AGRICULTURE - Deaf Farmers
DEAF FARMERS OF GEORGIA
A Special Report to the DiviaioD of VocatioDal EducatioD
By H. E. WOODRUFF Teacher of Agriculture Georgia School for the Deaf Cave Spring, Georgia

FOREWORD This report covers possibly the first occupat ional investigation of the deaf confined to a specific field ever undertaken. Ita narrowed confines, coupled with painstakinl( accuracy, tOl(ether with the unusual technique employed, all conspire in giving it certain definite values. The information contained therein should be of Keneral interest. It can be of specific value to those interested in improving the status of this particular segment of our farming group. Georgia beinl( an agricultural state, the school will find the study to be of invaluable aid in planninit a pro!!ram of "follow-up" work promotinl( the interest and welfare of the alumni scattered throulrhout the commonwealth.
C. H. Hollingsworth, Superintendent Georllia School for the Deaf
Printed at the Georgia School for the Deaf Print Shop Cave Spring, Georgia

DEAF FARMERS
OF GEORGIA
By H. E. ,WOODRUFF
A Special Report to the Division of Vocational Education
In August 1937 the writer was employed by the Georgia School for the Deaf to teach agriculture. As this was a new department at the school little was known about the attitude of the deaf toward farming or the number engaged in this occupation in the state. This report is an attempt to give some information regarding deaf farmers and to interpret some of their problems.
Early in 1938 a conference was held with the State Director of Vocational Education regarding the initiation of some program whereby the adult deaf farmers might be given some help. Before any program could be formulated it was necessary to learn as much as possible about their number, names, and locations, and something about their status. Little information was available from other states. From various. sources such as the Census Bureau and United States Office of Education it was learned that the deaf engage in agricultural pursuits to about the same percent as the total number of farmers prevail in the general population. Surveys in states and provinces in Canada showed farming near the top numerically, and in some cases at the top as an occupation for the deaf.
In Georgia the only information that could be found was in an old annual report of the school published in 1899. In that report the names of all former pupils were listed, with their occupations when known. In 110 cases there were 55 farmers, 17 shoemakers, 7 stonecutters, 6 teachers, 3 printers, 3 carpenters, and 19 in other specified occupations. Exactly one-half were farmers.
The first step to determine the present situation in Georgia was to initiate a survey of deaf farmers in the state. Questionnaires were printed and distributed to teachers of agriculture, county agents, Farm Security Administration supervisors, vocational rehabilitation workers, county departments of public welfare, and officers of the Georgia Association of the Deaf. Through these sources about 150 names were secured; however, information in most cases was very meager. Sometimes only name, address, and county were given; in others age, farm tenure, and other useful data.
During the winter of 1938-39 a WPA project ~as set up to make a census of all deaf for the State Department of Public Welfare. All information regarding farmers secured up to that time was made available for those in charite of this more

complete study. The WPA census was completed in 1939, listing 2358 deaf persons of all ages in the state. Of the adults 830 were employed, 241 coming under the heading "Farm Laborers and Operators", 29 percent of the total employed. Among other leading occupations of the deaf there were 40 in mechanical trades, 36 printers, 32 carpenters, and 29 shoe repairers. Among the adult male deaf, 38 percent of the white men and 29 percent of the colored were farmers.
Duplicate cards were made out on all farmers and others who might possibly be farmers and furnished the writer for study. In many cases a man might be farming in addition to the occupation under which he was listed, as shoe repairers, barbers, and others located in small communitiel owned or operated farms in addition to their resrolar trade. In some case~' those listed as "laborer" or "odd-jobs", where the address wal on a rural route, were considered as possible farm laborers. The addition of these names brought the total to 341 who were known to be, or presumed to be farmers. All names were checked against the school registers of former years to secure such additional information as might be available.
It is admitted that there are chances for error in this c1assifiation, but it is felt that any names that might be included wrongly would be offset by farmers who were not reached by either survey. Any discrepancy would be so small as to have little effect on the study. The last item in Table I indicates the number of doubtful status.

TABLE I

Deaf Farmers of Georgia by Race alld Tenure 1939

Landowners Tenants Croppers
Laborers Known to be
farmers but tenure unknown
Presumed to be Farmers

White 54 34 14 68
47
36

Colored 1 6
65
10
6

Totals

253

88

Total 55 40 14
133
67
42
341

A surprlsmg fact brought out is the large number of deaf landowners. Among all names listed 21.3 percent of all white farmers owned their farms. Eliminating those of unknown tenure, 32 percent came in this classification, while among farm operators, owners exceeded tenants and croppers combined. In many cases the size of the farms was not given, yet 34 white ownerl reported from 10 to 275 acres, an average of 92.2 acres per
-(4)-

TABLE II
Comparison of Deaf Farm Operators witla the Ceneral Popuation

WHITE

COLORED

TOTAL

--01
I

Owners Managers

Deaf 52.9%

ALL Farmers
42.1% .5

Deaf
.14.3%

ALL Farmers
14.42% .04

Deaf
.50.510

ALL Farmers
34.010 .4

Tenants and

Croppers

47.1

57.4

85.7

85.54

49.5

65.6

100.010 100.0% 100.0% 100.00% 100.0% 100.0%

farm. One colored farmer owned 60 acres. Laborers predominated among the colored and was the largest single classification among the white.

The percentage of deaf landowners compares favorably with the general population. The 1935
Census of Agriculture for Georgia shows that 42 percent of the white farmers and 14 percent of colored were landowners. The Census Bureau
considers a farmer to be an owner, a manager, tenant, or cropper. Laborers are not included.

The apparently good showing of deaf farmers
in Table II is offset by the large number of laborers. In the state there were 37 hired laborers, other than members of families, to every 100
farms. Among the white deaf there were 67 laborers to every 100 farms, and among all deaf there were 122 to 100. Although not directly
comparable in some minor details, this information gives us a broad basis for comparing deaf with hearing farmers. More deaf will remain farm
laborers than if they had not suffered this handicap, yet if they rise above this lower rung of the agri-
cultural ladder they have an equal chance of becoming landowners. The deaf owner has fewer acres, averaging 91.3 acres each as compared with
297 acres for all landowners in the state. This gives us one clue to his problem. His farm is usually a one-family unit. He does not have an
extensive organization of tenants and croppers.

The WPA Census included questions to determine the means of support, whether by own earnings, relatives, other sources, or a combination
of these. Deaf farmers compared favorably with other deaf as shown by Table III. Where help was
received by deaf farmers this was obtained from relatives in 109 cases and from outside sources by
23 farmers.

TABLE III

Mean. of Support
Deaf Farmers

All Deaf 20 to 65
years of age

Own earnings Own earnings and
other sources
Other sources entirely

56.0%
29.2 14.8

37.6%
14.6 47.8

100.0%

100.0%

In the normal progression up the agricultural ladder the young man starts off as a hired laborer,
then progresses through the stages of Share-cropper, tenant, and possibly manager, to that of owner. This is evidently also true with the deaf. Among the younger men most were farm laborers
and there were practically no owners. Thia tended toward the reverse as they became older.

-(6)-

TABLE IV

Status of White Deaf Farmers by Age Croups

--~
I

20-29

No.

%

Owners

1

2.9

Tenants and

Croppers 6 17.1

30-39

No.

%

6 23.1

7 26.9

40-49

No.

%

12 34.3

10 28.6

60-69

No.

%

14 46.7

7 23.3

Over 60
No. %
19 61.4 13 36.1

Laborers

28 80.0

13 60.0

13 37.1

9 30.0

5 13.6

Totals

35 100.0

26 100.0

35 100.0

30 100.0

37 100.0

The census cards showed county of birth and present residence, giving an opportunity to make a study of migration among the deaf. It i. surpri.ing to note that laborers are more stable than other groups. One possible explanation is that thi. group includes those who were classed as "backward pupils" in school. When they go home they remain on farms of relatives where they can have guidance throughout life. Due to the fact that county lines have varied greatly in Georgia during the past few decades, those now living in a county adjoining that of birth are listed as an intermediate group. See Table V.
An attempt was made to ascertain the extent that those not in the landowner class were dependent on relatives for guidance. The limited information received indicates that the lower down the agricultural ladder the more dependent on relatives. As a basis for comparison the 1930 agricultural census showed that 12.6 percent of all tenants and croppers in the state were related to the owners of the farms on which they worked. Table VI.
The age that deafness occurs has an important bearing on the progress a pupil is expected to make in school. This also has a great influence on his chance of becoming a landowner, or other type of farm operator. Of those born deaf 19 became owners and 43 laborers. On the other hand when deafness occurred after reaching the age of twenty, 16 became owners and only 6 laborers. Table VII.
As stated previously many listed two occupations. In most cases these were men who worked in small towns and did some farming in addition. Thirty-nine come in this group including 15 carVE'nters, 5 shoe repairers, 3 saWilllill workers, 3 barbers, 2 teachers, and 4 employed part time by the WPA.
In 51 cases the vocational training received in school was reported including 19 with carpenter training, 17 shoe repairing, 6 in farming, and 9 in miscellaneous classifications. Of the farmers who were trained for other lines and still engaged in those occupations there are 8 carpenters, 4 shoe repairers, and 1 barber. Carpentering seems to offer the best possibilites as a supplement to farming. Training in woodwork is also very helpful to him on the farm. This information indicates to the writer that an opportunity is offered vocational teachers in schools for the deaf to work out a program planned to fit the boy for more than one occupation. If his home is going to be in a small town poultry, some vegetables, or even field crops, would help him produce his own food and give some added income. The boy who will go back to the farm can be helped by spending part of hi. vocational time in the carpenter shop, machine shop, and by getting some experience in leatherwork in the shoe shop.
-(8)-

TABLE V
Migration nf Deaf Farmers Present Residence Compared with County of Birth

--CD
I

Same County

No.

%

Owners

24 49.0

Tenants and Croppers 13 39.4

Adjoining County

No.

%

8 16.3 6 18.2

Other Counties

No.

%

17 34.7 14 42.4

Total

No.

%

49 100.0 33 100.0

Laborers

45 66.2

10 14.7

13 19.1

68 100.0

All White Farmers 125 57.3

Colored Farmers

65 74.7

35 16.1 18 20.7

58 26.6

4

4.6

218 100.0 87 100.0

All Farmers

190 62.3

53 17.4

62 20.3

305 100.0

TABLE VI

Relation.bip of Landowner to White Deaf Farmen

Parent Father-in-Law

...
I'::
'"I'::
CI)
Eo<

...
CI)
Q, Q,
.0..
0

..C..I..)
0 ,Q
j

~

0

...E"'I~'::
~

00

0
Z

';
0
Eo<

2 2 9 3 16

2

2

Foster Father Brother or Sister

21

1

1

8

Brother-in-Law

1

1

Son

1

1

Son-in-La", Nephew
Cousin

1

1

1

1

1

1

Total Related

5 6 12 4 27

Total not Related 20 6 1

27

TABLE VII Ale D.afn Occ.red for Whit. Farmera

..::

lQ

0)

.0..).

0
~ ...

~
~

....

to

0,.....

>Cl 0

Owners

19

6

2

Tenants

and Croppers 18

6

Laborers

43 14

1

Status not

given

29 13

2

7 16

1

6

3

6

4. 21

White Colored

109 39

52

7

/j 6 15 4.9

1

91

Total

161 46

6 24 65

SPECIAL REPORTS A special farm questionnaire was furnished the enumerators who made the WPA census. Many of the workers filled in this form carefully
while others ignored it. Where filled in much information could be obtained regarding the farmer. The remaining discussion is based on these returns which unfortunately were not made in enough. cases to make definite conclusions, but certain trends can be seen. In all, 53 of these special forms were returned distributed as shown in
Table VIII. TABLE VIII
Number Special Farm Questionnarea Returned

Landowners Tenants Croppers Laborers
I
Totals

White 28 11 6
2
4.7
-(10)-

Colored
1 5

Total 29 16 6
2

6

63

In order to determine the ability of deaf farmers to secure adequate financing they were
asked to list sources of loans or other financial aid with several possible sources to be checked. Landowners in most cases were able to secure financial assistance from private sources indicating them to
be good credit risks. Others relied principally on aid of various Federal agencies.

TABLE IX

Sources of Financial Aid Recei.,ed by Deaf farmers

'~ ~"'
0

-l':
til l': Q)
Eo<

~ '~ "'
~

~Q)
ccs~

0
0'"'

~-..s<:::

"0
~
'0"'
'0
0

-iii
0
Eo<

Merchant Banks Fertilizer
Dealers

51 91
12 1

617 10 1 11

13

13

Total Private

Sources

26 3

29 2 81

Dep. Pub.

Welfare

1214

4

W.P.A.

11

2

2

C.C.C

112

2

F.S.A.

4217

7

Seed Loan

2

2

2

*Cotton Loan

11

1

*Surplus Commodity

1

1

Total Government

Sources

6 8 4 18 1 19

Total Private and Gov't. 32 11 4 47 3 50
Duplications 15 3 1 19 1 20

Net Number 17 8 3 28 2 *Not listed on Questionnaire-Written in.

Much helpful technical information is available to hearing farmers through Government bulletins and by personal contact with workers in various agencies. It is very doubtful if the deaf farmer benefits to the same extent. Through no fault of their own agricultural workers may find it difficult to get their message over to the deaf.
Next to the county agent, deaf farmers list farm papers as the best source of information as shown in Table X. This is a source that they can used without the same degree of handicap. Tables XI and XII go into more detail on this phase. No colored farmers reported reading farm papers.
Many were cooperating in one or more of the various Federal Crop Control program. It is probable that more were enrolled in these programs than listed them on the questionnaire. As shown later more information is needed by these farmers on this phase of their activities.
-(11)-

TABLE X

Source. of Adyice and Informatie. RecoiYM

...
IsP::
~
0

..
s::
's"::
IP
Eo<

...
IP
A
.0A..
0

(..;..~c:: ~~

.."CI
.IP.. ';

0
'0
0

0
Eo<

County Agent

16 8 1 25 1 26

A~iculture

eacher

2

2

2

Farm Sec. Adm. 1 1

2

2

Farm Papers

11 3 3 17

17

*Other Farmers Landowner

221516 33

County Com-

mitteeman

11

Totals

32 14 5 51 6 57

Not listed on QueStionnaire-Written in.

TABLE XI Farm Papera Receiyed by Deaf Farmer.

Owners Tenants Croppers Laborers

Number
R~=ng
Papers
16 5 6 1

Number Peri,D<Ucalll Reported
21 7 7 2

28

37

TABLE XII

Name. of Publication. Receiyed

Progressive Farmer . . . . 12

Southern Agriculturist . . .10

Market Bulletin .. '" 4

Country Home . . . .

2

Country Gentleman .

.1

Southern Farmer . . .

1

Daily papers . . . . .. 2

County paper . . . . "

.1

An attempt was made to determine what problems were recognized as such by asking: "What farm problem would you like to learn more about?" and listing several to be checked. A good response was received which should be of value in workine out a program.
-(12)-

More white landowners want additional information on the crop control programs than any other item. No doubt committeemen and county
agents find it very difficult to explain these complicated programs to deaf farmers with their 6peech and language handicap. Cotton, hogs, poultry, and vegetables were farm enterprises
that evidently present 'themselves favorably to the
deaf as substantial numbers feel the need of additional information along those lines.

TABLE XIII

De.f F.rmera Enrolled in A. A. A. Prol'r....

..
J.< <II
~
0

+'a>"::
<a:I:I

'"J.<
<I>

Po Po 0

.... :E+<>II

<II ~

J.< C,j

<~

'0 <II J.< 0
'0
Q

;;
~
0 ~

Cotton

23 11 4 38 2 40

Tobacco

15

1 2 18

18

Peanuts

1

11

3

3

Pimentos

1

1

1

Totals

40 13 7 60 2 62

Duplications 16

2 2 20

20

Net

24 11 5 40 2 42

Not listed on Questionnaire-Written in.

TABLE XIV Problema Recoll'nized by Df F.rm.ra

J.<
<aI:>:
~
0

Cotton 13

Hogs

14

Poultry 13

AAA

Programs 15

Vege-

tables

10

Canning 7

Dairying 4

Fruit

3

Gov't farms

Peaches 1

*Pecans

1

+> J::
<a:I:I
<II ~

J.<

J.<

<II
Po Po 0
J.< Q

<II J.< 0 .0 <II
H

]2
~~

'0

<II J.< 0
'0

;;
+> 0

Q

~

6 1 1 21 5 26 7 2 1 24 2 26 4 3 1 21 2 23

32

20 1 21

51

16 1 17

1819

3

729

314

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

81 28 10 4 123 15 138 -Not listed on Questionnaire-Written in.

-(13)-

TABLE XV

Crops Reported by Deaf Farmera

Number

Average

Reporting Acres Acres per

Acreage Reported Farm

Cotton ConI Tobacco Peanut. Vegetables Sugar Cane
Watermelons
Sweet Potatoes Irish Potatoes Orchards Pecans
Peaches
Oats
Wheat Pasture
Woodland

40

364

9.1

47

865

18.4

17

62

3.6

30

R64

12.1

36

55

1.5

20

15

.75

18

24

1.3

35

43

1.2

14

13

.9

8

10

1.25

8

28

3.5

6

3

.5

13

65

5.0

2

10

5.0

19

467

24.6

18

508

28.2

TABLE XVI
LiYeatock Reported

Mules Horses
Milk Cows Other Cattle
Brood Sows Other Hogs Poultry

.~:l.Sell.!<<..:>

St:.3

::
Z

l

o~.W~

~H

40 5
33 11 30 36 40

70
6 101
53 70 333 2313

QI
~,-,S
'~-'QpI.'-~'
<
1.75 1.2 3.1 4.8 2.3 9.25 57.8

QI
ell

~'-'

l::S

~.~ ::l

Z

1-8 1-2 1-18 1-16 1-6 1-35 4-900

-(14)-

SUMMARY From a study of the information obtained from the two surveys we find that the deaf do engage in farming in Georgia in greater numbers than any other occupation. A large percent stay in the farm laborer group, but many advance to become farm operators and even farm owners. Those who own their farms usually have small one-family units. Deaf farmers are doubtless handicapped by their lack of language comprehension and difficulties of communication. They recognize certain problems on which they need help in solving, a need that cannot be met by existing agencies in their communities.' The 341 farmers are located in 124 counties, 253 white farmers in 106 and 88 colored in 46 counties. Colquitt leads with 18 and Lowndes comes second with 12. Fifteen other countries have five or more. Some of these findings would likely be altered by personal contact.
RECOMMENDATIONS A program of cooperation could be carried out by personal visits, by short courses held at convenient points, or a combination of these and other methods. The ideal place to start is in Colquitt, Lowndes, and Cook counties where the greatest concentration is found. Farm operators could be given assistance in understanding the A. A. A. programs. All could be given training in specialized farm jobs such as canning, culling poultry, controlling swine parisites, etc.
A program of this nature would also furnish an oppportunity to follow up students who leave school and return to the farm. The normal boy who completes his four years as a student in allday classes in agriculture still has guidance after leaving school. The deaf needs this continued help from someone who understands the problem peculiar to him.
The writer recommends that a start be made at once on this program. Work will at first be largely exploratory and any program subject to revision from time to time.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The statistical information contained in this report ia, to a ereat extent, based on data furnished by Thoa. W. Anderson, State Superviaor, Georgia Survey of the Deaf. Thia survey was conducted by the Works Progress Administration of Georgia in 1939.
-(15)-

L
\~ ~ l\~ ~ II\\1 IIIII 11111 II11111\"II III 11111\ \ \\11\111\ \II
3 2108 05828 4954