsie suburbanism. Of the 75 non-farm dwellers interviewed, 29 are summer residents, returning to Poughkeepsie in the winter. Those living along the Pleasant Valley Road and the· Creek Road once lived in Poughkeepsie; almost all have small vegetable gardens and a few chickens. It has been estimated that half of the real estate now being bought in this part of the county is turned to week-end and sum mer residences. Similar development is found in the town of Hyde Park, along the East Park Road. The town of Wappinger is another suburban outlet for clerical workers, and foreign born factory workers from Poughkeepsie, some having small truck gardens, and some con tinuing jobs in the city. The City of Beacon is also expanding into the surrounding town of Fishkill. As has been mentioned before, many workers, caught by the collapse of the hatting industry, have moved out to small farms, and are living on savings, or on the earnings of a son or daughter. It [ seventy ]

is an interesting fact that Beacon families seeking rural residences are not satisfied with the cheap bungalows which content many of New York's suburbanites of the same class. This may be explained by the previous conditioning of the newcomers. The metropolitan apart ment dweller is more likely to choose a compact house and lot than the Beaconite, who is accustomed to greater spaciousness in his little city. Many non-farm families have merely moved out of the nearby villages. Red Hook has fifteen or more small houses on the northern outskirts of the town, and Amenia also has a small suburban develop ment on the edges of the village. Such families are not buying old farms, however. They are living in small houses of the village type; sometimes they have lived there for several generations.

TABLE 11 DUTCHESS COUNTY LAND UTILIZATION

.."' ..... -<� C:

.5 "' �......E V

�"'-

28,164 19,002 Amenia 7,162 15,353.6 Fishkill 25,216 16,066 Hyde Park 12,646 Milan 23,040 28,736 15,730 Pawling 14,070 Pleasant Valley . 20,096 19,958 21,696 Red Hook 26,332 32,640 Stanford TOTAL .. . 194,937.6 130,976

'-;;"";�

209 135 260 199 122 206 304 250 1685

90 44 99 105 50 143 187 143 861

"' .5

Oil

0� � f---0::: Cl

-0

v, V

_, V

... C:

.. � .. �z J:� cl:�

i:: "' ., "' !3 E U e ....... 0 ... "' f---d: a."'-

"' � E C: ...

U C:•

43 49.7 33 63.7 38 48.8 52 35.5 41 56.5 45 49.5 61 30.3 57 35.6 51 48.0*

·s.::l ....C: ·o..::l

E � uv0

8 3.8 2 1.4 4 1.5 15 12.5 2 1.6 8 5.5 18 8.7 18 7.2 75 4.4*

* See note to Table 2 concerning Total Averages.

The absence of suburbanites in the rural areas of such towns as Amenia and Northeast indicates that they are not attracted by the high prices of successful dairy farms as much as by the more conveniently located and cheaper land of Pleasant Valley and Fishkill. It also indi cates that proximity to New York influences the location of new comers. In the town of Stanford, only 36 per cent of the rural dwell ings are classified as rural non-farm, further indicating that the cen tral, inaccessible areas are not attracting week-end and summer resi dents. With the coming of the new Taconic Parkway, these areas will probably be developed. It is to be hoped that they may zone [ seuenty-one ]

their towns adequately to prevent development similar to that on the Pleasant Valley Road and the Albany Post Road. Another important group of non-farm owners is that of the old Dutchess County estate owners, the proprietors of the large river es tates. From Poughkeepsie to the northern border of the county, the river frontage is almost entirely owned by the descendants of the New York business men who developed them in the 80's and 90's as fash ionable summer resorts. Of all the acreage in the town of Hyde Park, more than 25 per cent is owned by 13 men. Until 1915, they all pro duced their own milk and butter, but after the war farming was slowly abandoned. Now only three of the Hyde Park estates still have live stock, and one of these sells no produce. Nearly all are for sale. but are unlike!y to be bought, since taxes on such property are high, and Long Island is more attractive as a summer resort. Several have been bought for schools and institutions, and such will probably be the future of those not split up among children of the present owners. The owners of the river estates usually take a lively interest in their communities, having inherited the somewhat feudal attitude of their forebears. The villages of Hyde Park and Rhinebeck are similar to others which have grown up about a group of estates to supply their needs and house the families of employees. The owners now feel re sponsible for the welfare of these employees, and even continue oper ating their estates as semi-farms in order to provide for old retainers. The estate dwellers seem to form a group apart from any other group in the county. They do not mix with farm families in Grange meet ings, nor are they likely to entertain New York suburbanites. Since for many years they have lived their lives apart, they still restrict them selves to a small and aristocratic group of neighbor; for the short time they are in residence each summer. Most of them live in New York during the winter, and most of them wish they could sell their estates for half what their grandfathers paid for them! They ar, e often gener ous in their support of church and village projects, but occasionally, just as in the case of newer estate owners, they are resented by farm and village people. The effect of the whole non-farm group upon the farm families of the county is difficult to determine. The most obvious effects are found in farm equipment and land values-two outposts of every subur banization movement. Changes in land values fall under the heading of economic urbanization, and are more inevitable than changes in rural culture and rural institutions caused by urban settlements. The [ seuenty-tu!o]

urbanization of county farming: from "encyclopaedic production to market economy" 1" had already taken place before the arrival of the non-farm population. Thus, .their most important economic influence has been in raising land values considerably above any previous level. The 1930 census records the average value per farm according to towns, ranging from $39,754 in Pawling to $7,123 in Milan. The value of farm land per acre ranges from $100-200 in the town of Poughkeep sie, to $20-50 in Milan. These figures have no significance as an esti mate of the present value of farm land, but serve to compare land values in various towns. Pawling and Washington average $15,000 higher than any other town in the county. The only other towns averaging above $20,000 per farm are Poughkeepsie and Fishkill. The obvious conclusion from these facts is that value as suburban development is higher than value as farming land, and therefore determines the selling value of the farm. It has been said that there are two values for each farm in Dutchess County. One is its value as farming land, determined by soil, drainage and cultivation. The other is determined by its attractions as a week end or summer residence, depending on its location in the county, its view, and the age of its house. Land in Pawling is valuable for both farming and for estates, but its position near New York, with many fine old houses and beautiful views has caused its farms to bring prices far beyond their inherent value for farming. Among the lowest land values in the county is the central tier of towns, which have neither superior soil, nor accessible location for New Yorkers. Eventually they will be discovered, but in the mean time, their land retains its old standard of value. Milan and Clinton have the lowest prices, since their soil is usually below average, in addi tion to being poorly located to attract prospective residents. Rising land values, combined with a demand for better roads, have had far-reaching effects on farm failures. Those who have stayed on their farms have been faced with higher overhead expenses and higher taxes. Those who have sold their farms have even greater problems. Few people ever consider what happens to the farmer who has sold his farm to the New Yorker. We say, "The old farms are being sold," but we rarely think of this as a process of individual sales and subse quent individual problems. Lured by a little ready cash ($10,000 seems a huge sum to a man unaccustomed to handling much cash), 1" Sorokin, P. and Zimmerman, C. Principles of Rural-Urban Sociology, New York,

1929. pp. 6 I 7-621.

l seuenty-three ]

the farmer sells to the city people, vaguely expecting to live on the in come from the sale, and "pick up work" on the new "farm-estates" or on the town roads. He has not realized how small the income from the sale will be, especially if he sells with a mortgage. He does not know that unless he is fortunate enough to continue on his old farm as caretaker he will have difficulty in finding steady work on new non farm properties. Since the trend is increasing!y toward small plots of land, he will have difficulty in finding any but occasional work. If he is young enough, he may find work on a neighbor's farm. Most im portant of all, he has lost his economic security and independence. Having grown up among people who pride themselves on being self sufficient, the sudden dependence on the demands of an employer or the chances of irregular work have ser, ious effects upon his morale. The problem of the ex-farmer will become increasingly important 10 Dutchess County as the suburban influx increases. A question which occurs to anyone examining the influence of suburbanism on farm life is its effect upon farm equipment. Although it is difficult to draw the line between those improvements which result f.rom successful farming and those which are the result of urban ideas, it is interesting to find that in the town of Fishkill, urban ideas have caused the town to rank first in general equipment among the towns studied, even though its general standard of farm economy is not un usually high. In this case, however, old families have not been influ enced to install new equipment, but farms have been taken over by city newcomers. In the case of Pleasant Valley, where farmers come into constant contact with city ideas about plumbing and heating, the town ranks next to the lowest among the towns studied. In the mat ter of automobiles and water in the house, the towns of Pawling and Fishkill rank highest, even though their farms are located near enough to small villages to make walking possible. It seems fair to conclude, therefore, that urban ideas have had a slight influence upon those towns most subjected to suburbani·sm, but have not changed many of the old habits of farm life. A man will change his job when he expects more pay in the new one, but he will not change his way of living on a newcomer's advice. The influx of urban ideas is not restricted to personal contact with newcomers to the county. Besides the constant infiltration of city atti tudes and city consumer demands via the radio, the farmer reads New York newspapers. The New York Times and the New York Herald Tribune have approximately the same circulation out of village post[ seventy-four ]

offices, amounting in a town of 1,200 population, such as Pawling, to about ten each per day. However, these go only to the unusual farm family. Most farm families read a Poughkeepsie daily and Sunday paper, a farm journal, and either the New York Daily News or Jour nal, or the New York Sunday American. The Red Hook post office, which covers half of the town of Milan also, receives 40 copies of the New York Times, 13 New York Herald-Tribunes, 21 New York Americans, and 40 Daily News each day. There are also many farm ers who buy their New York papers at news stands when they bring in milk in the morning. The influence of such highly sophisticated literature on the entire farm family cannot be overestimated. Farm children are probably adopting more urban ideas than are their elders. They have no background of conservatism to counteract propaganda for a refrigerator in every home and housekeeping with out drudgery. In addition to this reading matter, they are going to school with occasional children of New York f�milies and absorbing urban attitudes from them. The influence of the suburban movement on Dutchess County as a whole cannot as yet be entirely determined. Farm families in highly suburbanized areas tend to have fewer children to move from place to place more often, and to install more equipment in their houses. Fig ures are not yet sufficiently complete to justify attributing such changes from the average farm life to the influx of non-farm families. Certain it is that such changes in size of families, mobility, and living standards are to be expected in the children of the present generation of farmers.

[ seventy-five ]

Chapter 8

Conclusions and Recommendations

S WE conclude our visit with the Dutchess County farmer, we may well ask ourselves, "What are his most pressing needs, and which of these can be the task of interested groups in the county?" We have seen that he is an intelligen.t farmer, often highly successful in dairying, apple growing, or poultry raising, probably native-born Dutchess County stock. We have heard him discuss his problems of supporting his family when overhead expenses are in creasing and produce prices are not; and his changing social life in a time of declining rural population. No study of this sort has fulfilled its purpose unless it points the way to positive action to ameliorate any problems it may discover. There are several groups in the county interested in such matters as zoning, welfare work, recreation, and other county improvement proj ects. There is one need brought out by this study which deserves im mediate action on the part of these groups. The Dutchess County Farm Bureau, cooperating with the State College of Agriculture, and State and Federal Departments of Agricul ture, is assisted by county funds to administer an educational program for the benefit of farmers and for the general improvement of agricul tural standards in the county. It has 1,056 members, amounting to 47 per cent of all the farms in the county. Its six directors make nearly two thousand.farm visits a year, advising farmers on individual prob lems, as well as holding meetings and sending out letters on timely issues. This Bureau has done much to improve the standards of county farming, and is invaluable to individual farmers. The 4-H Clubs, in connection with the Bureau supply a needed educational movement for farm children. But what of farm women and their problems? There is no agency in the county giuing assistance to farm women on their part of the management of the farm. If a farm is to be an efficient organization,

each section must operate with equal smoothness. The farmer has equipment and educational services to make his part as up-to-date as he can possibly afford. But his wife continues to use the poorest kind [ seventy-six J

of equipment, and to solve her constant problems by guess work, trial and error, or tradition. She frequently is very successful in operating her household in the face of great difficulties, but this success is achieved at the cost of spending twice the number of hours that the job really needs. It is a mistake to measure country equipment against city stand ards, for country standards and demands are very different from the city's dependence upon luxuries. However, there remains a minimum of equipment which every farm kitchen needs, just as there is a mini mum of equipment which even the poorest farm must have. No woman keeps house by intuition. She has collected a body of information on washing dishes, cleaning rugs, washing clothes, and cooking vegetables. The bulk of this information has been inherited from her mother and grandmother. In many cases the old methods are sound and useful. But in other cases they demand more time than the modern farm W?man wants to give. Many, many farm women in the course of this year's field work have asked for information on such subjects as new ways to cook vegetables, short cuts in baking, how to use extra milk, how to discipline small children, and the costs of in stalling a gasoline water pump. They are just as eager to modernize their part of the farm as their husbands are to find better fertilizer and to control Bang's disease. The solution to their problem is a Home Bureau in connection with the Farm Bureau, employing a county Home Demonstration Agent. Such a person would be trained for her job by a specialized course at Cornell, and would supply the same educational and practical service to farm women as the Farm Bureau supplies to their husbands. She would not only make visits to individual homes where assistance is requested, but she would hold meetings in the Grange or church on subjects of general interest. Dutchess County is one of the few coun ties lacking such a Bureau. Its neighbor, Ulster County, has had one for several years. It has been previously pointed out that few farm women have sufficient leisure to take part in many social activities. No recreation project in the county will begin to reach farm women until they have been helped to budget their time to allow for more free time. An even more important result of a Home Bureau will be better health for en tire farm families, and better training for farm children. These results cannot be effected in one or even two years. But the Home Bureau should be started immediately in order to produce results by 1940. Over-conservatism on an issue of such importance to Dutchess Coun[ seventy-seven ]

ty' s forgotten farm woman should not retard the fine progress the county is making in other social lines, as evidenced by its Health Asso ciation, and its parent education and recreation organizations. Of less immediate importance, but none the less influential in county improvement, is the matter of county zoning. Enough has been said concerning the increasing influx of New York suburbanites into the county to bring out the need for adequate provision for that large group which is not buying old farms. The example of Putnam County is a lesson to Dutchess in the dangers of insufficient zoning. Before the crowd arrives, not after, is the wise time to consider zoning. It is doubtful whether all of Dutchess will attract the hordes of small bungalow dwellers found near Sylvan Lake and Whaley Lake. But the erection of the Taconic Parkway will attract increasing numbers of summer residents, bringing gasoline stations, road houses, and hot dog stands in their wake. The examples of Pawling and Pine Plains, in their interest in town zoning, should spur the rest of the county to action on this matter. The problem of cooperation continues to present a real issue to all county farmers. Not one which can be attacked by outsiders, it should be given more consideration by such agencies as the Grange and the Farm Bureau. Throughout the history of the county, examples of farmer cooperation have been so rare as to be of historic importance. Until dairymen, and apple growers can band together for cooperative marketing, the county farmers will continue to be at the mercy of the middlemen. The increase in efficiency and price control following co operative marketing has been clearly indicated by the Mid-Hudson Egg Auction in Poughkeepsie, operated entirely by farmers, and rais ing the price of eggs bought by New York and Yonkers bidders. Apple growers are now being brought together by the new Apple Institute, an organization of eastern farmers, having 41 Dutchess County mem bers. When asked the reason for the lack of more cooperative market ing, farmers blame the inherent independence of the Dutchess County farmer. He trusts no one but himself. He will hire labor for as low a price as he can, regardless of previous group agreements. He will market his milk and apples where he can get the best price, regardless of the eventual effect on the market as a whole. He complains of high overhead expenses, when cooperative hiring and buying would cut them down. The G. L. F.13 has offered the only cooperat�ve buying rn Grange League Federation Exchange, Incorporated, a co-operative buying organ ization sponsored by the Grange, Dairymen's League, and Farm Bureau.

[ seventy-eight ]

of farm commodities in the county. It is to be hoped that the Grange will return to its old activity in farm matters and encourage more local cooperation between farmers, as a step to county-wide cooperation. The problem of social life for farm people will become increasingly important as the small hamlets die out, and the larger v�llages are forced to supply all the social life of the surrounding area. As has been point ed out, farm people have as full a social life as they desire. The point which does not satisfy them is its lack of variety. Cards, "portion suppers," and Grange socials form almost the entire program of rural social J:ife. If local agencies are to establish projects to enlarge the scope of their amusements, what are the factors which must be considered? 1. Farm women need variety as much as their husbands, and are, in many cases, too busy with housework to be able to enter into any new project. A recreation plan should include women as well as men and children. 2. A recreation project directed entirely for summer use would not reach the majority of farm families, as the summer is the busiest season on a farm. Winter recreation is serious! y needed, however. 3. Many farm families are uninterested in spending leisure time in open parks. They want a change from their working scenery. 4. The decline of small hamlets indicates that new projects should be located in the future social centers of rural areas. Social ties follow economic ties, therefore, farmers will soon be seeking more social life in the growing small towns. What sort of recreation project is indicated by these four factors? Certain!y the suggestion of more swimming pools in sections of the county like Clinton and Milan would be enthusiasically received by farm children. It is a question whether their mothers would benefit from the pools, or whether their fathers woud be able to drive them to distant pools except on Sunday afternoons. Such pools or natural lake developments should be located where they will be most used by farm families, not necessarily near cement roads or the new parkway. If Dutchess County establishes recreation parks more accessible to tour ists than to farmers, they will be crowded with visitors from West chester and Putnam Counties, to the exclusion of farm people. It has been suggested that any money to be spent would be wisely turned to helping churches in large villages to enlarge the scope of their recreation offerings. Since the churches and schools are already accept ed as the recreation centers of rural areas, perhaps more farm families would be reached by increasing their facilities than by setting up en[ seventy-nine ]

tirely new centers. It is certain that many towns need community centers. But until they are built, the present schools and churches will continue to shoulder the entire social burden of their localities. If they were helped to install better equipment, hire better moving pictures, and even employ part time social leaders, the leisure time of both vil lagers and farmers would be considerably enriched. Although the churches are more widely accepted as social centers than the schools, the practical difficulties of selecting a community church may render the schools better suited to this type of expansion. To build on the recreation structure already at hand seems more economically and psy chologically sound than to set up new units. The process of urbanization is rapid! y changing Dutchess County, not only economically but in the fiber of its long-established social life. From a farm economy in which every man raised enough prod ucts for his own family and traded a few extras for groceries, we have shifted to a market economy. Coinciding with increased specialization has come the abandonment of poor or inaccessible farms, or their sale to non-farming newcomers. Socially, the county is broadening its centers as its rural population decreases. The next twenty years will decide whether it remains the home of prosperous farmers and country loving estate owners from New York, or becomes a bustling, bill board-ridden outlet of metropolitan expansion. The Dutchess County farmer has been here for generations in his old house. We hope his descendants will live here for many years to come.

[ eighty ]

BIBLIOGRAPHY l. Bakkum, Glenn A., and Melvin, Bruce L., Social Relationships of Slateruil/e Springs-Brooktondale Area, New York, Ithaca, 1929.

Tompkins County,

2. Lamson, Genieve, A Study of Agricultural Populutions in Selected Vermont Towns, Burlington, Vermont, 1931. 3. Mooney, Charles, and Belden, H. L., Soil Suruey of Dutchess County, New York, Washington, 1909. 4. Platt, Edmund, The Eagle's History of Poughkeepsie, Poughkeep sie, 1905. 5. President's Research Committee on Social Trends, Recent Social Trends, New York, 1934. 6. Sanderson, Dwight, Social and Economic Areas of Broome County, New York, Ithaca, 1932. 7. Sorokin, P. and Zimmerman, C., Principles of Rural-Urban So ciology, New York, 1929. 8. United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Fourteenth Census of the United States, Volume III, Washing ton, 1921. Fifteenth Census of the United States, Population. Volume III, Agriculture, Volume 111. Washington, 1930, United Stales Census of Agriculture, 1935, New York, Wash ington, 1935, Report of 1935 Farm Census, Washington, 1935. 9. World Almanac, 1936, New York, 1935.

l eighty-one ]

QUESTIONNAIRE Name:. Bir,thplace of husband ........................ Birt, hplace of wife .................. ................ Number in farm family ................ ... Number of living children..

.. ...Location .

. .. Education: High school ....... college. . .... ....... Home farm

Previous residence..

Leng,th of operation of this farm.. Owned. ............ Employee-tenant ..........

....... Number of acres..

Name of owner..

.young stock... . .....swme ...........sheep

Number of cows.. chickens..

Renting

.. .... other livestock ..

Number of bearing apple trees.. ........grape vmes.. ..... peaches Where marketed: milk.

. ..eggs.. . ....

meat.. ... . . butter

vegetables .

.... apples. ..

.....grapes .............. .

clothes.. ....

..machinery...

nothing sold.. Where are groceries bought ...

Social connec.tions where . .. church ......movies.. ... meetings General condition of farm: house . . ...barns..

. ..machinery .

Equipment: Electricity . . . Telephone .. ....Water .......Furnace Automobile.. .. Radio .......No improvements but auto Extra equipment

[ eighty-two ]

•

D C H S | NY