NORTHEAST GEORGIA - University System of Georgia

ECONOMIC STUDY
of
NORTHEAST GEORGIA
Prepared For
Northeast Georgia Development
and Planning Association
and
The Agricultural and industrial
Development Board of Georgia
State ....
Engineering
Experiment
Station . . .
Georgia
Indutrul . .
. . Econ<
Re*earcb
Special t*port No. 21
Me* $4
Industrial Economic Research Staff
State Engineering Experiment Station
Georgia School of Technology, Atlanta
April, 1946

The State Engineering Experiment Station of the Georgia School of
Technology is the engineering and industrial research agency of the Uni
versity System of Georgia. It serves to coordinate and advance research
activities of the School through an integrated program of fundamental and
applied research and development, for the purpose of contributing to the
general welfare of the State. It is organized to aid directly in the de
velopment and integration of industrial and agricultural activities and
better utilization of resources in the South through its investigations
and technological studies.
The affairs of the Station are administered by the Director with the
counsel of the Faculty Advisory Council Consisting of Faculty members ap
pointed from the faculties of the Georgia School of Technology and other
units of the University System of Georgia. The Staff is made up of a Di
rector, Assistant Director, full-time Research Fellows, Assistants and
Consultants, Faculty Associates and Research Graduate and Technical As
sistants.
Faculty members are encouraged to engage in scientific research along
with their teaching duties. These men have at their disposal a variety of
special research equipment and facilities in the Station, as well as the
regular equipment available to them in the various departments of the
School.
To make the results of its scientific investigations available to the
public, the State Engineering Experiment Station publishes and distributes
technical Bulletins. It also publishes circulars- of timely interest, pre
senting information of importance, compiled from various sources, and not
otherwise readily accessible to the public and the engineering profession,
and reprints of articles written by members of the staff appearing in
technical periodicals.
For copies of publications or for other information address:
Gerald A. Rosselot, Director,
The State Engineering Experiment Station,
Georgia School of Technology,
Atlanta, Georgia.
--II

Table of Contents
Page
Index of Tables .................. Iv-v
Preface. .................... vi-x
Northeast Georgia Area. ................ 1-2
Sistory. ..................... 3-6
Weather. .............. ....... 7-11
Housing. .................... 12-20
Population. ................... 2I-2k
»
Labor Force ................... 25-38
Income ..................... 39-hh
Tourist and Recreation. ............... It5-50
Industries. ................... 51-153
Introduction .................. 51-55
Power. .................... 56-62
Mineral Industries ................ 63-72
Refractories .................. 73-81 .
Brick and Tile. ................. 62-90 "
Glass and Sand. ................ 91-100
Forest Industries. ............... 101-lli2
Timber. .................. 101-139
Paper ...................
Handcraft ..................
Plastics. ..................
Clothjoig. .................. 1U6-1U9
Agricultural Industries.............. 150-153
Taxes .................... 15^-158
Water .................... 159-167
Agriculture .................. 168-251
Agricultural Summary. .............. 168-17U
County Income Classification ............ 175-193
Agricultural Characteristics ........."... 19l»-227
Livestock .................. 228-251
County Sunmaries. ................ 252-280
Hi

Index of Tables
Table Title Page Table
Weather
W-l Average Maximum Temperature 9 U-h
W-la Highest Temperature 8
K-Z Average Minimum Temperature 9 M-5
W-2a Lowest Temperatures 8 M-6
IT-3 Average Growing Season
W-U Average Days with 0.01 Inches
W-5
W-6
H-l
H-2
H-3
E-k
P-l
P-2
P-3
P-k
P-5
or More Precipitation 10
Average Precipitation Average Snowfall 11
10
Housing
Dwellings by Race, Ownership
and Population Type 12-llj
Kunfcer of Dwelling Units 16-17
Dwellings by Tear Built,
State of Repair 18-19
Ewslling Urits, Households 17
Population
Population by Race and Sex 23
Rural Fam Population 2li
lion-Farm Population 2:
Rural Kon-Fara Population 2!
War Changes in population 21
Labor Force
L-l Labor Force Summary 25
L-2 Agricultural Labor Force 26
L-3 Industrial Labor Force 27
L-li Labor Force, 19l|0 29
L-5 Unite Labor Force 30
L-6 Kon-ffhite Labor Force 37
L-7 19l

Table Title
T-l
T-2
fi-lt
G-5
A-l
A-la
A-lt
A-lta
A-57
A-2
A-2a
A-3
A-3b
A-3c
A-S5
A-Lia
A-5
A-6
A-7
A-3
A-Ga
A-9
A-9a
A-10
A-n
A-12
A-13
A-llt
A-15
Taxes
State and County Tax Rates l51j
Typical Balance Sheets 155-158
Water
Minimum Stream Flow l6l
River Gaging Stations 162-161;
Agricultural Summary
Summary, 1920, 1930,
191tO 170-172
Man Labor Maeda 173
Land Use 169
Land Use Averages 168
Farm Acreages 19l|0-19l»5 163
County Income Classification
Farms 1in Georgia by Income
and Size Segments 176
Georgia Income-Size Ratios 177
Income, Size-of-Farm Seg
ments, Income-Size
Ratios 181-182
Humber of Farms by Income,
3ize-of-Farm Segments l83-l8ii
Comparison with Georgia 185
Minimum Levels Which Will
Absorb AH Tenant Faras ISO
Agricultural Characteristics
Land Use Averages 221
Number and Size of Farms 228
Value of Farms 229
Autos, Trucks and Tractors 230
Average Value of All Prod
ucts 203
Number-Income Ratios of
Farms 19U
Consumption Farm Products 212
Consumption on Fants with
Production of $250 or Less 211j
Total and Average Value of
Products 195-196
Acreage Operated by Owners 222
Farms Operated by Tenants 221
Number of Farms by Grpups 20lt
Subsistence Farm Produc
tion 215-220
Total Value of Products 223
Page Table Title Page
Characteristics (cont©d)
A-37 saies 01 vege^aoleo PIT
A-37a Vslue of Vegetables 208
A-lil Farm Wages© 226
A.-56 Orchards 198-200
A-59 Poultry 201
A-6C Fruits and Nuts 207
A-61 Farm Groups and Types 205
A-62 Farm Operators Not Fanners 212
A-63 Products Consumed 22U-225
A-61i Tractors on Non-
Subsistence Fanns 223
A-65 Work off Farm 227
A-66 Cropland Adapted, Available
and Devoted to Vegetables 209
A-67 Acreage and Production of
Vegetables 208
A-68 Vegetables Sold to Various
Type Buyers 210
A-16
A-17
A-18
A-19
A-2C
A-21
A-22
A-2U
A-25
A-26
A-27
A-28
A-28&
A-29
A-30
A-31
A-32
A-33
A-3U
A-35
A-36
A-39
A-ltf
A-50
A-69
Livestock
Acreage Per Ar.imal Unit 21*0
AnJjnal Unit Distribution 2ijl
Animal Unit Percentage 2ld
19iiO Feed Requirements 235
Corn Equivalents 238-239
Maximum Aniical Units 2UO
Annual Feed Requirements 236
Effect of Improved Practice 237
Forage Crop Yields 236
Hay Production and Sug
gested Increases 2h2
Suggested Realisation of
Grain Acreage 2ii3
Livestock and Dairy Sales 2liU
Counties with Highest Dairy
or Livestock Income 250
Livestock Sold and Traded 2Ui
Bairy Products Sold 22»7
Number of Cows and Heifers 233
Per Cent Cows and Heifers 233
Value Dairy Products 2U

Preface
The Economic Study of Northeast Georgia is the seventh re
port; in a. series of similar studies prepared by the Industrial
Economic Research Staff of the State Engineering Experiment
Station at the Georgia School of Technology.
Statt ....
Experiment
Scit©um . . .
ladnitiul . .
. . Economic
Racarcb . .
As has been pointed out in previous reports, "the prosperity of
Georgia is simply the sum of the various local ©prosperities© which exist
in the several sections of the state." Each local prosperity is depen
dent on the way the hunan and natural resources which exist are utilized.
The succeeding chapters present an evaluation of the facts about these
human and natural resources. The future of the Northeast Georgia Aroa
depends on what forms of action the people living in the sixteen counties
take for the economic utilization of these resources.
Despite the unsettled national labor conditions of the moment there
is every reason to expect that the postwar period gives promise of con
tinuing the high productive pattern with which the United States has
Brazed the world. By V-B Day, partial reconversion of industrial opera
tions had begun not only in Georgia, but elsewhere. It may be expected
to continue in Georgia and the Southeast more rapidly than elsewhere,
since the number of job changes to be made is less than in some other
areas, either as a total or relatively. The volume of goods produced
may not be as large immediately as pent-up consumer demand will seem
to require nor as available savings could pay for, but, in general,
the Southeast is in a favorable position to increase its productive
service to the nation. Manufacturing in Georgia appears to be on the
way to levels equal to or above those attained during the war emergency.
The Northeast Georgia Area has long been the source of much of the
hydro-electric power in Georgia. The Savannah river development is
contiguous and will largely increase the power available at low cost. The
Southeast has for years had a power rate situation more favoradle than
the United States average, and manufacturers in the Southeast have used
core power per wage-earner than the average for the United States.
The expansion of automobile assembly and manufacture in the Atlanta
area, the class-rate decision of the Interstate Commerce Commission and
the authorization by Congress of the development of the Savannah river
and the Coosa river are all factors in this view with respect to Georgia.
The simplification of class freight rates which will result from
the Interstate Commerce .Commission decision will very largely expand
the area over which Georgia manufacturers will have either an advantage
or parity in shipping costs. Litigation will doubtless delay this ef
fect, but, ultimately rates may be expected which will have this re
sult.
The power and freight rate factors mentioned were contributory to
the recent decisions of major automotive manufacturers to expand their"
assembly and manufacturing operations in Atlanta. This in turn creates
numerous opportunities for the establishment in the Northeast Georgia
Area of parts manufacturing plants to serve this expansion.
The foregoing points are stressed because they Illustrate the oper
ation of the econoric process.
Vi

Since, as already pointed out, the State economy is merely
the suit of local economies (and the national economy, the sum
of state economies), decisions in the Northeast Georgia Area to
a»nufacture or not to manufacture, to produce or not to produce,|
are the keys to the prosperity of the postwar period and to the
planning which it requires.
Manufacturing employment in Georgia rose to almost twice
the 1939 level during the war period; manufacturing payrolls about
tripled, as shown by the following data on manufacturing:
Comparison of Manufacturing Bnployroent
and Payrolls from 1939~"to"
T944 Covered by Unemployment
Insurance
Number of Workers
Wages Paid
Sun ....
Engineering
Experiment
Sution . . .
Cnrgia
Tec*
Indutrul . .
. . Economic
Reieanb .
fear
Average
Number
Qnployed
Total
Payrolls
Average
Per
Bnployee
1939
1940
1941
1942
1943
1944
183,000
192,000
231 ,000
258,000
297,000
301 ,000
$150,259,000
161,550,000
224,688,000
300,953,000
440,316,000
509,738,000
$ 821
841
973
1,166
1,483
1,693
Source: Georgia Labor Depart
ment, Unemployment Division. The
data include only firms engaged in
nanufacturing and covered by unem
ployment insurance (8 or more ©em
ployees).
1939 19U1 191*2 19W 19UU
So far as Georgia is concerned, trends of long standing indicate that
the growth shown in the preceding table may be expected to continue. Be
tween 1919 and 1939 manufacturing employment increased from 1.36 per cent
of the national total to 2.0 per cent. The relative position of wage pay-
Bents in manufacturing over the. same period rose from 0.96 per cent of the
national total to 1.19 per cent.
Requirements of Planning; The basic problem of all postwar planning
is to make possible the continuation of production for peace st a rate
which closely approaches what has been done for war.
The requirements for success in such planning are three:
1. A study of the problems
2. A decision concerning actions
3. Prompt action in each individual situation when the
proper time comes
Purpose of Study: The unbiased examination of the various factors
which will have a part in the economic growth of the Northeast Georgia
Area is the object of this study. Every effort has been made to pro-
Tide as complete information as possible so that the citizens of the
northeast Georgia Area and others who are interested in establishing
enterprises may haxe a hasis for decision.

How to Use Report; The report should be regarded as a
source of information ajid ideas. Its value lies in the gather
ing together of facts and in their presentation in a form which
it is hoped will stimulate thinking on the part of those who
read it. Only the facts and general conclusions can be pre
sented; the individual must make his own decisions about fur
ther industrial development of the Northeast Georgia Area and
about particular situations.
State ....
Engineering
Experiment
Station ...
Grorp©n
Ttd,
bdnftrii! . .
. . Economic
Retcatch . .
Market Research Needed: The expanding Georgia and Southeastern m«rkets
which may be expected to result from the postwar expansion of indus
try in Georgia and the Southeast will serve to emphasize the importance
and general necessity of marketing plans and research as an integral part
of each new industrial enterprise.
People Just do not buy merchandise simply because it is manufactured.
First and foremost, of course, the product must be one for which there is
some consumer demand. This demand is for the product itself, not neces
sarily for the brand made by a particular manufacturer. This demand, how
ever, is not of itself, sufficient. The consumer must acquire by some
meats not only a desire to satisfy this latent demand but a desire to buy
the particular variety of the wanted product made by some one manufactures
© Marketing research can generally be depended upon to determine
whether or not there is a potential market in general which the manufac
turer has an opportunity for satisfying. The size of this potential mar
ket can be measured. The problem of developing desire on the part of a
sufficient nunber of consumers for the variety of the product produced by
a particular manufacturer is, generally speaking, dependent on the adver
tising and other sales efforts employed.
One of the early steps in developing any new industry is, therefore,
the working out in detail of a sales plan. As already suggested, this
should be based on a careful study of the market. The services of a com
petent advertising agency should generally be secured to make this market
study and help develop the sales plan. Failure to provide for a detailed
and adequate study of the market will frequently cause the enterprise to
fail.
Management Skill Essential; The quality of the management usually
determines the success or failure of an enterprise. In this connection
it cannot be stressed too strongly that the basic element in developing
industries is that of the people concerned. The personalities of the
management, the extent and limitations of their technical knowledge, the
habits and standards of living of the workers, as well as the likes and
dislikes and desires of ultimate consumer, all enter into this calcula
tion.
In general, managerial genius is not required for industrial success.
The exception is in the case of the extremely large enterprise of which
the national economy contains only a relatively small number. Hhat is re
quired for the vast majority of profitable and useful industrial plants
for which Georgia and the Northeast Georgia Area offer opportunity is
management with a combination of qualities somewhat above average.
Quality Paramount; New industrial enterprises in the Area will,
in general, find their problems fewer if they start out with the intention
and desire of making their product the best of its kind. IBiile in many
cases, the "perfect" product may entail costs which limit the market, the
vlli

problem ©is always easier if at the price level selected the
plan is to make the product the "best to be had" for a dime, a
dollar, or "whatever the price*
Design Important: Hew products must be attractive if they
are to niove readily in the retail market. The intrinsic qual
ity must not only be built into the product, but the shape and
color must be pleasing. This usually calls for the service of
a professional artist or designer.
Stite ....
Engineering
Experiment
Station . . .
InduKriil . .
. . Economic
Retuich . .
The Industrial Motive; The general assumption that the dominant in
terest of management is primarily determined by the profit motive is by no
means universally true. It is true that profits are essential to the suc
cessful conduct of an industrial enterprise, but the aesthetic pleasure
derived from producing a superior product, the ©social satisfaction of pro
viding goods and services useful to other members of the community, and
providing employment are just as often the dominating principle.
Sources of Information; In the development of this study, informa
tion Eas been~"d~rawn from many sources. This is Indicated by appropriate
footnotes. In the interest of brevity, data taken from the reports of the
Bureau of the Census, since it is a frequent source, are indicated by
exact reference only when presented in tabulated form. The Division of
Mines, Mining, and Geology; the Forestry Division, and other units in the
Georgia Department of Natural Resources: the College of Agriculture at the
University of Georgia; the county agricultural agents of the various
counties; and the Highway Board of Georgia have provided much useful data.
Arrangement of Report; The general arrangement of this report is
that of a series o separate reports dealing with the major subjects such
as Weather, Population, labor Force, Agriculture, Industry, Geology, and
the like. Agriculture and Industry are broken down beyond this into subreports
dealing with particular phases of each subject. In every case an
effort has been made to make each major or sub-section as nearly complete
within itself as possiole i©n order to reduce the necessity for a reader
turning back and forth from one section to another.
All tables are numbered by major sections. In each section, the
table numoer for a particular set of data is the same in the Northeast
Georgia Report and reports for other areas in the series. This means that
soae table numbers are missing since they deal with suojects not particu
larly related to the Northeast Georgia Area. Footnotes are numbered consecu
tively within major sections. In general, graphs and maps are numbered
to correspond with the tables which they illustrate. Graphs and naps which
are not directly associated with tables are given Roman numerals. Wherever
possible geology material is included in the industrial section in associa
tion with the industries for which the minerals or earths being discussed
are used as raw materials.
Acknowledgements; The Agricultural and Industrial Development Board
of Georgia has provided additional personnel, and this has aided in in
creasing the scope of the report. Captain Garland Peyton, Director,
Department of Mines, Mining, and Geology, has made possible the section
on Water Resources prepared by M. T. Thomson, District Engineer, S- M.
Eerrick, Assistant Geologist, and W. L. Lamar, Associate chemist, of the
later Resources Branch, U. S. Geological Survey. The State Department of
labor co-operated by making scarce tabulating machine equipment availa&le.

Staff; The staff members who have contributed to the work
of preparing this report are Itrs. Bessie Cheek, statistical as
sistant; Mr. H. A. Woodward, and Hiss ©Rebecca Christian, edi
torial assistants.
Staff Consultants; Kueh of the geologic information used
was developed by Professor Axthur C. Itunyan, graciously made
Sutt....
Enfintfriiii
Expectant
Sutkm . . .
Grorpia
Ttcft
Indutriil . .
. . Econonk
Racarcb . .
available by Emory University. The return of Dr. Lane llitchell, _______
head of the Department of Ceramic Engineering, and of Charles Wysong, as
sistant professor of ceramic engineering, from the Navy, made them avail
able for discussion of tJie sections on Brick and Tile and Refractories.
Frank F. King and Major John IT. Firor, Sr., Agricultural Economists at th»
College of Agriculture, University of Georgia, have expanded the statis
tical analysis developed in previous reports in this series in order to
provide a more complete evaluation of the factors which contribute to
fam prosperity in the northeast Georgia Area. The tax section is based
on preliminary figures from the state wide study being carried on by G.N.
Sisk, Assistant Professor of Economics, Georgia School of Technology.
Dr. Paul Weber, Professor of Chemical Engineering, has participated in
numerous conferences on industrial problems.
Editorial Review: The Editorial Board consisted of Dr. Gerald A.
Eosselot, Director of the State Engineering Experiment Station; Dr. Paul
Weber, Assistant Director of the Station and Chairman of the Station©s
publication committee; E. H. IVeil, Chief, Division of Technical Informa
tion; and Professor E. E. Dennison, Director of Industrial Economic
Research.
Joseph B. Hosmer
Industrial Economist and Xditoi

Area
The Northeast Georgia Area oomprisea sixteen counties in
the extreme northeastern corner of the* state. The 1940 popu
lation of the Area was 197,873, and the largest city, Gainesrille,
had a population of 10,243. With adjoining Chicopee,
Gaines Cotton Mill,and Dew Holland, there was a compact concen
tration of 14,457 people around Gainesville.
Sat. ....
EafiaminB
ExperimiBt
StltioB . . .
Graryu
r«*
Iiuhttrial . .
. . Eccaoak
Rncarcb . .
Tocooa, with a 1940 population of 5,494, is the next largest city.
Winder, 3,974; Commerce, 3,294; and Hartwell, 2,372, are other important
centers. The location of all county seats and towns and cities of orer
500 are shown on the map on page 2. The 1940 populations of these cities
were i
County
County
. Seat
1940
Popu
lation
Towns Over 500
1940
Popu-
TatTon
Banks
Homer
283
Ibysrille
614
Barrow
Winder
3,974
Statham
605
Daws on
Dawsonville
319
Forsyth
Cumffling
958
Franklin
Carnesville
361
Laronia
Royston
1,667
1,549
Habersham
Clarkesville
850
Cornelia
Demo rest
Habersham
1,808
820
696
Hall
Gainesrille
10,243
Chioopee
Gaines Cotton Mill
Wirrayrille
New Holland
Flowery Branch
920
1,308
700
1,986
506
Hart
Hartwell
2,372
Koyston.
1,549
Jacks on
Jefferson
1,839
Commerce
Ifeysville
3,294
514
Lumpkln
Dahlonega
1,294
Ifcdison
Danielsville
333
Comer
Royston
811
1,549
Rabun
Clayton
1,088
Mountain City
524
Stephens
Toccoa
5,494
Towns
Hiawassee
163
Union
Blairsville
358
hite
Cleveland
471

The land area of the sixteen counties is 2,739,200 acres,
of which 63.03 per cent was in farms and 61.8 per cent was in
forest land in 1940. Forty per cent of the lan©d la farms was
woodland*
The Chattahoochee River divides the Area into two rather
disiinot regions: forests and mountains to the north and hilly
farm, land to the south. The highlands of the northern part have
©in the past proved formidable barriers to settlement and trade, and parts
of the region have remained remote. In recent years, however, the con
struction of highways has made the whole region accessible. Private and
government enterprises have harnessed the water power of the mountain
streams. The forests of pine, hemlock, oak, poplar, and maple, under improvei
forest, management, are offering greater forestry possibilities. ;he
Chattahoochee national Forest, with a gross area of over a million acres in
the northern part of the state, was established to conserve and increase the
productivity of the forest land and to protect the watersheds of Georgia©s
nountain river systems. Both the Chattahoochee and the Savannah rivers
have their origins in the Area. 7ogel State Park, covering four thousand
acres, is within the boundaries of the National Forest, and, because of its
recreational features of lake and forest, attracts thousands of vacationers
every year.
The southern part of the Area is a region of early settlsment and
agricultural development. Industrial grovrth has been greatest in this sec
tion, and increasing pastures are ending the threat of erosion, which
reached its peak in the early twenties.
NORTHEAST GEORGIA
AREA
—2—

History
The first settlements in the Northeast Georgia Area irere
made toward the end of the Revolutionary liar. Shortly thereafter
it became apparent that the Cherokee Indians were offering the
chief obstacles to advancement, and the conflicts which followed,
intensified by the discovery of gold in 1829, led to their re
moval in 1838 and to the opening of all the lands of North
Georgia to settlement.
State ....
Engiatering
Experiment
Statioa . . .
ImfaittuI . .
. . Economic
RtKattb . .
A group of adventurers, largely Tories, had settled among the Indians
on the Etowah River, inciting a number of murderous raids on the frontiers
of ffilkes County. In 1782 a group of patriots, led by Elijah Clark and
Andrew Pickens .broke up their settlement and forced them to sign a treaty
ceding Indian lands from the Tugaloo to the© Chattahoochee. In 178It, when
this treaty had been confirmed by the state, Franklin county, the oldest
in the Area, was laid ou4.
As new settlements were made, new counties were created. Jackson
county was laid out in 1796, Madison county in 1811, Habersham and Hall
counties in 1818. Settlements made by New Englanders who had lived in
Virginia, and a few Tories, were consolidated into Katun county in 1819
The climax to Georgia©s race for land was the final removal of the
Cherokees. Georgia Cherokees occupied some Ij61i,61i6 acres in North Georgia,
an enviable countjy of forest-covered mountains and well-watered valleys
In 1802 Georgia ceded to the United States all of her western, lands, now
Alabama and Mississippi, on condition that the Cherokees be removed from
the state. When little had been done after a quarter of a century,
Georgians decided to take matters into their own hands. Consequently,in
1830 the Georgia legislature extended Georgia laws throughout all Cherokee
land lying within the state.
Just before this, gold had been discovered in the Cherokee nation,
probably in 1829 at Dude©s Creek in White county. Itehlonega, in Lumpkin
county, was settled in 1833 at a place called licklog, and soon became
the center of the gold mining region, with ten to fifteen thousand miners
within a radius of fifteen miles. The federal government established a
mint at Dahlonega which operated from 1836 to 1861. The greater part of
Georgia©s total gold production of $18,000,000 was mined in the vicinity
of Dahlonega between 1830 and 1850.
In 1831 the Assembly authorized the Governor to survey the Cherokee
territory, divide it into counties, and dispose of the© land by lottery.
The next year ten new counties had appeared, including, in the Northeast
Georgia Area, Forsyth, Lumpkin, and Union counties. In 1835 the Chero
kees signed a treaty with United States commissioners agreeing to give
up all their lands in Georgia for lands in the West and five million
dollars. In 1838 General Winfield Scott was given the unenviable task
of removing the Cherokees from their Georgia home. Hundreds evaded
©"©Coulter, E. Mertoji, A. Short History of Georgia^ The University of
North Carolina Press, 19337 pp. 167-lbtl.
2 Cyclopedia of Georgia, ed. Candler, Alien D. and Evans, Clement, A.,
State Historical Association, Atlanta, 1906, IT, pp. 175, 183, 35k, 521,
III, p. U;6.
Johnson, Amanda, Georgia as Colony and State, Walter W. Brown Pub
lishing Co., Atlanta, 1938, p. 2T3-
—Z—

capture or escaped fron stockades, and from these originated the
present eastern group of Cherokees in the reservations in North
Carolina
Franklin, Jackson, lladison, Habersham, Hall, Rabun, Forsyth,
Lunpkin, and Union counties completed the original organization
of the Area. Other counties were carved from these and sur
Sun ....
Engineering
Experiment
Station . , .
Georgia
Ttcfc
Industrial . .
. . Economic
Rcteatcb . .
rounding counties, Rart 1 and Towns counties in© 1856, White and _______
Dawson counties in 1857, Banks county in 1858, Stephens county in 1905, and
Barrow county in 191ii.
Proposals were made for railroads in the Northeast Georgia Area as
early as I81t0, but permanent construction was not begun until after the War
Between the States. The Charlotte and Atlanta Hallway, now a part of the
Southern, was begun in 1869 and completed in 182. The Elberton Air-line
Railroad, now a branch line of the Southern, was chartered in 1871 and
completed in 1878. It is fifty miles long and connects Elberton with
Toccoa. The Hartwell Railroad, built in 1879, is ten miles long, and
connects Eartvrell with Bowersville.
Construction was begun in 1886 on the Gainesvllle and Dahlonega
Railroad, but the project was soon abandoned.
The Gainesvllle, Jefferson, and Southern Railroad, now the GaijnesvLlle
Kidland, covering the U2 miles from Gainesville to Monroe, was consolidated
In 1881; with the Walton county Railroad which runs from Uonroe to Social
Circle.
The Northeast Railroad of Georgia was chartered in 1870, and roads
were built from Athens to Lula, ijO miles, and from Rabun Gap to Tallulah,
20.8 miles. The road from Athens to Lula is now under control of the
Southern Railway. The road from Rabun Gap to Tallulah is now known as
Tallulah Falls Railroad and has been extended north to Franklin, North
Carolina, and south to Cornelia, where it connects with the Southern
from Atlanta to Charlotte.
The Seaboard Air line, from Atlanta to Birmingham, skirts the
southern part of the Area.
Gainesville, the county seat of Habersham county, is the largest city
in the Area, having a 191iO population of 10,21:3. Incorporated in 1821,it
first developed as an agricultural center although it attracted some
settlers because of its nearness to the gold fields. The greatest stim
ulus to development, however, came with the construction of the Charlotte
and Atlanta Air-Line Railroad, now the Southern, and of the Gainesville,
Jefferson, and Southern Railway, now the Gainesville Midland. The city
has become the industrial center of the Area. The Pacolet Manufacturing
Company, established in 1908, manufactures sateen, Osnaburg, sharkskin,
coleskin, heavy sheetings and drills, and employs 1600 people. The
Chicopee Manufacturing Corporation established in 192lj, manufactures
*Cain, Andrew W., History of Lumpkin County for the First Hundred
Years 1832-1932, Stein Printing Co., Atlanta, 1932. Cyclopedia of Georgia,
in, rp. 560-561.
Avery, I. W., The History of the State of Georgia from 1850 to_ 1881,
Brown and Derby, New York, 1S81, pp. 632-633- Kenderson, J. T., The
Ccmmonwealth of Georgia, the Country, the People, the Productions, Jas.
F. Harrison & Co.. Atlanta, 1BB5, PP. 35~

gauze products for Johnson and Johnson,and employs 600 people.
Otter plants manufacture chenille, and silk and rayon knitted
products. Experiment
Station . . .
Toccoa, at the Junction of the main line of the Southern . GT£*S
and the Toccoa-Elberton branch, lies in a productive fans,
forest, and orchard section. Four furniture factories utilize
the timber from the surrounding country, and cotton mills manu
Industrial . .
. . Economic
Rdcirch . .
facture sheetings and spool thread. The Le Tourneau Company, manufacturers
of earth moving equipment, established a branch plant near Toccoa in 1938.
Winder, formerly known as Jug Tavern, was incorporated in 1893. It
owes its progress chiefly to its location at the junction of the Seaboard
Air Line and the Gainesville Midland Railroads. Winder, with its six
plants manufacturing men©s work garments and chenille products, and employ
ing about a thousand people, is becoming something of a manufacturing center.
Hartwell, the courtty seat of Hart county, was incorporated in 1856.
Located on the Hartwell Railroad, it is essentially a trading center for the
surrounding agricultural country, although the Hartwell Mills manufacture
sheetings and employ about 125 people.
Jefferson, the county seat of Jackson county, was settled in 1796
and is located on the Gainesville Midland Railroad. The Jefferson Mills©,
established in 1900,manufacture flannels, fancy dobbies, and specialties.
A branch mill is located at Royston.
Cornelia is the center of the apple growing region. Located on the
rain line of the Southern Railway and at the terminus of the Tallulah Falls
Railroad, it serves as a trading and shipping center for the surrounding
country.
Cahlonega, as the center of the gold mining region, in I81i0 boasted
a population of over ten thousand. Its gold mines virtually abandoned,
and without a railroad, its 191*0 population was 1,291;.
A number of educational institutions including colleges of liberal
arts, and vocational and industrial scho&Ls provide educational facilities
to the Area. Erenau College at Gainesville offers degrees in liberal
arts, music,and speech. Piedmont College, in Haberoham county, main
tained by the Congregational Church, is an accredited four-year college
offering degrees in liberal arts and science. North Georgia College
at Dahlonega is a coeducational junior college in the University System
of Georgia. Young Harris Junior College in Towns county is a coedu
cational institution maintained by the Methodist Church. Riverside
BiH.tary Academy in Gainesville is a military preparatory school recog
nized Toy the War Department as an honor school, and holds winter sessions
in Hollywood, Florida. The Rabun Gap-Nacoochee School in Rabun county
maintains a sixteen-hundred acre demonstration farm and offSrs two years
of agricultural training. The Toccoa Falls Institute is an accredited
four-year high school and maintains a school farm and dairy. Tallulah
Falls Industrial School, operated under the auspices of the Georgia
Federation of Women©s Clubs, offers courses through the eleventh grade,
specializing in mountain arts and crafts. The North Georgia Vocational
Trade School at Clarkesville, established in 19Wi, operates under the
State Department of Education. Courses are offered in refrigeration,
automotive and radio mechanics, welding, watch repair, laundry, and
machine shop work.
—5—

The northern part of the Area, a land of forest-covered
mountains, lakes, and mountain streams, has long been a resort
region, attracting thousands of vacationers yearly. Recently
both private and government enterprises have increased its at
tractions. The lakes created by the Georgia Power Company,
Burton, Rabun, Tallulah, Tugalco, and Nacoochee, and the sur
rounding country offer opportunities for fishing and camping
pleasures. The Chattahoochee National Forest, a vast region of
State ....
Engineering
Experiment
Station . . .
CfOtgia
Tifh
Industrial . .
. . Economic
Remcch . .
natural beauty in the.northern part of the state, was established in 1936
for the protection of timber, wildlife, and watersheds of important streams.
The gross area includes over a mi 111 on acres, but as several towns and much
privately owned property lie within its boundaries, the land actually owned
by the government is 5li,772 acres. The region is covered with a network
of trout streams such as Hoontcotla, Eock, Cooper, Chestatee, Wildcat,
DLx, Moccasin, and Hiawassee, stocked annually with trout and bass by
state and federal conservation departments. Quail and wild turkey are
plentiful, and deer and bear are occasionally seen. Within the Area are
a hundred miles of the Appalachian©Trail, the hiker©s highway, which
begins at Mount Katahdin in Maine, and ends at Mount Oglethorpe in
Georgia, leading through the wildest parts of the state. Vogel State
Park lies within the boundaries of the national forest, and covers 1),000
acres, part of which is state owned, and part leased from the federal
government. Its lake and forest attractions make it one of the most
popular resorts of the State.
6

Weather
The Northeast Georgia Area is characterized by a mountain
ous terrain with altitudes ranging from a loir of 557 feet to
peaks of as much as /»,768 feet (Brasstown Bald in Towns county).
For much of the Area, the range is from nine hundred to twelve
hundred feet. The weather stations are typically at lower than
average altitudes for the Area, the highest being Rabun Gap and
Clayton in Rabun county,with altitudes of 2,300 and 2,100 feet, respectively.
Ihile for the ten stations reported in nine counties of the Northeast Georg
ia Area the minimum.and maximum temperature averages vary only slightly,
greater variations are found in the highest and lowest temperatures ever
reported. For some of the seven counties which have no weather stations
(Barrow, Dawson, Forsyth, Franklin, Jackson, Towns, and Onion counties)
greater variations may be expected. The towns in Barrow, Jackson, Forsyth,
and Franklin counties are at the altitudes generally comparable with the
stations reporting in Hall, Habersham, Hart, Madison, and Stephens.and
therefore might be expected to have somewhat similar weather. Union,
Towns, Forsyth, and Dawson counties are typically at much higher altitudes,
and the topography is much rougher, so that it would be almost certain
that, while temperature averages might be similar, the extremes would be
more widely separated. The reports for Rabun Gap and for Clayton in Rabun
county, for Lee in White county, and for Dahlonega in Lumpkin county would
be somewhat typical, but at points it might well be expected that tempera
ture variations would be greater than for these three stations. Altitudes
for towns In. these counties are:
County
County
Forsytn
Dawson
Towns .
Union .
Town
Gumming . .
Dawsonville .
Hiawassee. .
Blairsville .
Table W-3
Altitude (Feet)
1,963
1,925
Average Length of Growing Season and First and Last Killing
Frosts for Northeast Georgia Area, ty Stations
tenks and Hail
Jabersham
Hall
Jart
-umpkin
iabun
Stephens
Station
Gillsville
Cornelia
Gainesville
Hartwell
Dahlonega
Clayton
Toccoa
ITS.
Aver
aged
22
11
35
29
39
36
36
Growing Season
Average
Frost Dates
Last
Apr .6
Apr.5
Apr.U
Apr. 2
Apr .11
Apr. 20
Apr.U
First
Oct.28
Nov.6
Oct.30
Nov. 2
6ct.26
Oct.iB
Nov.l
Grow
ing
Days
205
215
209
214
198
181
211
Killing Frosts
Lastf
Apr.17
Apr.lb
Apr. 21
Apr. 2/1
Hay 10
Hay 15
Apr.20
Firs€
Oct.ll
Oct. 20
Oct.9
Oct.ll
Oct.10
Oct.l
Oct.10
Source: U. S. Department of Agricul ture, Climatic Summary of the
hited States . 1930, Sections 102 and 103 « The data extend from
'stablishment of station to 1930.
xLast reported in spring. 2First reported in fall.

A
•M H row ,
to w t* w J
Cr O W H V/l
O vn O O ' -
10 C O O
Table W-la
i
CD
I
County
Banks and H»ll
Habersham
Ball
Hart
Lunpkln
Rabun©
Stephens
Highest Temperature Reported by Months and Annual
Tor Northeast Georgia Area by Stations©
Station
Oillsville
Cornelia
Gainesvilli
Bartwell
Dahlonega
Olayton
Tooooa
Jan Tab
74 76
73 77
76 79
78 82
72 76
76 76
76
)hr Apr.
87 92
87 91
88 93
90 96
88 92
89 91
80 90
May June July Aug. Sept Dot Nov Deo Arm.
96 104 102 100 100 91 81 72 104
96 99 10S 100 99 86 78 76 103
97 100 106 104 103 93 79 74 106
102 106 108 107 109 94 83 82 109
96 101 101 102 99 89 79 71 102
94 99 102 98 93 89 80 72 102
96 99 103 107 103 104 92 81 79 107
Souroei U. S. Department of Agriculture, Climatic Summary of the United States,
1930, Sections 102 and 103. The data extend from establishment or stations to 193O.
Table lf-2a
Lowest Temperature Reported bj Honths and Annual
for Northeast Georgia Area by Stations
Banks and Ball
Habersham
aui
Bart
Lumpkin
Rabun
Stephens
GillsYille
Cornelia
Gainesville
Hartwell
Dahlonega
Clayton
Tooooa
J
7
0
-1
3
-1
"9
3
F
-6
10
-6
6
-11
-8
-2
M
6
12
6
12
0
0
9
A
28
26
26
28
23
16
26
M J
36 44
38 44
33 41
37 46
30 39
29 38
34 42
Sourcei TJ. S. Department of Agriculture, Climfttio Summary of the United
Statea, .l»3u, iseotions luz and 1U3. The data ext'and from as-ta£liakiimn-k nf ,Vn-
€Lor» to 1BSO.
J
62
64
EO
Bl
60
46
55
A
66
51
61
63
49
44
61
S
37
43
Bfi
4,1
34
34
39
0
24
33
20
2R
23
.l
26
N
16
J]
12
16
10
a
14
1)
R
B
1
fi
-1
1
0
-6
0
-fi
3
-1J
-9
-2

—
"
8*S "S B 8
S3. '"i Maximum Average
Temperature by Months and Annual «
s weather data available for the Northeast Georgia Area
le period from ia2 to 1930. The 1930-19U5 data have not
i published. All but one of the averages are based on
ld-
' for Northeast Area Georgia by Stations »6 p.
_i jj.Ef « tr m o c*
———
ranging from twenty-two to fifty-seven years and are of
. nt length that the omission of the last ten years is not
1 to have any particular effect on the conclusions drawn.
§
1
O
&
1
-P
8
•a
o
w
to
3
»H
I
*
£
1
1
1
Station
|
c- CO O O ^ C- IO
O> r-l O tO Ol CO rH
tO t- t- C- to CD t-
CO 10 CM BO BO CO tO
CM CM rH •* i-l O tO
CM CO C- U3 O tO CO
**•••••
O IO O tO O Cft rH
LO tO CO CO CO IO CO
BO co cn to to cn LO
O (0 rH xt< O 01 CM
D- C- t- C— C*- CD t-
co t^- t- o CM to cn
rH BO rH LO O O) CM
CO CO CO CO CO C- CO
CM O IO IO ^H tO CO
10 co co cn to ^ r>eo
co 0 co co co so
cn co cc ^ to to o
CO £• CM 1O CO
C-- rH O> r-l CO t- O
t- CO ^- CO ^- t" CO
oa to BO to ^< -41 co
• ••••*•
rH iH O tO O Cn CM
o> to t- r-: to co 10
S
lO iH IO r-l O tO
CD tO CO CO CO CD
CO C^ CO t- D- tO t-
^4 BO CM CO CM CM ^
CO IO i* CO CO t^ BO
^ CM O BO O O CM
tO tO ©ft tO ^p to 'O
r-t r-l tf
BTj rH -H rH Gj
^H -H »> rH O fi
rH t> (0 O C! O d
0) , O
rf "^ ** 8
O O U 5 (§ O EH
i-l
H
1! a 1
Sourcei U. S. Department
Agriculture, Climatic Summary of United States, Sections 102 1930, and
—9—
extend |iua. The data from
establishment of station to 1930.
Table lf-2
for Northeast Stations' Georgia Area by
Average Minimum Temperature by Months and Annual
|
o
1
•P
s
•8.
O
CO
I
^
I
JT
i
J
1
1
Station
•P
s
§
O O CD BO rH t^ BO
O O CO O CO IO C7>
CO Cft OJ O C- IO i^
CM ^ BO ^< CM O tO
to to to BO to to to
W O O O 0 rH C-
rH rH Oi O Ch ID Cl
^ BO
CO CO tO CO CO LO CO
C- O rH tO • O
^ 9 9 4< ^ to CM O CM
to to to to to to BO
CO O O C- O> CM CM
CM BO CM BO rH O CM
tO tO tO tO BO BO BO
ID
O rH
rH rH 0
r-l (fi -H rH &)
•H ft > r-l 0 C
t» rH «> O C O at
10 O 0) k O -P O
rH CJ (2 4> rH >» O
rH *4 -H t, 45 «tf 0
r-l
•-!- ~
Sou
EapM CfUlf
Exptr LBCBt
Station f©
Cm
I.dott•ill . .
mamlc
S
a
0
*H
•P
O
g Ol
«
(0

county, Clayton and
in Ra range 5 from Gi at lsvi le srage days per number of mo
§
CD *1
to 0>
(0 *
CQ O
Table ff-4
Average Nunber of Day_s with 0.01 Inches or More
Precipitation by Months and Annual for
Hortheast Georgia Area by Stations'
County
Station J F 11 A 11 J J A S
Banks and Sail Gillaville 8 8 7 7 7 7 8 8 6
flail
Gainesville 9 9 9 8 8 9 11 10 9
Hart
Hartwoll 8 8 8 7 8 8 9 8 6
Lumpkin
Dahlonega 12 11 11 10 11 12 14 13 9
Ifedieon
Carlton
9 9 8 7 8 8 9 9 6
1-J
I Rabun
o Stephens Tooooa
Clayton
8 8 9 7 8 9 11 9 6
10 9 9 8 9 10 12 11 8
II
Source i U. S. Department of Agrioultur 3, Climatic Summary of United
States, 1930, Sections 102 and 103. The dat x extend from estab lishment of
station to 1930.
County
Banks and Hall
Hall
Hart
Lumpkin
Ifedison
Rabun
Stephens
Table Vf-6
Average Snowfall (unmelted) in Inches by Months and
Annual~for Hor"theast Georgia Area byStations
Station
Gillsville
Gainesville
Hartwell
Dahlonega
Carlton
Clayton
Tooooa
J
1.0
1.2
1.0
1.6
0.6
1.9
1.6
F
1.4
1.3
0.9
1.8
0.6
2.4
2.0
1C
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.6
0.1
1.1
0.3
Source: U. S. Department of Agriculture,
States. 1930. Sections 1O2 i»nd 103. The data
T
TTT0
T
T
0
e
8
E
9
6
6
6
0 0 000000 000000 0 0000 0 0 0 000000 0 000000 T 0.2
T 0.2
TTTTT 0.2
0.2
0.1
0.3
0.1
S 0 N
N
© D
A
6 7 83
6 8 104
6 8 89
8 11 131
6 9 94
6 8 94
7 9 108
D
0.7
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.3
1.7
0.6
A
3.4
3.8
3.1
E.O
1.8
7.4
4.6
Climatic Summary of the United
extend from establishment of

county. The maximum annual snowfall was 2.k inches at
Clayton in Rabun county in February. The average annual snow- -
fall in the Northeast Georgia Area ranged from 1.8 inches at
Garlton In Hadison county to 7.U Inches at Clayton in Rabun
County.
«!
SU
s«
ai
1
WNC-lQIOC-l
iA2o>t-wioot
C- r-l C-- O CO C- O>
c-D-ioiototoioeot-en
The heaviest
precipitation aver
ages shown in Table
State ....
Eiperimcac
Station . . .
Ctorgia
T«A
htdutrial . .
. . Economk
ff-5 usually occur in December or
January, although in some coun
ties this is as late as March.
The next heaviest precipitation
is almost always in July.
Growing Season: The grow
ing season ranges from 181 to
215 days. The averse date of
the last killing frost in the
spring ranged from April 2 at
Hartwell in Hart county to
April 20 at Clayton in Rabun
county. The average date of the.
first killing frost in the fall
ranged from October 18 at Clayton
in Rabun county to November
6 at Cornelia in Habersham
county. The latest killing
frost recorded in the Northeast
Georgia Area was May 15 at
Clayton in Rabun county; the
earliest was October 1 at Clayton.
fc-i
COrH^t-lOfr-tOtOCOCM
11

547
40
607
Per
Uni£
1940
4.38
3.78
4.03
4.66
4.63
3.79
4.70
3.97
3.39
3.57
4.45
4.66
6.05
4.51
4.38
3.97
4.43
Persons
Par
RuailjP
1930
4.74
4.21
4.27
4.9%
6.03
4.29
6.15
4.48
3.94
3.66
4.85
4.64
3.49
4.74
4.62
3.63
4.71
Hunber at Pnolling Units and Oooupied Units bjr Kaoe
Vnd Qwnerahlp for Urban, Hon-lUrm anT Bural-farm
Oooupants Ty Counties for TCTo
Table H-l
Oooupied Dwelling Units
Suannry and All
Counties by Dwell
Total and Types ing
of Population1 Units Total TThite Hegro
to
i Area Total 47,642 46,185 40,380 4,806
I Urban
6,808 6,090 4,868 1,222
Rural Hon-farm 11,734 11,038 10,014 1,018
Rural farm 39,700 28,063 26,498 2,666
Banks
Rural Hon-farm
Rural farm
Barrow
Winder
Rural Hon-farm
Rural farm
Dana on
Rural Hon-farm
Rural farm
Forsyth
Rural Hon-farm
Rural farm
2,162
386
1,777
3,355
1,198
390
1,767
982
92
890
2,709
302
2,407
1,926
366
1,570
3,290
1,171
390
1,729
961
91
870
2,586
301
2,286
1,802
343
1,459
2,739
966
872
1,402
961
91
870
2,579
301
2,278
124
13
111
651
206
18
327
7
7
Per
Cent
Hegro
10.6
20.1
9.2
9.1
6.4
3.7
7.1
16.7
17.6
4.6
18.9
0.3
0.3
Units Oooupied
By Owner
Number
17,097
2,097
3,919
11,081
626
101
626
1,030
342
161
537
414
51
363
966
70
696
Per
C«»t
37.8
34.4
36.5
39.5
32.6
28.4
33.4
31.3
29.2
38.7
31.1
43.1
41.7
37.4
23.3
39.2
By
Tenant
28,086
3,993
7,113
16,982
1,300
265
1,045
2,260
629
239
1,192
1,620
231
1,389

Kfew construction needs to provide for urban and non-farm
growth in the immediate postwar period amount to aoout one
thousand units, while the replacement of one in four of the
11,488 oosolete1 farm units would amount to 2,872 with 745 more
ir. the rural Ron-farm areas. Half the obsolete units in urban
places would add about 325 more, making a total of 3,942 units.
Kcst new construction should be from four to seven rooms.
Sun ....
Enftacrinf
Expirintat
Station . . .
Ttck
hdutiul . .
. . Ecoaoaic
Rtmrcb . .
The proportion of the dwellings in the Kortheast Georgia Area over
forty years old in 1940 is higher than usual. Almost one quarter, or
11,323 dwellings, were built before 1900. Ifcny of these should obviously
be replaced or modernized. Slightly less than a quarter (10,759) of all
dwelling units were built between 1900 and 1909, of which 6,790 were farm
IO IO O
IOO H
« «< 10
CO CM ^
^ CO t-
• • •
* IO ^1
OJ CM C-
CO rH C-
N (O tO
M rH
10 tO O
+ t- (O
w w to
IO CO C-
O> tD CM
r* W CO
H
iSee Table H-S, Heeding Major Repairs.
rH C- 10
CO ^ rH
*l •* 10
c- to CM
BO rH tO
• • •
*&•#•#
to o to
CM tO tO
O> O CO
rH rH
rH tO O)
to co tv
^ W ^
C- •* IO
IO «} O)
^< to e-
*
rH
S
to to cn
rH
•41 ^1 ^ ^
Cn rH CM rH
OI CO OT CO
• • • •
"* 10 ^ **
O IO CO C-
O tD CM O
CM D- t- C-
IO i-H rH rH
OS ^ tO IO
10 ^ CM O
to to to •*
Ol ^ ^» rH
S CM tO IO
O> CO rH
CM rH
**t to CM
CO O O
* * 10
10 to •*
* to to
• • •
4< to *JI
CO CM is
• • • •
^ w w •*
CO •* rH tO
to co ca to
M 10 t- 0>
BO rH
CD D- os to
OS ^ CO CO
CM CO CM 02
eg q to o>
CO H O» fr-
IO tO CM t-
rH
t- *# IO
to o> c-
^» 10 •«*
S£g
• • •
«« BO •*
Q CM CO
O IO CO
rH O O>
O CM EC
IO 4* tO
IO O EO
o cn IH
t- i-H IO
S o t-
CO CO
•4< n ^*
to to CM
to t- to
• • •
-tf K> •«*<
S|8
«" r
O CO CM
sss
^ to co
CM eo co
OS O3 CM
to to
tO rH IO
StO t-
CM tO
8SS3
^» •* •* 10
tO rH CO tO
(O rH t>
T*
*H 10
CM 01 10
• • •
IO t- CM
IO C- CO
53-°
O O O CM
O CM CM IO
rH CM
§
os to ^<
rH rH rH rH
t- CO IO tO
CM IO O» O>
O- i-H rH tO
O CM O
• • •
4* CO CM
ID t- OS
IO IO rH
fr- to to
• mm
3855
S3S2
IO rH IO
to to c-
• • •
CM tO rH
O CM CO
^< CM rH
« t rHCO
SS^"
to to co o>
CM CO CM O
•* CM rH
00 H t-
to
N ri rH
CO O> OS
tO OS (o
CO CM IO
BO t- to
tO rH rH
S
CM 41 CO
en
t-
to
c-
W rH rH
cn cn CM co
O co to 10
rH to IO CO
CO CM CM CM
§
e- •* to
tO O rH
to e- co o
CO CM CM tO
e- e- o
Sco S
to co
CO CM
|H rH p
sgi
tO CM
O ^« «fl CM
** ft rH 10
CO CO O t-
^* r-l CM
CO IO CM (C
t- o to to
CO OS O Cn
•* rH CM
tO CM rH
SU3 IO
4* cn
i-H
o> to to
t> t- O
4< 0
rH rH
CM rH rH
§S5
tO CM
CO 0> ^
O> tO CM
«a *
OS tO IO CM
CM rH rH
O O CM CO
S9 O CO
•0 •# CM
tO fH rH
Franklin
Rural N -farm on
farm Pural
(
Habereheua
Rural Non-fKrm
farm Rural
Ball
Rural Non-farm
Gainesvi ls
Rural farm
Hart
Rural Non-farm
farm Rural
13
Conmeroe
Jackson
Rural Non- fcnn
form Rural
lABnplcin
Rural Son- farm
Rural farm
dieon
Hon-fkrm Rural
Rural farm
r
•ll.
rH rH
gfil!
l««
S
Btephena 1 To 30 oa
1 Rural lon- fcrm
| Rural farm

o >-• B d- d-
3- M « B
. If S ' '
CD i-t
p- M
CO rt- ri- o*
H- 9} 10 V-*
eh ffl M CT o
» S ct
P ct P. co o
o h" n ct
& n P
ro ^tn M H»
^lO tO H«
13 >1 H H- H-
>->•(+(» O J3
N «< CJ.
Summary and
Counties by
Total and Types
of Population1
Towns
Rural Non-farm
Rural farm
Union
1,787
Rural Non-farm 222
Rural farm 1,565
white
Rural Non-farm
Rural farm
Table H-l - Continued
O O ft p rt- • o
'rt >-* 1 ti* if* M 1
Number of Dwelling Units and Occupied Units by Race % "!J 5 £ ' 00 & »
O O H- ' M •
ja
CD ^ o
c
t-j
HI
o
»i
ft >N
tn
** £ Jtw 0 § M
5. I- 1 C CO O H- (H CO
CO *i 1 *1 rt b Ol
n f> PS o W *•
n> £ HI o ct
(D CO H' < S* O
o H» tr ct 5* *i
O H« JO (D • tl D
«

It is further shown in Table E-l that 37.8 per cent of all
the occupied dwellings in, the Northeast Georgia Area were owneroccupied
in 1940. The percentage of ownership was somewhat
higher in the rural farm classification than it was in the urban
and rural non-farm classifications; for the last two, it was
34.4 per cent and 35.5 per cent, respectively, whereas for the
first classification it was 39.5 per cent. The highest percent
age of home ownership in the Northeast Georgia Area was found in
Towns county: 64.C per cent for all families and for rural farm families
66.9 per cent of the homes were occupied by the owners. The next highest
percentage of home ownership in the Area was in Union county with 61.2 per
cent of all the homes in the county occupied by the owners and 63.9 per
cent of all rural farm homes occupied by the owners.
Crowding: The number of persons per room is the criterion of over
crowding.BEen this rate reaches 1.5 persons per room, the overcrowding
is usually regarded as serious. It is difficult, however, to detemtce
exactly what size of house is lacking since the crowding frequently re
sults from large families in small houses, balanced by small families in
large nouses. Apparently economic status and tho habits which are as
sociated with various standards of living are much more the controlling
factors than the actual existence of the right number of houses of the
right size. Table H-2 shows that 8,901 dwelling units in the Northeast
Georgia Area were occupied in 1940 at a rate of over 1.5 persons per
room. Of these, 5,615, or about 63 per cent were rural farm dwellings,
approximately the proportion that rural dwellings are of all dwellings.
The number of dwellings with an occupancy rate of from 1 to l.E persons
per room was 8,393 (of which, 6,149 or about 73 per cent were farm
duellings).
ffliile the specific overcrowding already described existed in 1940, it
is difficult to be exact in locating the sizes of dwellings which were
deficient. On the other hand, 8,435 dwellings were occupied only to the
ertent of 0.5 or less persons per room, 8,188 more at rates between 0.51
and 0.75 persons per room, and 10,717 more at rates between 0.7S end l.OC
persons per room.
All families in the Northeast Georgia Area could be accommodated in
the existing housing at a rate of less than l.E persons per room if it
jrere possible to match families and houses by size.
In Table E-4 is shown the extent to which matching the 1940 families
and dwellings fails to secure a rate of occupancy of one person or less
per room, tnder this assumption there are not enough dwelling units in
the 11-room, 10-room, 9-room, 8-room, or 7-roon croups to accommodate
the families of corresponding size. The accumulated deficit down to the
7-room— 7-person family groups was 2,787. Beginning with the 6-roon
ait, there were more dwellings than families of corresponding size.
Age of Structure: Table H-3 presents data showing that in the
lortheast Georgia Area, the greatest number of houses, 0,052 or 42.09
per cent of tho total number of houses in the Area, were built in the
period between 1900 and 1920. More than'half of these dwelling units
(12,985) were classed as rural farm. It appears fron examination of
the table that the greatest numbers of rural farm dwellings built during
this period were built in Jackson, Ball, and Hart counties. Three out
of every four of the 10,311 dwellings built before 1900 were farm
Sellings. The 5,757 houses built between 1935 and 1939 represented
12.08 per cent of the total number of houses in the Area in 1940. This
--15--

per cent is higher than the 10.31 per cent for this group In
Georgia. Of these 6,757 duellings, 2,576 (44.74 per cent) were
rural farm; 1,948 or 33.64 par cent were rural non-farm and
1,£32 or 21.42 tier cent were urtan dwellings. AD examination of
Tacie H-2
Unit of
Comparison
Rooms Per
Dwelling
1 Rood
2 Roons
3 Rooms
a Rooms
5 Rooms
6 Rooms
7 Rooms
8 Rooms
9 Roois
10 Roois
11 Rooms
No Report
Persons Per
Household
1 Person
2 Persons
3 Persons
1* Persons
5 Persons
6 Persons
7 Persons
8 Persons
9 Persons
10 Persons
ll Persons
Persons
Per Room
Under 0.51
0.51-0.75
0.76-1.00
1.01-1.50
1.51-2.00
Over 2.00
No Report
Number of Dwelling Units by Size of Unit, Persons
Per gnTt and Persons Per Room for Northeast
Georgia Area by Counties in 191)0
Area
Total
902
i*,ao9
10,605
12,U27
8,559
5,557
2,251
1,160
521
353
337
561
1,6W>
8,1)00
9,2U3
8,086
5,981*
l*,i*17
3,027
1,919
1,211)
636
613
8,1*35
8,188
10,717
8,393
5,563
3,338
551
•a
1CO
g
is
m.
c o
iQ
gh.
c
•H
r-t
Ita
§
n
t,
CJ
•S
Number of Dwellings in County
21*
131)
526
632
371
226
i2a
53
27
11
8
21)
Ill
U28
71*7
798
571*
368
171
61*
35
20
20
19
17
79
297
21*7
156
91*
35
11)
5 1* 2
32
19
121
753
8UO
1)86
295
92
30
25
U
2
35
59
301*
701)
871
717
1)86
21*1
131
53
25
30
X
71*
353
782
778
660
1*37
179
108
53
39
61
1)8
21
c oin
,-t
X
H**" so
s 3*-3
126
796
1,801*
2,398
1,507
858
31)8
196
102
75
76
100
Number of Dwellings in County
55
327
382
330
21*6
231
162
79
65
26
11*2
735
781
595
387
257
18U
103
1*7
23
31*
25
33
169
185
183
121)
96
66
38
32
11)
21
61)
1*1*9
580
1*71*
365
251
155
116
61*
1*0
28
127
601)
716
610
1*52
350
232
150
121*
58
61
151
667
666
565
1*32
31)2
226
150
85
52
1*1)
266
1,527
1,712
1,538
1,115
780
512
289
202
82
86
Number of Dwellings in County
358
339
1*70
358
232
Ili6
23
629
671)
828
608
375
158
11*2
170
191
185
136
18
105i
32
1)59
1*82
610
5n
327
162
35
699
637
778
671
39a
21*6
59
721J
573
801*
602
395
26U
1,1*1*6
1,51*0
2,032
1,51*1)
929
2JL
518
100
28
295
790
1,075
603
1*71
173
90
25
16
9
66
129
61)5
690
623
1)52
319
250
ia&
119
66
80
1*1*1
1,053
1,292
919
563
21)0
. 123
1*9
1*2
35
190
81i8
961
851)
601)
1*61)
300
188
105
1)8
667
612
836
61*1)
1*27
235
36
179
1*1*0
31*9
207
130
1*1
Jji
15
9
16
36 16
58
68
900
809
1,126
882
588
66
300
35
State ....
Enfinecriaf
Experiment
Station . . .
Gtoryi*
Tich
ladutrial..
. . Economic
ReaeaKb . .
c
>H
•*
!
§ 01
f
a | B
55
263
261)
229
177
11)7
103
77
1*9
17
22
Source: U. S. Census, Housing, 191)0, Second Series, Table 23.
—16—
1*8
188
693
91*8
653
1)02
156
65
i*a
25
12
115
232
1*10
379
1*09
313
121*
62
16
314
1*1
59 39
107
60a
642
539
391)
272
199
11)6
81
1*1)
81)
269
312
286
251
165
121
111
33
30
30
229 599 362
230 633 282
301 712 391
21*2 530 251
219 366 202
166 183 188
16 59 36

Table H-3 discloses that the largest number of rural farm duel
lings built in any one county In the 1935-39 period was 304 in
Ttaion county. Hall county with 292, and Bart county with 207
were next in total farm dwelling construction for this most re
cent period. During this same period over half the urban units
erected in the Area were built in Gainesville, while in Hall
county more than a quarter of the total rural non-farm units wer«
erected. These 694 urban units and 535 non-farm units totalling
State ....
Enfinenui
Experiment
Station . . .
Ge«r»M
r«*
Indutrii] . .
. . Economic
1,229 were more than a fifth of all types of residential construction in
the Area during the 193S-39 period. Table H-4
Dnit of
Comparison
Rooms Per
Duelling
1 Room
2 Booms
3 Rooms
U Rooms
5 Rooms
6 Rooms
7 Rooms
B Rooms
9 Rooms
10 Rooms
11 Rooms
No ReDOrt
S
4s-
£
n
|

Suit ....
Engineering
Hxpcrimmt
Station . . .
Grorgiu
Tnl>
Induilriil . .
. . Economic
Rtsmch . .
Year Built
Area Total
v-> I Urban
Rural Non-farm
TO
Rural farm
I
Banks
Rural Non-fam
Rural farm
Barroif
Winder
Rural Non-farm
Rural farm
Dawson
Rural Non-farm
Rural farm
Forcyth
Rural Non-farm
Rure.l farm
Franklin
Rural Non-fam
Rural farm
Hatershan
Rural Son-fanr.
Hur*1 farm
1936-
1940
5,767
1,233
1,948
2,676
116
36
80
S72
206
47
119
114
26
89
252
66
186
229
76
163
434
aei
183
1930-
1934
3,183
366
1,062
1,766
87
26
62
168
64
34
60
83
17
66
130
21
• 109
169
62
107
339
168
171
1926-
1929
3,076
421
1,067
1,598
96
14
82
108
60
14
44
33
3
30
164
22
142
176
61
116
343
216
128
1920-
1924
4,061
522
1,031
2,498
167
18
149
216
107
19
90
67
67
226
33
193
366
119
236
392
163
238
1910-
1919
9,293
1,096
2,002
6,196
348
46
302
817
291
90
436
166
10
146
463
28
436
791
199
692
748
361
387
Table H-3
NUJnber o: ' Dwell Ing Units by Tear Built and .————————————————————.
tate ( >f Re pa Ir in TSSTTor Nort.tiaast
State of Repair and Plumbing
Cleorgia
Area \>y Countiea
Not needing Needing
Number of Dwellings in County
Major Repairs Major
1900-
1909
10,769
1,368
2,601
6,790
636
106
430
866
267
108
600
161
4
147
662
26
637
892
272
620
629
334
296
1890-
1899
6,284
788
920
3,676
377
73
304
496
192
60
264
110
6
104
377
32
346
492
102
390
297
161
136
1880-
1889
2,376
267
479
1,639
193
36
158
126
14
19
92
84
9
76
126
11
116
286
40
846
201
127
74
1860-
1879
1,683
93
189
1,301
123
20
103
107
3
3
101
89
7
82
121
16
106
102
. 9
93
65
14
41
1869
or
earlier
1,069
19
134
916
75
3
72
68
10
2
56
68
6
62
88
20
68
87
7
80
66
10
46
Not
reportinB
1,212
65
311
846
44
9
35
23
4
4
16
38
6
33
£00
29
171
103
44
69
38
10
28
Number
30,309
6,300
8,192
16,817
718
163
• 566
2,860
1,083
344
1,423
601
65
446
1,692
130
1,462
2,057
639
1,418
2,762
1,472
1,890
No
running
imter
21,634
1,412
4,308
16,914
676
136
640
1,989
367
241
1,381
487
48
439
1,641
99
1,442
1,643
307
1,336
1,938
777
1,181
Repairs
Number
16,046
661
2,983
11,411
1,292
211
1,081
394
84
43
267
416
29
387
1,084
158
866
1,467
279
1,188
631
263
368
Run
ning
mater
414
162
185
77
10
2
8
10
9
1
2
1
1
2
1
1 1
66
42
' 13
29
24E

Ball
GAlnoGville
Rural Hon-farm
Bural Harm
Hart
Rural Non-farm
Rural farm
Jaotson
Comneroe
Rural Non-farm
Rural farm
Lumpkin
Rural Hon-farm
Rural farm
Ifadison
Rural JJon-farm
Rural farm
Rabun
Rural Hon-farm
Rural farm
Stephens
Tooooa
Rural Hon-farm
Rural farm
Towns
Rural Don-farm
Rural farm
tFnion
Rural Kon-fa:ir.
Rural farm
Unite
Rural Bon-farm
Rural farm
1,62.1
694
636
292
263
66
207
293
93
83
117
274
123
151
18E
50
136
466
266
190
541
240
163
138
173
47
126
376
71
304
159
63
106
664
139
812
203
163
23
140
216
58
66
93
165
53
102
94
15
79
363
822
131
201
96
32
74
132
34
98
812
30
182
137
49
88
059
161
368
130
144
7
137
192
63
41
88
122
27
95
112
30
82
226
128
97
282
147
46
89
142
23
119
178
24
154
100
34
66
669
221
191
247
316
66
260
293
60
70
173
101
17
84
194
44
160
316
181
135
288
144
34
110
162
35
117
139
8
131
170
63
117
1,S1K
439
279
694
798
140
658
1,010
126
243
642
199
30
169
867
232
635
387
110
277
603
241
55
307
210
36
175
231
17
204
364
137
227
3,103
552
772
779
982
215
767
1,387
284
289
814
336
98
238
960
194
766
269
79
190
580
276
37
268
104
16
88
177
15
162
226
37
189
745
304
109
352
461
102
359
680
162
96
433
131
51
80
379
61
318
60
8
52
349
140
' 21
188
83
17
66
118
6
112
129
26
103
S86
168
47
160
161
37
124
361
56
71
234
72
39
33
136
16
120
32
9
23
89
29
8
52
46
7
39
67
67
41
4
37
Z24
60
18
146
142
32
110
218
9
29
180
47
18
29
137
4
133
17
6
12
65
21
4
30
21
3
18
63
3
60
62
5
67
74 4
11
69
84
9
75
168
4
30
134
29
12
17
117
7
110
28
2
26
23
1
22
8
5
3
61
4
57
45
6
39
17O
36
62
73
127
24
103
66
9
16
30
13
6
8
112
16
96
61
32
19
19
7
2
10
6
6
186
44
142
87
9
18
5,736
2,283
1,918
1,637
1,849
433
1,416
3,203
850
659
1,694
1,034
308
726
1,549
421
1,128
1,761
846
915
2,135
1,084
260
789
668
148
410
1,324
149
975
880
257
623
£,632
686
646
1,460
1,476
104
1,371
2,187
96
462
1,630
889
179
710
1,432
360
1,082
1,037
343
694
1,350
414
184
762
600
117
383
1,061
116
946
797
200
• 697
2,340
367
623
1,360
1,640
236
1,302
1,294
5
255
1,034
411
158
263
1,612
204
1,308
323
120
203
826
205
138
483
456
63
393
609
65
544
610
136
374
123
94
26 4
41
31
10
32
3
23
6
10
10
9
3
6
. 12
4
B
47
46
1
5
3
2
4
4
23
14
9
Souroei U( S. Census, Housing, 1940. Second Series, Table 22.

unning water, naldLng a total of 36,238 drolling units in the
Hortheast Georgia Area which were without running water in 1940.
Type of Construction: Both the cost and the usefulness of
rural hous©oHg are influenced by the amount of technical planning
which has been applied to the problem. Flans and specifications
for a number of farm dwellings have been prepared by the archi
tectural service of Southern Brick and Tile Manufacturers As
sociation, Candler Building, Atlanta. They are available without charge.
The Portland Cement Association, Eurt Building, Atlanta, also has availrtli,
Eftterial on farm construction and frequently various© agricultural magazicni
publish farm dwelling plans. In adapting such material to a particular
farm site, it is desirable to consult with the Rural Electrification co-op,
to consider the location of wells and other structures, and access from
the highway "to determine what modifications, if any, should be made.
20--

Population.
The 1943 population of the Northeast Georgia Are* is esti-
»te

I(0
i
to
to
1
Table P-li Table P-3
Rural Non-Farm Population by Race and Sex
Northeast Georgia Area by Counties ror
Summary
and
Counties
Area Total
Banks
Barrow
Dawson
Forsyth
Franklin
Habershajn
Hall
Hart
Jackson
Lumpkin
Madison
Rabun
Stephens
Towns
Union
White
Total1
1)1), 1)12
1,350
1,393
551
1,191)
3,71*3
7,117
10,821)
2,512
1),OU2
1,791
2,1*05
2,657
1,562
81*7
821*
1,600
Male
White
19,371*
622
605
277
598
1,1)83
3,11)0
5,110
875
1,529
817
850
1,223
737
1)10
1)27
671
191)0
Female
20,71*1
61*9
702
210
596
1,689
3,1*63
5,1)19
91*8
1,661,
81*9
917
1,31)3
722
1)37
391*
739
Male
2,01*2
1)1
36
61*
260
226
11*3
303
1)28
67
282
1*1*
1)8
__
2
98
for the
LyZTo
Negro
Source: U. S. Census, Population, 191)0,
Second Series, Table 26.
1Totals include other races.
Female
2,250
33
So
.._
_
311
288
152
386
1*21
58
356
55
—
1
92
Total Non-Farm Populatl on by_ Race and Sex for thto g M o ' H 8 '*•
Northeast Georgia Aroa bjr Counties for lyliO ^ g- M p b 8- $ »
Summary
and
Counties
Area Total
Banks
Barrow
Dawson
Forsyth
Franklin
Habersham
Hall
Hart
Jackson
Lumpkin
Madison
Rabun
Stephens
Towns
Union
White
Total1
67,1*17
1,350
5,367
551
1,191*
3,71*3
7,117
21,067
2,512
7,336
1,791
2,1,05
2,657
7,056
81*7
821*
1,600
28,003
622
2,113
277
598
1,1*83
3,11)0
8,833
875
*817
850
1,223
2,850
1)10
1)27
671
3,522
61,9
*210
596
1,689
3,1*63
9,681
9U8
3,11*9
81*9
917
1,31*3
2,981*
1,37
391*
739
t*,063
1*1
31)1)
61*
260
226
1,129
303
659
67
282
1)1)
51)1)
—
2
98
l),82l) ' 33
1)36
_..
. —
311
288
l,l|2ll
386
711*
58
Source i Calculated from Tables P-l and
P-2.
1 Totals include other races.
1)7
678
, —
1
92
* U-
•«! » H p."d p.
p.

j»tural growth were considered in making the estimate of
206,000 population for 1946 (page 21). As mentioned, distrilution
of this 1946 total over the counties is very likely to
jhoir a tendency for greater increases in Hall, Stephens, Habershamj
Hart, and Jackson counties, because of the presence of
lore industry and of urban centers. Population growth in coun
ties such as Rabun, Tlhite, Towns, Onion, and Lumpkin is likely
to be somewhat slower in starting and will probably result in
increased use of these counties for hones by people who have retired.
Suit ....
Enfiflccrinf
Expcrinnt
Station . . .
Gtotlia
TV*
Indutiut . .
. . Economic
Rucarcb .
Rural farm population predominates in most counties, particularly the
smaller Subsistence farm counties,in the northern part of the Area. In
all counties except Hall and Stephens, more than half the population is on
fanns. In seven counties (Banks, Dawson, Forsyth, Ifcdison, Towns, Union,
and Unite), more than three-fourths of the population lived on farms.
Summary
and
Counties
Area Total
Banks
Barrow
Dawson
Forsyth
Franklin
Habersham
Hall
Hart
Jackson
Lumpkin
Madison
Rabun
Stephens
Towns
Dnion
White
Table P-l
Total Population by Race and Sex by Counties
for 19UO, with 1930" Total
Total1
197,873
8,733
I3,06U
U.U79
11,322
15,612
lii,771
3lt,822
15,512
20,089
6,223
13,131
7,821
12,972
lt.925
7,680
6,lH7
Male
191*0
Unite
87,79Jj
1*,033
5,195
2,266
5,662,
6,657
6,91.9
15,1*83
5,886
8,215
3,017
5,505
3,878
5,523
2.51A
3,919
3,060
Female
87,882
U,039
5,iao
2,lli9
5,617
6,685
7,155
16,000
5,665
8,333
2,986
5,321
3,808
. 5,593
2,381
3,750
2,990
Kale
Negro
10,77lj
32k
1,176
61t
22
1,105
305
1,529
1,955
1,766
120
1,28U
68
852
—
h
200
Female
Il,la7
332
1,283 —
15
1,165
362
1,810
2,006
1,775
100
1,320
67
i.ooU
—
7
167
1930
Total 1
186,637
9,703
12,Jt01
3,502
10.62U
15,902
12,7lt8
30,313
i5,m
21,609
U,927
llt,921
6,331
n,7UO
!»,3l*6
6,3liO
6,056
Source: U. S. Census, Population, 19hO, Second Series,
Table 22.
1 Totals include other races.
--23--

Table P-2
Rural Farm Population
Northeast Georgia Area
Sunmiary
and
Counties
Irea Total
Banks
Barrow
Dawson
Forsyth
Franklin
Habersham
Hall
Hart
Jackson
T.7jffrr>]H n
Madison
Rabun
Stephsns
Toims
Union
White
Totaf
130.U56
7,383
7,697
3,928
10,128
11,669
7,6SU
13,755
13,000
12,753
li,U32
11,026
5,16U
5,916
U,078
6,856
k,Sl7
Hale
Unite
59,791
3,101
3,082
1,989
5,066
5,17U
3,809
6,650
5,011
5,101
2,200
U,655
2,655
2,673
2,13lt
3,1)92
,389
19hO
Female
57,360
3,390
2,936
1,939
5,021
U,996
3,692
6,319
4,717
5,l8i
2,137
U,l*0lt
2.U65
2,609
l,9Wi
3,356
2,251
Hale
6,711
283
832
22
8U5
79
llOO
1,652
1,107
53
1,002
2k
308
—
2
102
Negro
Source: U. S. Census, Population, 19UO,
Second Series, Table 27.
1 Totals include other races.
Female
6,593
299
81(7
19
85U
7U
386
1,620
1.C61
liZ
96k
20
326
—
6
75
State
Eafinceriiif
Experiment
Station . . .
Crorgia
Ttck
ladottrut..
. Econonk
RtKircb .

Labor Force
Any discussion of the Labor Force In the Northeast Georgia
Area must be approached in a different way from other areas in
Georgia. This ©is because Northeast Georgia has some basic
characteristics which are completely different from most section:
of the state.
State ....
Engineering
Experiment
Station . . .
Ttch
Industrial . .
. . Economic
Research . .
Six Northern Counties: To begin with, six counties must be largely
disregarded .n considering most manufacturing problems. In Dawson, Lumpkin,
Unite, Union, Towns, and Rabun counties, the small total populations, the
preponderance of Subsistence farms, the lack of railroads, and the mountai
nous terrain all tend to lijait conventional approaches to industry.
Ten Southern Counties: In the remaining ten counties, in 1939, most
of the raani acturing was concentrated in four counties, Hall, Barrow, Ste—
phens and Jackson, and in consequence these counties contain over half the
total Labor Force and three-quarters of the manufacturing labor. The en
tire ten, however, appear to have labor characteristics which may be re
garded as industrially suitable. Forsyth county, which has strong agricul
tural ties with Oaines-
Table L-l
ville, is, from the
industrial viewpoint,
Labor Force Summary for the Northeast Georgia Area
somewhat allied with
Atlanta, since many
80,000-1
industrial workers
froi Forsyth county are
enp}.oyed in the Atlanta
Area. Table L-l shows
a total 191(0 Labor
Force of 69,090. Of
60,000-
this total, 72.6 per
cent was found in the
ten southern counties.
Table L-2 shows an
agricultural Labor
Force in 191*0 of 33,218,
1(0,000-
of which 79.39 per
cent was in the ten
southern counties.
Table A-3 shows an in
dustrial Labor Force
of Ik,k5i, of which
20,000-
S9.7l(' per cent was in
the southern counties.
The estimates in Table
1-7 show a decrease of
736 in the Labor Force
available for 191(6 in
the six northern coun
191(0
ties, and an increase
Census Estimate
of 3,110 in the ten
southern counties, Total I^bor Force
69,090
=ost of which is in the Total increase
four which had the
greatest concentration
of industry in the
nrewar years.
Six Northern Counties
191(6 Decrease over 191(0
Ten Southern Counties
191(6 Increase over 19liO
—25—
11,927
57,163
71,161,
2,37li
11,191
736
60,273
3,110

191*6 Estimates; The 191*6 Labor Force estimates show that
in the six northern counties there is an increase of size only
in the farm Labor Force. In other classifications, there is
either little change or a decrease, and none of these changes
are particularly significant. Tbe net decrease of 736 in the
total Labor Force for these counties may reflect the necessary
elimination from the Labor Force of a part of the 877 who in
191*0 were included in the Labor Force total but were not em- ___
ployed, since employment within their counties is less likely and the
workers are less likely to want to move. The high Subsistence farm rate
also contributes to the difficulty of caking estimates for these counties,
because many subsistence farmers will tend to claim former occupations
but will never actually accept employment.
It should be noted that the 191*0 Labor Force totals Include both
those employed and those seeking employment. The postwar estimate 1 , like
wise, includes both groups, so that, as compared with 191*0, there will
probably exist in the postwar period, over the Area as a. whole, a poten
tial demand (Including those not employed but seeking employment in 191*0)
for a total of 10,271* more jobs than actually existed in 191*0. In 191*0,
the total Labor Force was 69,090 of which 61,190 were actually employed
during the census week. Thus the 191*6 estimate is a net increase of
2,271* over 191*0. For the ten southern counties the net increase will be
3,110, while the six northern counties will have a decrease of 736. Dur
ing the war period, most of the individuals represented in the 10,271*
(except those in the armed services) were employed either in the Area or
in war plants elsewhere.
Industrial Labor
ForcesIn Table L-3
is shown an estimate
of the Labor Force
available to industry
in 191*6. This esti
mate shows an Area
increase over 191*0 of
lil*.07 per cent. For
the six northern
counties, the increase
was only 26.25 per
cent from 1,1*82 to
1,871. The ten south
ern counties, con
taining almost nine
out of ten Industrial
workers, are esti
mated to have an in
crease in industrial
workers of 1*6.11 per
cent, or from 12,969
to 18,91*9.
^•The estimate
is intended to re-
Comparison of
1*0,000
30,000-
20,000-
10,000-
Total
Six Northern Counties
Famers, Managers
Farm Laborers
Family Workers
Total
fleet the substantial Ten Southern Counties
completion of the re- Farmers, Managers
turn of men from the Farm Laborers
amed services by the suczier of 191*6. Family Workers
Total
26--
Table L-2
Agricultural Labor Force
191*0
Census
33,218
1*,568
1*27
1,853
6,81,8
17,063
3,661.
5,6!i6
26,373
7,269:
191*6
Estimate
33,216
1*33
1,789
7,269
16,892
3,691
5,3ft
2S.9W

Agricultural Labor Force; The agricultural labor force for
the Area, in the 191l6 estimates shown in Table L-2, is essential
ly unchanged from 19l(0, since all of the estimated changes are
small. The increase in the six northern counties largely re
flects the technical inclusion of ail subsistence farmers as
farmers, while the decrease in the total for the ten southern
counties largely results from a downward revision of,the esti
mate for unpaid family workers.
Stiu....
Engineering
Experiment
Station . . .
Georgia
Tech
Industrial . .
. . Economic
Reseatcb . .
Defense Migration: During the war years, there was a considerable
migration from the northern counties, particularly Union, Towns, and Rabun,
to Oak Ridge, Tennessee, and other war plant areas. Ifost of these workers,
however, appear to have resumed the subsistence farming in which they or
their families were previously engaged. To a lesser degree, but in larger
numbers, there was also a net migration during the emergency from all but
one of the ten southern counties, as well as some Internal migration.
The exception was Stephens, for which Table P-5 (page 21 ) indicates a
population gain. There will be many more individuals suitable for and
seeking industrial employment and slightly less interested in agriculture.
These two changes nay be expected to result in more manufacturing, a
further mechanization of agriculture, and a resulting rise in the income
and standard of living levels over all of the Area.
Other Possible Increases; In the Area as a whole, Farmers and Fam
Managers is the largest classification in the Labor Force. This is true,
also, for all counties except Hall, where more workers are classed as
Operatives. The probability exists in some counties, particularly the
northern six and one or two others with high Subsistence farm per cents,
that additional industrial labor could be found among the farm families
for a few special types of manufacturing (such as hooked rugs or other
craft industries).
Table L-3
Women provide an
other possible source
Comparison of Industrial Labor Force
of workers in some of
the ten southern coun
30,000-,
ties. Of the ll(,20U
shown in the 19l;0
Labor Force for the
20,000-
Area, 10.62U or 7U.79
If*** ****""fI
per cent are in six of
the ten southern coun
10,000-
ties. The lli,20li
total was only 20.55
per cent of total
0
Labor Force, and it
19U6
included 2,592 in
Census
Estimate
Domestic Service, 233
Fam Laborers and Total
20,820
1,86 Farm Laborers, Six Northern Counties
Unpaid, a sub-total Craftsmen
501
of 3,69lt, or 5.3U per Operatives
1.55
566
cent of the entire Laborers
610
BOh
Labor Force total,
Total
1,871
leaving only 15.21 Ten Southern Counties
Per cent of the Labor Craftsmen
2,725
Force represented by Operatives
8,210
11,87U
»omen in trade, in- Laborers
2,031:
2,927
Total
12,969
18.9U9
27

Table L-10 dustry, and .
the prof es- 1 SUK ....
Kunber of Persons Baployed ir. 191.0 in the sions. In- i|n«ia«nin8
Kortheast Georgia Area by Type of Industry creased de- I sarion"""'
Type .of Industry
Agriculture
Forestry
Vining
Construction
Total nanufacturing
Food and kindred
Textile Eill
Apparel1
Logging
Sawmills, planing mills
Furniture2
Paper and allied
Printing and publishing
Chendcals and allied
Leather
Stone, clay, and glass
Iron, steel
Nor-ferrous aetals
liachir.ery
AutoEobiles, eauipment
Transportation*
Others, not specified
Transportation
Railroads
Trucking service
Other transportation
Coffimuni cation
Utilities
Wholesale trade
Total retail
Food and dairy
Eating and drinking
liotor vehicles
Other retail trade
Finance4
Service businesses6
Donsstic service
Anusecent
Professional services
Govemaent
Industry not reported
Total
33,296
101
161
1,739
10,539
296
5,200
2,066
78
1,200
658
2
115
-isu
li»0
1*2
252
5
223
U
5
99
852
hSl
226
175
132
281
553
3,971
1,037
376
816
1,71(2
317
1,696
2,91i3
136
3,036
986
1.51
Hale
30,701
95
157
1,727
6,780
28U
3,122
500
78
1,191
631;
2
95
1U7
132
1)2
2hZ
5
211
It
5
86
"536
10,0
22li
172
6U
268
523
3,170
919
227
778
1,21(6
2UU
1,12k
271
-111
1,322
818
323
Female
2,595 6
h
12
3,759
12
2,078
1,566
—
9
21.
—
20
78
—
10
—
12
—
—
13
16
11
2
3
68
13
30
801
118
Ih9 38
1.96
73
572
2,672
25
1,71k
168
128
Source: II. S. Census, Population, 19ljO,
Second Series, Taole 23.
1 Includes other fabricated textiles.
zlncludes store fixtures, miscellaneous
wooden goods.
3Except auto.
* Includes insurance and real estate.
"Includes automobile and repair services,
hotels, launderir.g, cleaning, miscellaneous per
sonal services.
—2S--
very probably Ind J^i . .
oroduce more • • Economit
women workers Ra""h • •
than the I8,6o3 total
shown in Table L-7 as
the 191(6 estimate.
Few Negro Workers:
In 19UO the Labor Force
included 8,755 Negroes.
Seven of the southern
counties contained
7,718 of these Kegroes,
only 16.82 per cent of
the k$,86h Labor Force
for the seven counties.
The seven counties are
listed below; in two
counties, !ovrns_ and
Dasfson, no Negro work
ers were reported, while
in Forsyth and Union
the totals were 12 and
k respectively. Thus
it is obvious that Negro
labor is available only
in part of the southern
counties and that in
these counties the pro
portion is less than
for most of Georgia.
The Seven Counties
With the Largest
No. of Kegroes
in Labor Force
~
~~
for
~~~ ~~
19S3
~~ ~~ "
Hall 1,621
Hart I,li01
Jackson 1,280
Barrow 1,032
Stephens 807
Kadison 802
Franklin 785
Womer. in the Labor
Force: The majority of
the women employed in
industry in the Area,
numbering 3 ,67li, are
Operatives in textile.
plants. The next

to
to I
Type of Worker
Persons ll) years old and over
In Labor Force
Employed
Wage and Salary Workers
Employers1
Professional
Semi-Prof essional
Farmers, Farm Managers
Proprietors, Officials2
Clerical, Sales'
Craftsmen, Foremen
Operatives
Domestic Service
Service Workers*
Farm Laborers, Foremen
Farm Workers, Unpaid6
Laborers2
Occupation Not Reported
Table L-U
Total Labor Force in Northeast Georgia Area in 191tO by_ Type of
"*~* • in TotaT end by Northern and Southern Counties
Northeast Georgia Area
Total
136,31,0
69,090
61,190
27,571,
25,701
2,721
159
21,631
2,807
3,053
3,11)2
8,665
2,809
1,683
It, 091
7,1)99
2,61,1)
286
Male
67,21)9
51), 886
1)8,531)
18,361,
2U,3U3
1,203
139
21,139
2,521
1,967
3,067
1),991
217
1,070
3,858
5,630
2,559
173
Female
69", 091
lit, 201,
12,656
9,210
1,353
1,518
20
1)92
286
1,086
75
3,67k
2,592
613
233
1,869
85
113
Six Northern Counties Ten Southern Counties
Total Male Female Total Male Female
21), 9W) 12,677 12,267 111,396 Sit, 572 56,821,
11,927 10,585 1,31,2 57,163 lilt, 301 12,862
10,050 8,91)5 1,105 51,11)0 39,589 11,551
2,911 2,262 61)9 21,, 663 16,102 8,561
5,201 5,033 168 20,500 19,310 1,190
515 257 258 2,206 91,6 1,260
17 16 1 11)2 123 19
1),568 It, 1)81 87 17,063 16,658 1,05
1)52 387 65 2,355 2,131) 221
251 170 81 2,802 1,797 1,005
1)17 1)15 2 2,25 2,652 73
1)55 U32 23 8,210 U,559 3,651
225 8 217 2,581t 209 2,375
212 116 966 1,1)71 951) 517
1)27 1)21
3,661, 3,1)37 227
1,853 1,602 251 5,61,6 1,,028 1,618
610 609 1 a,03U 1,950 8U
1)8 31 17 238 11)2 96
Source; U. S. Census, Population, 19UO, Second Series, Table 23, 23a.
Includes own-account workers . 4Except domestic.
"Except farm. BFamily workers. r
*And kindred workers.
2.' ET -SPSPifl
9 o. /iSi. » « 1

o
I
Type of Worker
Persons lit years old and over
In Labor Force
Employed
Wage and Salary Workers
Employees
Professional
Semi-Prof essional
Farmers, Farm Managers
Proprietors, Officials8
Clerical, Sales*
Craftsmen, Foremen3
Operatives
Domestic Service
Service Workers4
Farm Laborers, Foremen
Farm Workers, Unpaid
Laborers8
Occupation Hot Reported
Table L-5
White Labor Force in Northeast Georgia Area in 191.0 tg Type of
Worker in Total and by~HoVthern~and SouTEern Countiea
Northeast Georgia Area
Total
121,511
60,335
52,973
22,681
23,307
2,558
156
19,731.
2,768
3,023
3,031.
8,277
688
1,111
2,669
6,618
2,095
2l»2
Hale
60,186
l»9,170
1.3,252
15,562
22,385
1,1ft
136
19,310
2,500
1,91.5
2,959
h,6Bl\
26
681
2,561
5,131
2,018
lit
Female
61,325
11,165
9,721
7,119
922
1,1.01,
20
teli
268
1,078
75
3)593
662
130
108
1,1*87
77
95
Six Northern Counties
Total
21., 388
ll,63li
9,795
2,71.1
5,11.5
512
17
It, 517
1.51
250
1.12
1.36
173
166
1.03
1,827
586
• 1*5
Male
12,362
10,377
8,770
2,155
t.,982
257
16
It, 1.30
387
170
1.10
1.15
1.
83
397
1,586
585
Female
12,026
1,257
1,025
586
163
255 1
87
61*
80
2
21
169
836
30
21.1
1
15
Ten Southern Counties
Total
97,123
1.8,701
1.3,178
19,91.0
18,162
2,01.6
139
15,217
2,317
2,773
2,622
7,81.1
515
91.5
2,266
i.,791
1,509
197
Kale
1.7, 821.
38,793
3lt,1.82
13,1.07
17,1.03
897
120
11., 880
2,113
1,775
2,51.9
It, 269
22
598
2,161*
3,515
1,1.33
117
Female
1(9,299
9,908
8,696
6,533
759
1,11.9
19
337
20U
998
73
3,572
1.93
31*7
102
1,21*6
76
80
Source: U. S. Census, Population, 191.0, Second Series, Table 23, 23a.
Includes own-account workers. ESccept domestic.
3Except farm. T^"" workers.
Vd kindred workers. a : I 0 B
1 ——————————————————————————————————————————————————————— s we ^S

Female
1,706
69
621
274
2,080
174
6,283
2,477
1,071
343
1,630
286
16,914
n M. o o o e*
si^&s^a
* : a- M s-
•;«7
1946 Estimate of Labor Force for Northeast Georgia Area
in Total and by Northern an Southern~Counties©
Northeast Georgia Area
Total
3,678
277
21,939
3,688
4,322
4,649
12,440
2,941
2,522
4,124
7,153
3,731
71,464
Male
1,672
178
21,306
© 3,247
2,068
4,424
6,078
227
1,299
3,764
5,245
3.293
52,801
Femdle
2,006
99
633
441
2,254
225
6,362
2,714
1,223
360
1,908
438
18.663
Six Northern Counties
Total
561
61
5,047
561
348
501
566
247
283
433
1,789
804
11,191
Male
261
21
4,935
394
174
450
487
10
131
416
1,511
652
9,442
Female
300
30
112
167
174
51
79
237
152
17
278
152
1,749
Ten Southern Counties
Total
3,117
226
16,892
3,127
3,974
4,148
11.874
2,694
2,239
3,691
5,364
2,927
60,273
Male
1,411
157
16,371
2,863
1,894
3,974
5,591
217
1,168
3,348
3,734
2,641
43,369
Source; U. S. Census of Population, 1940, Second Series, Tables 23, 23a.
Except Farm Eand Kindred Workers ©Except Domestic ^Family Workers

I
OI
to
I
Slate ....
Engineering
Experiment
Station . . .
Gtowia
Tub
Induitrial . -
. . Economic
Rettitch . .
Summary
and
Counties
Area
Panel I
Panel II
Total
136,3liO
37,062
99,278
Panel I Counties
Barrow
lart
i'orsyth
Jadison
9,1)80
10,712
7,566
9,30lt
Panel II Counties
Franklin
iabun
'ackson
White
Hall
labersham
jumpkin
Stephens
ianks
Inion
oims
Dawocm
10,700
5,280
13,960
U,226
2U.571
10,075
U,109
9,118
5,910
5,088
3,290
2,951
Persons Over
Fourteen Years of Age
11
White
60,186
15,596
Mi, 590
3,81j2
a,091
3,791
3,872
1),51)7
2,595
5,686
2,021)
10,707
U.695
1,980
3,859
2.73U
.2,587
1.66U
I,lj92
F
61,325
15,592
1)5,733
1),070
U.018
3,751
3,753
1),631
2,573
5,965
1,977
11.U98
U.886
1,983
3,966
2,761
2,1)92
1,606
1,39$
labor Force by Cowities and by Typo of Occupation
for 1 Northeast Georgia Area
Non-White
11
7,063
2,61)2
h,221
71)2
1,263
12
825
721)
56
1,122
120
1,051
226
71
575
208
h
6k
F
7,766
3,032
1),73()
826
1,31*0
12
85h
798
56
1,187
105
1,315
268
75
718
207
5
gtcTTn"
Total
69,090
18,71)8
$0,3li
5,1*51)
5,309
3,507
lt,U78
U,913
2,598
7,3hl)
2,033
13,1)01)
U.98U
1,918
U.962
2,606
2,389
1,552
l,Ji37
Table L-9
Total Number of
Persons in Labor Force
U
Wiite
1)9,170
12,51)7
36,623
3,11)8
3,21)5
3,136
3,018
3,557
2.13U
U,70l)
1,705
8,818
3,71)0
1,668
3,11)0
2,287
2,237
1,1)27
1,206
F
11,165
2,751)
8,1)11
l,27lj
663
359
1)58
571
381
1,360
205
2,965
918
170
1,015
325
11)5
125
231
Non-White
U
5,716
2,375
3,31il
6k9
1,006
12
708
58U
1)9
897
98
610.
187
57
1)58
166
1)
F
3,039
1,072
1,967
383
395
291)
201
31)
383
25
780
139
23
31)9
30
3
Total
61,190
17,086
hlt,Wk
Number of Persons Bnployed
U,920
1>,9*
3,193
i),067
U.USI)
2,085
6.86U
1,716
11,835
U,150
1,61)7
)i,Mil
2,28o
2,o5l
1,307
1.2UU
M
White
1)3,252
11,369
31,883
2,765
2,975
2,905
2,72U
F
9,721
2,1)11
7,310
1,197
563
276
375
3,251) U79
1,705 306
li,365 1,262
1.U59 152
7,721 2,623
3,062 797
1,1)37 11)1
2,818 912
1,893 212
1,905 139
1,197 110
1,067 177
Non-U/hite
M
5,282
2,267
3,015
585
978
12
692
557
Wi
861
81
71)1)
157
1)6
371
150
1*
F
2,935
1,039
1,896
373
390
276
191)
30
376
21i
7l(7
131)
23
31)0
25
3

(continued)
I
I
O)
W
I
I
Summary
and
Counties
Area
Panel I
Panel II
Number of
Wage and Salary Workers
Total
27,57l(
6,115
21,1*59
Panel I Counties
Barrow
Hart
Forsyth
Madison
2,581
1,1)80
516
1,538
Panel II Counties
Franklin
Rabun
Jackson
White
Hall
Habershaa
Lumpkin
Stephens
Banks
Union
Towns
Dawson
1,61)3
877
3,51k
U21
7,580
2,1(03
612
2,81)3
505
390
279
332
11
White
15, #2
2,767
12,795
1,026
621
1)05
715
F
7,119
1,666
5,ltS3
1,031
292
111
232
881) 351
S«l 230
1,839 997
292 81
U.376 2,081
1,526 61)5
1)62 100
1,690 651
325 11)2
317 67
221) 55
279 53
Non-White
H
2,802
l,01il
1,761
301)
35« —
379
F
2,091
61)1
l.liSO
220
209
212
Number of Employers
and Own-Account Workers
Total
25,701
8,3l>7
17,351i
1,758
2,1)92
2,06
2,028
255 153 2,1)35
UO 26 939
.1)50 288 2,392
36 12 908
5U9 57U 3,305
117 115 1,1(31
27 23 785
253 2U9 1,219
301) 82 1,371
1,193
— — 737
— — 639
11
White
22,385
7,056
15,329
1,1)13
1,921
2,011;
1,708
2,057
880
1,995
860
2,775
1,310
71)8
970
1,2W)
1,167
716
611
F
922
211
711
52
56
1*6
57
88
S3
Ik
17
206
69
19
76
35
25
21
Non-White
11
1,958
91(9
1,009
211(
1(81
9
2U5
259 •)
295
30
171
37
18
105
91
__
28, —
F
U36
131
305
79
31(
18
31
3
28
1
153
15
68
51
—
—
Number of
Professional Workers
Total
2,721
57U
2,1U7
11(2
193
108
131
21V
136
2lil
75
51il
323
93
217
93
85
77
1(9
White
11
1.15U
217
937
59
75
50
33
96
59
85
28
2S5
121
53
95
28
51
U9
17
F
l,l*0l(
299
1,105
72
92
58
77
111
76
128
1(7
2h9
19U
38
10U
6li
31*
28
32
Negro
M
k9
13
36
2
5
6
h
H
_
Hi
3
7
— _
_
—
F
111(
1»5
69
9
1
15
6
1
20
_
23
5
2
Yl
1
_
—
(Continued on p. 3U )

Table L-9 (Continued)
I
O)
lf>
I
Summary
and
Counties
Area
Panel I
Panel II
Number of Semi-
Professional Worker
Total
159
28
131
Panel I Counties
Barrow
Hart
Forsyth
Madison
12
6
1*
6
U
136
25
111
Panel II Counties
Franklin
Rabun
Jackson
White
Hall
Habershai
Lumpkin
Stephens
Banks
Union
Totms
Dawson
6
1U
3
1*1*
17
6
33
~k
1
White
12
h
I*
5
6
3
1U
3
35
1U
5
26
"u
1
F
20
2
18
1
1
8
3
1
6
Negro
U
3
1
2
F
—
Number of
Farmers and Farm Managers
Total
21,631
7,1*53
1U.178
1 — 1,357
2,268
l,96lt
1,86U
1
1
—
—
_ '
2,116
753
2,027
836
2,267
1,062
679
81*5
1,293
1,065
61*5
590
White
U
19,310
6,377
12,933
1,11*1
1.7UO
1,917
1,579
1,818
728
1,706
793
2,088
1,002
655
719
1,170
1)01*9
638
567
F
1421*
116
308
10
1*0
38
28
39
22
33
13
67
21*
6
30
28
16
7
23
Negro
U
1,029
926
903
202
1*71
9
2UU
21*9
3
277
30
110
31*
18
92
90
F
68
31*
31*
1*
17
13
10
11
2
2
U
5
—
Number of Proprie
tors and Officials
Tota:
2,807
615
2,192
266
138
82
129
219
131*
271
61
658
279
81
251
62
79
60
37
White
U
2,500
572
1,928
2U1
131
77
123
190
108
2U2
51*
575
250
72
231
53
70
51
32
F
26B
37
231
20
6
6
26
25
27
7
62
29
9
11*
9
9
9
5
Negro
U
21
1
20
F
18
5
13
1 It
1
3
2
12
3
__
1
9
3
Number of
Clerical and Sales Workers
Total
3,053
653
2,1*00
302
11*2
55
151*
201
91
302
39
l.OW
250
51
311*
39
35
22
13
U
White
1,91*5
U27
1,518
192
87
36
112
131
62
207
29
631
171*
32
170
35
25
13
9
F
1,078
221*
851*
110
53
19
1*2
68
29
93
10
391*
75
18
11*0
li
10,
9
1*
Negro
U
22
1
21
F
8
1
7
1 1
1
2
~~5
13
1
U
1
1
*" 5" 6tuni0» I
(Continued on p. 35 )

Summary
Counties
Area
Panel I
Panel II
Number of
Craftsmen and Foremen
Total
3,11*2
537
2,605
Panel I Counties
Barrow-
Hart
Forsyth
liadlgon
208
135 57
137
Panel II Counties
Franklin
Rabun
Jackson
White
Hall
Habersham
Lumpkin
Stephens
Banks
Onion
Towns
Daws on
11*8
11*6
293
63
866
275
71*
5U8 58 52
56
26
Unite
U
2,959
1*82
2,1*77
183
119 56
121*
138
11*3
260
61
837
262
72
519 51
52
56
26
F
75
21
5k
Negro
11
10B
3k Ik
16 212
9
m—
U
2
1
13 1
13
3
_.
lit7
—
—
—
F
_ _
__
—
__
_
—
—
Number of Operatives
Total
8,665
1,651*
7,011
1,157
258
1*1*
195
8 __ 1*00
2 — 118
20 — 1,1*01
1 ——. 69
16 3,012
10 — 61*5
2 — 138
15 — 996
—. 102
—.
——— 65
__ 32 — 33
It
White
l*,68lt
555
1*,129
Table L-9 (Continued)
F
3,593
1,019
2,571*
310 820
118 112
ko k
87 83
231
107
701
56
1,710
396
127
585
58
62
31
32
mo
5
61*7 6
1,131
233
5
359
Negro
U
307
75
232
F
81
5
76
26 1
21* h
— —,
25 —
27
U
1*27
87
15 6 1*31
1*3311
. _ .
_
—
2
2
11
__
511
—
9
_
_
—
Total
2,809
679
2,130
Number in
Domestic Service
276
178 16
209
181*
109
331*
23
830
233
50
297
27
20
White
U
26
9
17
1
2
2
li
__
32
__
5k
—
2
m
9
_
1
—
(Continued on p. 36 )
F
662
71
591
15
10
Hi
32
16
85
65
10
195
100
31*
31
15
18
1C
191
30
161
10
12
—
8
18
2
33
1
73
22183
139
Negro
_
—
F
1,930
569
1,361
250
151*
165
150 19
231*
12
557
107 15
258
72
—
Total
1,683
271
1,1*12
Number of
Service Workers
126
79
20
1*6
90
92
130
11
610
160 51
186
2k
2U
21
13
White
U
681
121
560
F
1*30
71
359
52 28
33 20
11 9
25 1U
111 21*
27 U6
59U 272
21U 131.
75 1*3
21 11
73 U268
15
13
10
8
Negro
11
389
50
339
33
11*
3
16
13
281*
181*
27
m U832
11
5
_
—
F
183
29
151*
13
12
_
1*
9
6
16
1
78
15
5
23
1
_
--.

Summary
and
Counties
Area
Panel I
Panel II
Number of
Farm Laborers and Foremen
Total
I* 091
1,589
2,502
Panel I Counties
Barrow
Hart
Forsyth
Madison
365
1*95
136
593
Panel II Counties
Franklin
Rabun
Jackson
White
Hall
Habersham
Lumpkin
Stephens
Banks
Union
Towns
Dawson
391
132
769
57
316
337
Id
11*8
111*
lOU
35
58
U
White
2,561
731
1,830
11*1.
191*
128
265
237
121
1.60
I|5
239
F
108
27
81
10
1
36
15
81S1i
56
38
91
92
102
35
Table L-9 (Continued)
Number of
Family Farm Workers
Negro
White Negro
U F Total U F U F
1,29'7 125 7,1*99 5,131
71.6 85 2.U86
551 1*0 5,011 3,6^6
1.U95
1,1*87 1*99 382
1*79 259 255
1,008 21(0 127
j, 196
10 258 85 _.
292
_w
2
139
10
251*
12
56
15 2
1*2
21
—
__
—
21
33 —
31
5
3°
_..
6
._ 10
_
—.
_
—
51*5
881
597
1*65
378
21*9
869
371*
889
29
232
331*
393
1*1*7
280
271
315
U09
1*80
291
302
235
512
299
553
217
215
321*
1.10
252
175
95
201*
111*
66
25
13
183
51
300 71
16
159
29
37
28
96
6k
127
3
65
1*2
1
US
lit
23
31
13 28
__
—
—
71
11*1
—
1*3
9
—
59
10
13
I*
— .
20
12
—
—
—
Number of
Laborers other than Fari i
Total
2, Jlil.
1*27
8,217
ISO
78
101
98
110
111*
191
91
721*
261
11*0
259
62
66
57
11*2
2,018
308
1,710
Occupation
Not Reported
White Negro
White Negro
M F V. F Total U F M F
77 51*1 ft 286 11(7 9 26 18
8 111 118 50 37 20 11
69 1*30 8 168 97 58 6 7
109
37
99
63
1*9
105
103
80
529
226
137
159
59
61*
57
11*2
Sourcet 1). S. Census, Population, Qeorgia, 19UO, Second Series, Table 23.
2
2
2
2
11
—
6
__
39 81ll
—
—
—
39 __
39 __
—
33 —
1*9
9
78
11
151.
27
2
95
32
—
—
1
1*
2
—
. —
1
. —
, —
—
—
m
559
1*0
21*
8
22
ll*
35
13
11
13
13
58
2
6
26
5
13
5
11
U
17
3
12
__
5
_
6
—
S
15 7 i 1
1* 3I* — a
m 2 2
7 5 1
17 16 1 i
7 611* —
10 .—
—.
863li2 — i
6 1 .—
21* —
If**' s %'"&

.1
O)
type of Worker
Persons 11. years old and over
In Labor Force
Employed
Wage and Salary Workers
Bnployers1
Professional
Semi-Prof essional
Farmers, Farm Managers
Proprietors, Officials2
Clerical, Sales'
Craftsmen, Foremen8
Operatives
Domestic Service
Service Workers*
Farm Laborers,. Foremen
Farm Workers, Unpaid*
Laborers2
Occupation Not Reported
Table L-6
Non-White Labor Force in northeast Georgia Area in 191*0 by_
Worker in Total ancTby Northern~and SouthenTCounties
Northeast Georgia Area Six Northern Counties Ten Southern Counties
Total
11*, 829
8,755
8,217
U.893
2,391*
163 '3
1,897
39
30
108
388
2,121
572
1,1*22
881
51.9
ia.
Hale
7,063
5,716
5,282
2,802
1,958
1*9
3
1,829
21
22
108
307
191
389
1,297
1*99
51.1
26
Female
7,766
3,039
2,935
2,091
1*36
111*
—
68
18
8
81
1,930
183
125
382
8
18
Total
556
293
255
170
56
3
—
51 ii5
19
52
1*6
21*
26
21.
3
Male
315
208
175
107
51
Female
21,1
85
80
635
__ 3 _ —.
51 _
— 1
.— 1 5 —
17 2
1* 1*8
33 13
21*
16 10
21*
1
—
2
Total
11., 273
8,1,62
7,962
1*,723
2,338
160
3
1,81*6
38
29
103
369
2,069
526
1,398
855
525
of
Hale Female
6,71*8 7,525
5,508 2,951*
5,107 2,855
2,695 2,028
1,907 1*31
1*9 111
.3 _
1,778 68
21 17
22 7
103
290 79'
187 1,882
356 170
1,273 125
1*83 372
517 8
1.1 25 16
Source: U. S. Census, Population, 191*0, Second Series, Table 23, 23a.
alncludes own-account workers. 4Except domestic.
Except fain. TTamily workers.
sAnd kindred workers. • If
HF

more, it is apparent that local planning will be necessary to
furnish these men with specific opportunities. The Teturning
serviceiran has the legal right to return to his old job. How
ever, many of the younger members of the armed forces went
directly from high school or college into the service of their
country and do not have positions to which they may return.
Others have acquired new skills and want different jobs or would
like to utilize their military experiences in pioneering new
enterprises.
Blanket plans for "setting veterans up as farmers" have generally
failed in the past and are fundamentally in contradiction to the idea of
absorbing veterans into civilian activities and furnishing them with quick
opportunities to take on civilian ways. The sound way to solve th»s«
problems is through contact with the individuals, veteran by veteran.
Both individual employers and civic groups can well give time to such indi
vidual discussions of individual problems.
Uany Till Farm; In Northeast Georgia, there will be a high propor
tion wh3 will probably want to engage in farming, and those who have the
interest and skill should be encouraged in this desire. It is important
that would-be farmers be guided by advice from agricultural agencies such
as the County Agent, the Agricultural Extension Service, the College of
Agriculture, and the Agricultural Experiment Station. The veteran must
be re-established so that he can become an integral part of his community,
ac.-opting his share of responsibility for problems which occur there. If
he contributes energetically and with his best ability, he can help in
creating the best economic pattern for the postwar period.
—33--

Income
The total buying income of the sixteen counties in the
Hortheast Georgia Area has increased from $lil,8U8,000 in 1939 to
$103,185,000 in 19liU. The largest item in this increase is de
rived from the sales of broilers and frying chickens which dur
State ....
Enfinetrinf
ExpcriaiBt
Station . . .
Indutrial..
ing this period has become the largest single source of farm income and one
of the major income sources of the Area. At the same time the long-stand
ing crops and the manufacturing industries have had increases in general
following the Georgia pattern, so that the actual increase in total Buying
Income of H6.33 per cent in 19UU over 1939 is somewhat higher than in
other Georgia Areas. At the same time retail sales have increased at a
somewhat lower rate, due to the effects of rationing, bond buying and in
creased income taxes.
Million
Dollars
100
BoJ
60-
90-
70-
50-
IjO-
30-
20-
10-
—Buying Income
— Retail Sales
1939
(Ten Southern Counties) „.
Table J-l, which
presents the Area sum
mary of both income
and retail sales data,
is taken from Sales
Management, and repre
sents estimates based
on gross income Vwages,
salaries, dividends
and interest, Govern
ment payments, and all
miscellaneous itens of.
income) adjusted to
represent real or buy
ing income. "After
apportioning to each
state its share of the
total national income,
based upon studies of
retail sales, bank
debits, carloadings,
dividend payments, ag
ricultural marketings,
etc., the total state
incomes are then dis
tributed by counties
on a ratio number
built from the proportion
of income tax returns and agricultural marketings which each county
Table J-l
Retail Sales
Buying Income
Source: Table J-2.
Retail Sales and Buying Income, 1939-19UU
(In Thousands ofT '
1939
$22,097
14,81*8
—39—
191*0
$23,556
IJ.,516
191*1
$28,880
51,133
19U2
$25,597
56,168
19U3
$30,62fc
78,235
19Uj
$39,835
103,885

Summary and
Counties
Area Total
Six Northern
Rabun
Ihite*
Lumpkln
Union
Towns
Dawson*
Total
Ten Southern
Barrow
Hart
Forsyth*
Madison
Franklin
Jackson*
Hall*
Habersham*
Stephens
Banks
Total
Table 1-2
Retail Sales and Buying Income Estimates for the Northeast
Georgia Area by Counties 1939 through 19U
Item
Buying Incoma
Retail Sales
Counties:
Buying Income
Retail Sales
Buying Income
Retail Sales
Buying Income
Retail Sales
Buying Income
Retail Sales
Buying Income
Retail Sales
Buying Income
Retail Sales
Buying Income
Retail Sales
Counties:
Buying Income
Retail Sales
Buying Income
Retail Sales
Buying Income
Retail Sales
Buying Income
Retail Sales
Buying Income
Retail Sales
Buying Income
Retail Sales
Buying Income
Retail Sales
Buying Income
Retail Sales
Buying Income
Retail Sales
Buying Income
Retail Sales
Buying Income
Retail Sales
(In Thousands of Dollars)
1939 191,0 19W.
*1*1,31*8
22,097
1,6U8
1,012
512
265
1,010
353
728
230
170
11,6
375 76
l*,7l*3
2,087
3,1,87
1,688
3,71*7
962
1,383
560
3,001
823
3,736
1,869
1*,372
2,lj03
10,1,09
7,323
2,621
2,075
3,891*
2,111,
1,55
188
37,105
20,010
$1*1,516
23,556
1,691*
1,079
526
282
1,038
382
71*8
21*5
1*83
156
185
81
l*,67l*
2,225
3,231,
1,799
3,852
1,026
1,1*22
597
1,385
877
3,81,0
1,992
h,h9h
2,562
10,700
7,812
2,891*
2,212
1*,003
2,251*
1(68
200
36,81*2
21,331
$51,133
28,830
2,218
1,312
627
31*3
1,237
1,65
891
293
575
190
370
99
li,918
2,707
3,913
2,138
2,589
1,21*8
2,1*51,
956
1,067
1,067
U.575
2,1*23
5, Hit
3,116
1U,298
9,501
Ij,lt99
2,690
U,769
2,7la
658
2U3
1*5,215
26,173
19irf
156,168
25,597
2,3l»6
1,11*2
693
299
1,309
h05
91*3
259
608
165
Ii09
135
6,308
2.10S
U,139
1,905
2,739
1,087
3,1*52
1,185
2,161.
929
1,81*0
2,110
5,811,
2,713
16,081
8,272
1*,890
2,1*1*1
5,01,5
2,387
696
212
1*9,860
23,21*1
*78,235
30,621,
2,990
1,216
981
391*
1,839
1*75
1,221
280
72!*
161*
l*5o
11*2
8,205
2,671
5,227
2,008
3,61,8
1,209
5,018
1,216
2,763
991
7,122
2,595
7,1*95
2,970
23,71*8
11,016
6,914*
2,889
7,151
2,827
911*
232
70,030
19M
$103,385
39,83i
3,786
1,697
1,337
1,51*
^,330
605
1,680
336
1,075
252
626
181,
10,831,
3.78
7,31,7
2,839
8,62!.
1.U13
7,581
1,395
J*,231«
1,378
8,602
3,11*2
10,753
3,632
28,1*68
1U.10J,
7,371)
3,680
. 8,960
3.5W
1,053
319
93,001
36.251
27,953
Source: Sales Management, April 10, 191*0, 191*1, 19ii2;May 10, 191*3,
19li!*, 191.5. remission has "Seen secured to use these copyrighted estimates.
7ne 1939 retail sales figure is tabulated from U. S. Census, Retail Trade,
Georgia, 1939, Table 16.
•Since the Sales Management tables distribute the state total of agri
cultural incooe to individual counties according to a general fonmila,the
estimates for six counties fail to include farm income from the sale of
broilers. The Sales Management estimates of both Buying Income and Retail
Sales for Forsyth, Hall, Bawson, Habersham, Jackson, and White counties
have been revised for 191,1-1*1, to reflect this income. _
—40—

has to the total income returns and agricultural marketings of
tie state. These basic figures are then further refined by
applying known information about the non-money income received
TOJ farmers, as estimated from government surveys made' in 1935-36,
..... The resultant figure is called Effective Buying In
come—effective because it attempts to measure real income, and
not merely dollars and cents. . . .'*L
State ....
Enpnmuif
Experiment
Station . . .
Grergia
Tidt
Indutiul . .
. . Ecoaomk
Refeircb . .
As is the case with most data for Northeast Georgia, the summary be
comes more understandable nhen the counties are divided into groups which
reflect the geographic and economic diversities within the Area. Table
J-2 which presents the county detail already summarized in Table J-l di
vides the counties into two groups: (1) the six northern counties, and (2)
the ten southern counties.
As might be expected from the subsistence character of fanning and
the lack of industry in the six northern counties, they have not quite a
Table J-3
tenth of the total income and
slightly smaller proportion of the
retail sales.
Value of Farm Products Sold, Traded,
and Consumed in 19397 as Per Cent
~~of Buying Income in I9UO, for
the Northeast Georgia Area,
5ounties
Summary
and
Counties
Area Total
Banks
Barrow
Dawson
Forsyth
ranklin
labersham
Ball
Bart
Jackson
laapkin
ladison
Jabun
Stephens
Towns
Inion
fcite
Value
Farm
Products
1939
$13,223
65k
998
219
1,163
I,2ii9
815
1,385
1,566
1,377
372
1,168
582
105
225
579
1*57
Buying
Income
19UO
(Add 000)
*la,5i6
il68
3,281*
185
1,1(22
3,8JjO
2,891*
10,700
3,852
k,k9k
1,038
1,835
1,691*
U,003
1*83
71(8
526
Per
Cent1
31.85
139.7k
30.39
118.38
81.79
32.53
28.16
12.9U
It0.65
30.6U
35.8k
61.96
3U. 36
10.37
U6.58
77.1*1
86.38
Sources (Col. 1) U. S. Census,
Igrioulture , Georgia, 191iO, Third
series, Tab le 17; (Col. 2) Table J-2.
Col. £ calculated from Cols. 1 and 2.
Per Cent which value of Farm
Products (Col. 1) is of Buying In
come fCol. 2).
—41—
Retail Sales; Tables J-l and
J-2 indicate an upward trend in .re
tail sales for the 1939-19ld( period,
but not a rise equal to that of
buying income. The explanation
probably lies in the scarcity of
many consumer goods, increased in
come taxes, and the purchase of
war bonds. The retail sales
figures are based upon census
figures for 1939, but have been
modified by Sales Management by
changes in population, studies of
sales tax receipts, bank debits
and a correlation between bank" deb
its and retail sales, and by index
figures of retail sales compiled by
the Federal Reserve Bank and by the
Department of Commerce. In retabulating
both the retail sales and
income figures,-adjustments have
been made in six counties (Dawson,
Forsyth, Hall, Habersham, Jackson,
and Unite) to reflect the effect
of the rapid expansion of the
broiler industry which the Sales
Management formula would not
property distribute because of the
rapid growth entirely during the
period and the fact that the en
tire development was confined to
eight counties, six of which are
in the Northeast Georgia Area.
•"•Sales Management, May 10,
19U(, p. 26.

Despite the very apparent predominance of farm population
In Northeast Georgia, the total value of farm products "sold,
traded and consumed" in 1939 was only 31.85 per cent of the
Sales Management estimate of Buying Income for 191»0, as shown in
Table J-3.
At first glance,the farm products-buying income ratios of
139.7k per cent for Banks county, and 118.38 per cent for Dawson
county, would appear- to be impossible. Residents of both counties, however,
will tend to make retail purchases in Gainesville, Comnerce,or Atlanta,
thus reducing the total of retail trade within each county. The Sales
Management estimates of buying income take account of retail trade as a
control, a. factor which would undoubtedly reduce the buying income estimate
and inflate the farm products-buying income ratio. It must be remembered,
also, that retail purchase of food, a large item in non-farm budgets, is a
relatively small item in farm budgets.
Retail trade figures are broken down in the various sections of Table
J-U and J-lia, to show in more detail the distribution of retail sales in
the Area and in the individual counties. Averags sales per store vary
widely from county to county, ranging from $1$0° in Dawson county to
$20,021 in Hall county. For tiie Area as a whole> th average sales per
store are $12,2Hi, but in general the counties with a high ratio of form
Sunmary
and
Counties
Area Total
Banks
Barrow
Dawson
Forsyth
Franklin
Habersham
Ball
Hart
Jackson
Lumokic
Madison
Babun
Stephens
Towns
Union
Ihite
Table J-lt
Retail Trade Summary for the Northeast
Georgia Area, for 1939
by~Counties
Number
of Stores
Total
1,908
50
138
ko
lOli
17lt
171
375 98
183
73
107
87
129
17 68
6U
Unin
corpo
rated
1,791
1*8
13
U2
103
179
139
366
92
17U
k7
100
85
117
U7
68
U9
Total
Sales
(Add
000)
$22,097
188
1,688
76
560
1,869
2,075
7,328
962
2,U03
358
823
1,012
a,iii
Uj6
230
265
Total
Pay
rolls
(Add
000)
Aver
age Em
ployees
2,275
8
209
1
26
155
220
871
106
258
26
62
86
UjO 218
63lj 10
118
»1,379
2
111,
1
17
77
117
618
58
125
15
31*
US
Source: IT. S. Census, Retail Trade,
Georgia, 1939, Table 16.
—42—
income to total income
shorr sales per store considei-ably
below the Area
average. Conversely,
those counties with a
low ratio of farm income
to total income show
sales per store well
above the Area average,
Hall being the most
outstanding example.
Table J-lia also has
several noteworthy
blanks, indicating ab
sence of stores of some
types in Banks, Madison,
Towns, Union, nhite, Dawson,
or Forsyth, so that
residents of these coun
ties desirir-g to pa
tronize such conveniences
as exclusive clothing
stores or drug stores
would have to make a trip
to Gainesville, Cornelia,
Commerce or outside the
Area to Athens or Atlanta.

Table J-Ua gut. ....
Enputriac
Retail Trade by Eleven Types of Stores for the Northeast |rptri»»t
Georgia Area, by_ Counties for 1939 G£,& '
~~ T»d>
(Sales in Thousands of Dollars) ^E^—i
,__
Banks
__ —— _„
———
9 33 2 *
Barrow
5 69 3 88 3k 226 It 120
Dawson — — — — 1 26 2 *
Forsyth i76 * 167 * 10 52 5 21
Franklin
78
261* 22 210 8 189
Eabersham
89
329 1*1* 276 n 253
Ball
13 51*2 H. 1,791 69 61O 735ii ItOU
Hart
253 * 3 1.0 23 158
5k
Jackson
67 6 361 1.3 230
98
Lmapkin
12 1 * 10 60
Hadison
.—
5 156 26 105
Habun
2 * 26 16 105 •i. *
165
Stephens 5iii 131.
1.83 28 210 5 139
Towns
1
5 8
Union
* 1 * 81* 1*1* 1 *
,lhite
* 1 *
27
*
Food General General
Stores Merchandise Apparel
Item Area Total Stores 752 Sales $5,071 Stores 195 Sales $1,662 Stores 86 Sales $2,571* Stores 1*1 Sales
$551*
Banks
__
27 86 9 50 1 #
Barrow
52 1*90
1* 60* 7 271
1* 5o
Cawson
21* 21, 7
— —
Forsyth 39 91 33 187 5 72 __ __
Franklin 80 1.88
1*
1*7
239 3 7
Eabersham 55 1*69 11* 20U 9 168 3 89
Ball
153 1,597 12 125 10 793 21 387
Eart
31* 256 12 89 5 166 15i *
Jackson 61 51*1* 11 183 13 Uol*
21
Luapkin
1*0 90 7 117 3358 2
*
Kadison 39 101 21* 253
1*8 — . —
Rabun
28 178 7
1*8
87 1 *
Stephens 35 1*78 6 1.7
321* 2 *
Towns
9 7 19 73 2 **— _ __
Union
1*2 86 6 59 1
Unite
31* 86 18 120 —
— —
House Furni Automotive Pilling Lumber-Bldg.
ture, Radio Group Stations Hardware
Item Area Total Stores 52 Sales $ 991 Stores 57 Sales $3,512 Stores 358 Sales $2,101 Stores 60 Sales
$1,W*3
Source: U. 5. Census, Retail Trade, Georgia, 1939, Table 15.
_ -mithheld to "avoid disclosure.
—43—

Table J-Ua - Continued
I ten:
irea Total
Banks
Barrow
Dawson
Forsvth
Franklin
Eabershas
Hall
Eart
Jackson
Lunskiri
liadison
Hab-on
Stephens
Towss
Onion
White
Eating, Drink
ing Places
Stores
125
10
——
7
9
31»7
11
1»
—
11
187It
3
Sales
8 602
Drug Stores
Stores
hi
__ ,——
ii
_
1
6
22
*5
58 _—
27
U
226
17
S3
li
—
71
63
k
8
2
6
1
1
3 2
1
1
1
Station , , .
Crorgia
T«h
Indutria!,,
. . Economk
Research
60 179 260
86
71
21A 3U6 581
*
75
78** 17 36U
2 **
8
39**** 8 102
111 137
21 **#
1
Experiment
Other Stores
Sales * 59k _ 90 _ * Stores llil 2 11 _ 9 Sales
$1,837
*
166 _
81

Tourists and Recreation
Sac* .
The lakes, rivers, mountains, and valleys of Northeast
Ssorgia present a broad opportunity for the development of a
profitable tourist and reoreational industry. Ill fact, in at
least six counties in the Area-- Eabun, Union, Towns, White,
Lumpkin, and Dawson. and possibly in Habersham, this industry
Expcrimtnt
Station . . .
CraroM
TKh
lodiutrUl. .
. . Ecoaonk
Raeucli . .
offers the greatest possibilities of economic development. In these coun
ties, which are essentially rural, over 70 per cent of the farms were
Subsistence farms in 1940, and thus were not necessarily farms in the
accepted sense. The roughness of terrain, the mountains, and the forests—
the very elements which have hindered successful farming— are proving

The Northeast Georgia Area probably has more spots with
tourist appeal than any other section of its size in Georgia.
In addition to the various places of historical and recreational
interest, two conservation regions of unusual beauty are in the
Area, Vogel State Park and the Chattahoochee National Forest,
as well as one hundred miles of the Appalachian Trail, the
hiker's paradise. Vogel State Park consists of four thousand
ceres lying in the heart of the Chattahoochee National Forest.
t. 40-aere lake offers fishing, swimming, and boating. Nearby are two
large picnic areas and several miles of mountain trails for hiking or
horseback riding.
Eipcri
Sution . . .
Gloria
T«*
Indoitrul. .
. . Economic
Rourcb .
The Chattahoochee National Forest includes within its boundaries
1,165,000 acres in North Georgia, although the government owns only
514,772 acres. Within the forest is some of the most superb scenery in
the Appalachian Highlands. Daer and bear are rather scarce, but there is
an abundance of quail ana wild turkeys, and the streams are well stocked
with fish.
The Appalachian Trail is a 2,050 mile hiking route running along
the crest of the highlands froc Mount Katahdin in Ifeine to Mount Oglethorpe
in Georgia. The section of the trail in Georgia is 100 miles long. It
crosses the Georgia-North Carolina line over Rich Knob Mountain and enters
the Chattahoochee National Forest, traversing or skirting seven counties
in the Northeast Georgia Area— Rabun, Towns, Habershaa, White, Union,
Lumpkin, and Bawson. The trail passes through the wildest and mpst
beautiful part of the state, a region of dense woodlands, high mountains,
and cascades.
The variety of possible tourist attractions in Northeast Georgia
ranges from mountains, waterfalls, lakes, and springs to Indian mounds,
folk-lore, and folk dances. The Trade and Industry Panel has assembled
a list by counties of points of interest in each county which may have
tourist appeal. Some have been adequately developed, some partly devel
oped, others virtually untouched.
Banks County; While relatively little has been done to attract
tourists into Banks county, the county none the less offers opportunities
of exploitation in a tourist development program. There are a number of
springs, set in mountain scenery of unusual beauty, which may be developed
into watering places. & legend about a spring in the eastern part of the
county claii-s for it properties which will cause anyone drinking from it
to becoce the parent of twins.
Fishing and hunting are good in Banks county, since the terrain is
often wild and rugged. A number of large streams yield trout and bass.
Quail and rabbits in abundance, some wild turkeys, and an occasional fox
Invite sportsmen from other parts of the state.
Barrow County; Fort Yargo, three miles southwest of Winder, was
built about '1768 or 1770 and is in a good state of preservation. Although
remodelled as a dwelling, one loophole is still visible. Two granite
Barkers erected by the D. A. H. mrk Indian trails. One is 1-J- miles
from Winder, and the other at the intersection of the Milledgeville road
and the Bankhead highway.
Dawson County; The mountain scenery In Dawson county is of unusual
beauty and offers many opportunities in the development of a tourist
program. Amicalola Falls, about, thirteen miles northwest of Dawsonville
--46--

i» the highest falls in Georgia. Amicalola means ".Tumbling
Suu ....
fcter." Although little known because of its isolation, it is Enpoecrioi
tmo of the most beautiful sites in the state. Heard Shoals, Experiment
six miles west of Dawsonville on State Route No. 52, consists Station .. .
of several beautiful cataracts. At the "Narrows," about five Tali
liles southwest of Dawsonville, Shoal Creek narrows down between IndutiUI . .
. . EcoAomk
roeks to a point where it can be stepped across. The section is Rcw«cb . .
not easily accessible. The Appalachian Trail ends at Mount
Oglethorpe in Dawson county.
Forsyth County; Several small mounds on the Lawreneeville road south
of Cunning are said to be graves of Indian chiefs. Near Silver City is
Ifcrked Eock, a granite boulder 8Jj feet long and 2^ feet wide, on which are
carved a number of mysterious characters. According to Cherokee legend,
they were made by a race which preceded them.
About 1845 there were seven gold mines in operation in the eastern
!»rt of the county.
Franklla Countyi Few points in Franklin county have been developed
to attract tourists. However, here, as in other counties, there are
doubtless a number of places of historic or sc.enlc interest known only
to residents which, if developed, could bring tourist trade into the
county. Indian sites and relics probably exist which might prove to be
attractive.
Franklin Springs, in the southern part of the county, was a wellknown
watering place before the War Between the States. It is now largely
the property of the Pentecostal Methodist Church.
Habersham County; Tallulah Falls Industrial School, owned and
operated by the Seorgia Federation of Women's Clubs, is a modern school
for mountain boys and girls. Located on the side of Cherokee Mountain,
the point provides expansive views of the blue ranges of Tennessee and
lorth Carolina. Grey Eagle's Chair, once the Council Chair of the
Cherokees, is on the grounds of the school. It is roughly carved from
» single rock, and weighs 500 pounds. The haudcraft of the students of
the school is of interest to visitors.
Clarkesville, the county seat of Habersham county, lies in a valley
tad was once a popular summer resort. Old frame hotels built in the
nineteenth century are grouped around the town square. Along the road
ire apple packing houses and apple orchards. Chopped Oak, six miles
southeast of Clarkesville, was the intersection of several Indian trails,
isd a favorite Indian rendezvous*
On Alex Mountain are the remains of an old fort, believed to be of
Frsnoh construction, and probably the remains of an old trading post.
Jhe Appalachian Trail runs along a ridge bordering the northern part of
the county, affording broad, spectacular views of the surrounding country.
Hall County; The Jackson Trail marker, seven miles south of Gainesrille,
marks the place where Jackson an* his troops rested in 1818 on
'Isir way to Florida to suppress the Seminole Indians.
Unite Sulphur Springs was once a popular health resort, and the
fccolet Mills occupy a part of the "New Holland Spring," also at one
S«S a popular health resort.
—47—

Hart County; Three mij.es southwest of Hartwell a. marker
shows the location of Ah-yeh-li A-lo-hee, a Oherokee assembly
ground and the intersection of several Indian trails. A
marker at Hartwell honors Naney Hart, the Revolutionary heroine,
for whom the county was named.
Jackson County; At Jefferson is a monument to Crawford If.
Long/"where, on Kerch 30, 1842, Dr. Long performed the first
operation in which ether was used as an anaesthetic.
Stale ....
Engianruif
Experiment
Station . . .
Georgia
Tfch
Industrial . .
. . Economic
Research . .
Six miles from Hoschton stands a one-room log house, built in 1774,
where Andrew Jackson made his headquarters when he blazed the famous
"Jackson Trail" in 1812. On 0. 3. Highway 129 is the Jackson Trail
marker, calling attention to the route taken by Andrew Jackson in 1818 on
his way to Florida to suppress the Seminole Indians.
jVunpkin County; Dahlonega, a little mountain town of about 1,300
people, once had a population of 10,000. Gold was discovered there in
1829, and the region was soon filled with the shanties of miners. Kining
began to decline with the discovery of gold in the Best, and today a
number of virtually abandoned gold nines are the chief evidence of an
adrecturesoce past Probably the nest Interesting to tourists is the
Calhoun cine, once the property of John C. Calhoun. The Lumpkin county
courthouse on the town square in Dahlonega is a two-story structure,
built fror 1833 to 1836 of hand-made brick made of local clay. The
Wigwam hotel, constructed in the 1830's, is also on the town square and
is a large frame building containing two stories and an attic, built
upon a brick foundation. It is now used as a dormitory by Korth Georgia
College. The Dahlonega Hugget office is a small wooden building where
the Dahlonega Kugget. a frequently-quoted small town weekly, has been
published for about a half a century. It contains the old-fashioned
handpress used by the first publisher. A water wheel at Dahlonega is forty
feet in diameter and is said to be the largest of its type ever constructed.
It once furnished power for Dahlonega.
The town of Auraria from 1828 to 1830 had a population of 10,000
people. It is today a "ghost town," with few evidences of its former
glory.
IToody Gap, between Dahlonega and Keel Gap, is said to be the most
beautiful scenic gap in Georgia. At Porter Springs, once a popular
mountain resort, a hotel and cottages surround the mineral springs.
Hearby is a stone cairn, said to be the grave of an Indian maiden,
Trahlyta, or. whose grave every passing Indian dropped a stone. Excellent
fishing is found at Cane Creek Jails, and cabins are available. The
Appalachian Trail borders the northern part of the county.
Ifedisoe County; Denielsville, the county seat of Madison county,
is the birchplace of Crawford IT. Long, the surgeon who first used ether
as an anaesthetic. The Crawford Vf. Long monument there reads, "liy pro
fession is, to me, a ministry from God. r
Kadison Springs, with both mineral and freestone water, was in the
nineteenth century one of the South*s most popular health resorts. Gold
has been mined in several sections of ths county.
Eabun County; Clayton is a little mountain town of about a thousand
people whose chief industry is tourists. Frame hotels providing accomodations
for summer visitors line the streets. Hiking trails lead up
—43—

Black Rock and Binnacle mountains. Within a few miles are
twelve lakes, air of them formed by power dams. A, large part
of the county lies within the Chattahoochee National Forest,
iihere camping facilities are available and fish are plentiful
in the streams. The Appalachian Trail runs along the western
border of the county, through one of the most isolated highland
sections of the state.
State ....
Engineering
Experiment
Station ...
Georgia
Tee*
Indtutiul . .
. . Economic
Racarcb . .
Just outside of Clayton is Screamer Mountain, said to be named for
an Indian who fled screaming to the mountain during the Cherokee removal,
it War Woman Dell are a shelter and picnic facilities. A road ; the dell,
and a creek are named for an Indian woman who is said to have warned the
settlers of a proposed Indian raid.
Dick's Creek Tunnel, on a farm near Clayton, was dug through a granite
Eountain before 1860, to be used as a passage for the Black Diamond Rail
road. Construction was not resumed after the War Between the States.
Chestnut Mountain, in the northwestern part of the county, has an
altitude of 4,600 feet.
Lake Burton is the largest of the lakes created by the power developoents
of the Georgia Power Company. It has a shore line of 65 miles.
Sanps and cottages are built in the wooded mountains around the lakes,
and boating and fishing are popular sports.
Tallulah Gorge was out by the great torrent of water which once
flowed over the thousand-foot precipice to form the beautiful Tallulah
Falls. The course of the Tallulah river has been diverted to supply
rater power, and only the Gorge remains. The Tallulah and the Chattooga
rivers form the Tugalo river, which has been dammed to form Tugalo and
Yonah lakes.
Stephens County: Toccoa Falls, two miles from Toccoa, is formed by
Toccoa Creek as it cascades over a precipice 186 feet high. A rustic
stairway leads to the top of the falls.
Hear Tocooa is the prather House, a two-story, white clapboard
house overlooking the Tugalo river, built about 1850. Here Robert Toombs
took refuge from Union soldiers after the downfall of the Confederacy.
Tovms County; Kount Enotah, or Brasstown Bald, is the highest peak
in Georgia, having an altitude of 4,784 feet. It is heavily wooded,
ozcept for the top, on which is located the lookout tower of the United
States Forest Service. The Appalachian Trail enters Georgia in Towns
county over Rich Knob Uountain and leads into the Chattahooehee national
Forest.
Union County: For a number of years much gold-mining activity took
place around Blairsville. Near Uount "Wellborn are many shafts and tunnels
of nines, many of them now dangerous to enter.
On the summit of Track Rock ridge are a number of boulders bearing
strange figures, which, according to Cherokee legend were made by a
race which preceded them there.
Nottely Lake, formed by the dam built by the Tennessee Valley
luthority on the Hottely river, offers recreational facilities. The
Appalachian Trail skirts the southern part of the county.
--49—

TJhite Countyl There are a number of abandoned gold mines
in the county. A pottery shop in Cleveland turns out articles
of old-fashioned blister-Hare. Kacoochee Valley, called the
"Lost paradise of the Cherokee Indians," is said to be one of
the most beautiful spots in the world.
The Kacoochee Indian mound, 190 feet long, 150 feet Tide,
and 20 feet high, was excavated by scientists in 1915.
Helen, a little valley town of about 200 inhabitants, is popular
as a summer resort.
The Appalachian Trail runs along a ridge bordering the northern part
of the county.
Folk-Music; The popularity of the "hill-billy" music and "barn
dances" heard on the radio indicates the appeal of the mountain ballads
•which have their origin in the Southern mountains, and of the "square
dances" which the isolated people of the hills have retained from the
formal dances of a long-past era. To present this folk music in its
full spontaneity to visitors from other sections is a challenge to those
developing a tourist program.
The Trade, Commerce, and Business Panel of the Agricultural and
Industrial Development Board is primarily concerned with a tourist develop
ment program for Georgia. Anyone wishing to obtain information on the
activities of the Panel, or wishing to contribute to the program may
address lir. Lee S. Triable, Director, Trade and Commerce Panel, Agricultural
and Industrial Development Board, 20 Ivy Street, Atlanta, Georgia.
—50—

Industries
Industrial growth in the Northeast Georgia Area will follow
two somewhat different patterns in various parts of the Area.
The present industrial activity is largely concentrated in Hall,
Barrow, Habersham, Stephens, Jackson, and Hart counties,as is
indicated in Table M-l and Table M-2- These counties, with
Banks, Franklin, and Madison (where somewhat similar conditions •————
exist) may be expected to afford more diverse industrial opportunities
than the more isolated, sparsely populated counties to the north in the -
rugged mountains.
For the ten counties in the southern part of the Northeast Georgia
Area,' eight types probably represent the more desirable opportunities.
These eight types are:
1. Chemical industries based on mineral deposits in the whole Area.
2. Ceramic industries based on recently discovered deposits, and
possibly brick.
3. Industries based on wood-working, including the manufacture of
furniture, wallboard, fine plywood for furniture and construction
veneer for crates, and household woodenware.
It. Chemical industries based on wood, including pulp and paper
mills, and rayon and cellulose plastics.
5. Light metal industries such as the manufacture of automotive
parts, household utensils spun from sheet aluminum or stamped from
Table M-l
Number of Plants in the Hortheaat Georgia Area
in 1939/"by Industry Groups and by Counties
Counties
Irea Total
Banks
Barrow
Daws on
Porsyth
Franklin
Habersham
Ball
Bart
Jackson
Lunpkin
fcdiaon
Eabun
Stephens
Towns
Union
Ihite
10.
Total
15
S
7
12
27
5
11
2
3
15
1
2
1
1
1
2
9
2
2
3
3
3
1
5
I
Z
1
Industry Groups1
103 20 13 16 16 13 11
4
9
1
1
1
2
2
— —
—
S
3
2
2
1
2
2
1
1
2
Group Bumbers
Source: U. S. Census , Manufactures, 1939, Table
See page S3 for explanation of industry groups.
6
2
1
4
6
—
—51—
8 9 12 13 14 17 20
1
2
2
3
1
1
1
6
1
1
4
2
1
1
— — — — —
—
—
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
2
1
sheet steel.
6. Textile pro
cessing, including
industrial products,
apparel and housewares.
7. Other light
industries employing
women, such as nov
elties using paper,
metal, leather, or
wood as raw materi
als.
8. Food pro
cessing.
For the moun
tain counties, some
of the industries
included under wood
working (3), food
processing (8), and
textile processing
(6) can be con
sidered.
Area Pattern;
Textiles, apparel,
furniture, earth mov
ing machinery, and
food were the major
types of industry re
ported in 1939. Of

the twenty groups used by the census, industries were reported
in twelve groups. In four counties (Banks, Forsyth, Vadison,
and Towns) no industries with a value of product exceeding
$5,000 were reported, while in five more (Dawson, Lumpkin,Rabun,
Union, and White) only 3 or less establishments were shown and
ir. some cases all of the money values were withheld to avoid
disclosure.
Hall county in 1939 produced almost half the Value of Product for the
Area and more than half the Value Added in manufacture. Barrow county had
the next largest totals, shown in Table 11-2. The third county was Ste
phens, although Jackso"n county (on which most figures were withheld for
193 tc avoid disclosure) may actually have been in third place. TJhile
most of the manufactures in the Area were concentrated in these four
counties, it appears probable that Franklin, Habersham, and Hart cay expect
increases in industrial employment and that Banks, Madison, and possibly
Forsyth (in all of which no manufacturing was reported) may develop light
industries based en truck transportation.
Advantages; The general industrial pattern, indicated by Tables K-l
ar.d K-2, reflects the natural development in the Area as the result of
conditions which ex-fst and which are elsewhere described in this report.
Table M-2
Census of Manufactures Supmary for the Northeast Georgia
Area, 193S, by Counties
County
Number of .-
Averag
Es-
Yearly
tac-
Wage
lish-
ments ers
Earn
1
ITages
Cost of
Ifaterials 2
Value of
Products
Value
Added
Area Total
Banks 3
Harrow
Dawson
Forsj-th 3
Franklin
EaBersham
Ball
Eart
Jackson
Lunokin
Jfadisoa
Rabun
Stephens
Towns 3
Unioc
Fnite
103
—
15
3
—
7
12
27
5
11
2
, _
3
15
_-
1
2
7,752
__
1,603
26
—
205
551
3,080
154
1,445
*
_
25
663
__
*
*
$3,601,150
_
873,535
*
—
90,756
*
2,161,856
*
*
#
_ _
11,015
463,988
_
»
*
*8,784,826
_
3,398,813
*
__
214,661
*
4,417,345
*
*
*
__
12,365
741,642
_
»
*
$16,251,723
_
S, 462, 920
*
_
362,009
*
8,732,944
*
*
*
35,716
1,658,134
*
*
*7,466,897
_„
2,064.107
*
..
147,348
*
4.315,599
•
•
*
_
• 23,351
16,492
*
*
Sources U. S. Census, Ifanufaetures, 1939, Table 2.
Tlot including salaried officers and employees or non-manufacturing
wage earners.
2 Supplies, fuel, purchased electricity, and contract work.
3 Ko Eanufacturicg reported.
*Withheld to avoid disclosure.
—52—

From the viewpoint of industrial location the Northeast Georgia
Irea hast
1. Adequate rail and highway transportation for the con
centration of raw materials and shipment of finished goods
in all directions.
2. A labor force with adequate skills and readily trainable.
Expcrimtat
Station . . .
Tidi
Iidutriil . .
. . Ecoaomk
Rnttrcb . .
3. The possibility of expanding the labor force as new needs arise.
k- Adequate supplies of timber which are tending to increase.
5- A cost of construction lower than northern regions, resulting
from the narrower range of temperatures and the warmer winters.
6. Abundant low cost electric power.
7. Construction costs for plant buildings are frequently one-fourth
or more lower than in northern regions.
8. Existing freight rates in general are comparable with other points
in the Southeast.
9. The weather offers definite advantages, as there is a narrower
ar.nual range of temperature and a higher minimum than in colder
climates.
Industry groups; The following is a complete list of the twenty
groups into which the census classified the UU7 types of industry in the
United States in 19!jO.
1. Food and kindred products.
2. Tobacco manufacture.
3- Textile mill products and other fiber manufactures.
It. Apparel and other finished products made from fabrics.
5- Lumber and timber basic products.
6. Furniture and finished lumber products.
7- Paper and allied products.
8. Printing, publishing, and allied products.
9. Chemicals and allied products.
10. Products of petroleum and coal.
11. Rubber products.
12. Leather and leather products.
13- Stone, clay, and glass products.
Ik. Iron and steel and their products, except machinery.
15- Honferrous metals and their products.
16. Electrical machinery.
17. Machinery (except electrical).
18. Automobiles and automobile equipment.
19. Transportation equipment, except automobiles.
20. Miscellaneous industries.
Industrial Comparisons
The Census of Manufactures for 1939 classifies all industries in the
United States into the twenty groups which are listed above. In these
twenty groups are Wi7 industry types. In general, the census consolidates
is a single report diverse processes with similar end-products.
For the vast majority of these industries, however, the probable
rarlations between individual plants is not so great but that comparisons
can be made on the basis of internal ratios between two areas for the
sane industry, as well as between one type and another in the same area
or different areas.
—S3—

The statistical method by which these ratio comparisons can
be made yields a series of seven figures, each of which contrib
utes to the comparison. Each of these figures is arrived at by
dividing the sun: of factory wages and salaries into the appropri
ate total. Each of the seven figures says: For the expenditure
cf $100 in plant salaries and wages, the ___________ indus
try in ___________Area:
1. Produces a value of product of $ ________
2- Consumes materials, supplies, containers, fuel, and electricity
valued at $
3.
li.
Creates an additional value (value added) of $_
Pays plant salaries amounting to $________~
These four are derived directly from the usual figures reported in
the census for industries by states! The other three are derived either
Croc other tables or by additional calculation.
-The ir.ost significant of these figures is the one which says:
5. For each $100 in wages and salaries a gross margin of
$__________ results.
The gross margin is arrived at by subtracting wages and salaries
from value added.
The others which can usually be calculated arer
6. Value of fuel consumed for each $100 of wages and salaries.
7. Value of purchased electricily consumed for each $100 of wages
ar.d salaries.
The most significant of these values are those for value added and
for gross margin. It should be noted that,since gross margin is arrived
at by subtracting wages and salaries from value added, the value for
gross margin will uniformly be $100 less than that for value added.
In general, industries or areas with higher values for these two are
nore desirable than those which are lower. The average gross margin
value for all industries in the United States is $172; for the Southeast,
$121; for Georgia, $101. Types of areas which are above this average
will usually contribute more to the prosperity and standard of living of
the community than those which are below.
Small Industries Heeded; In addition to the major types of in
dustry indicated for the Area, there are a larger number of small in
dustries which may successfully operate almost anywhere. The principal
requirements for success in this group are: (1) an idea which is
different, (2) a sales personality, and (3) a happy combination of
circunstances in which the idea catches on with the public.
Sone enterprises of this sort can be established with a relatively
snail initial investment. They are, however, subject to considerable
economic hazard,and,frequently,the small investment may be lost. In
part this high hazard factor arises from the circumstance that either
1 For 1939 the salary item is not reported for counties so that
comparable calculations cannot be made at the county level.
--54--

.
the idea has pure novelty* characteristics or it is a venture
Into previously untried fields; often the first sales are very
great, but resales are zero. Very frequently such enterprises
have an extremely high value added in relation to pay rolls and
an extremely loir raw material cost. These characteristics tend
to encourage imitative competition and often result in price
complications in the event of success because of early price de
cisions and agreements growing out of apparent low cost. Often
State ....
Enpnirriiit
Experiment
Station . . .
Ctorgia
T*h
iDdaitxul . .
. . EcoBomk
Rocarth . .
such costs tend to rise after the transition to large scale production from
utiat was originally a family or partnership operation, as the need for an
Increased working force appears.
In the beginning, enterprises of this character are frequently started
to supply some specific market with the result that since the product is
bought rather than sold, distributive costs are discounted and expansion
nay be undertaken at an ultimately unprofitable price.
Despite these hazards, these small industries are desirable: They
should, however, be carefully checked with competent technical management
and marketing authorities, so that encouragement is extended to those more
likely to succeed and decisions are based on an understanding of the risks.
"Novelty merchandise usually sells rapidly in the beginning, after
»hich sales drop, often disappearing entirely.
—55--

Power
O-ie of the outstanding enterprises of Northeast Georgia is
the production of electrical power, the Tugalo and Tallulah
rivers provide storage and power for the extensive Georgia Power
Company developments which are on these rivers, and the
Hiawassee and Kottley rivers provide storage for the Tennessee
Valley Authority. The aggregate capacity of the principal
existing dans within the Area and the Hiwassee Dam in North Carolina is
225,725 kilowatts. Proposed projects on the Savannah River will add
approximately 291,100 kilowatts to existing capacity.
Prineip _____ Existing Developments; ________ There are two large power dams of
the Georgia Power Ccnpany on the head of the Tugalo Hiver, the Tonah Dam
with a station rating of 22,500 kilowatts, and the Tugalo Dam with a sta
tion rating of US,000 kilowatts. Both are run-of-river dams. Just above
these dans are the four developments of the Georgia Power Conpany on the
Tallulah Hiver, the most completely developed stream in the state. At the
mouth of the river is the Tallulah Falls Dam,which has a station rating of
72,000 kilowatts and operates under a head of 60S feet, fourth highest
head of any plant east of the Rocky Mountains. Above the Tallulah Dam are
the Uathis, Kacoochee,and Burton dams, with station ratings of 16,000
kilowatts, lt,800 kilowatts, and 6,120 kilowatts,respectively. The Tallulah
and Nacoochee dams are run-of-river dams. The Burton and Jiathis dams are
storage-power dams with a combined storage capacity of 129,000 aci«-feet.
Order
of De
velop
ment Kane of Dam
Proposed Develops; J.j
Savannah River System
1 Eartwell
2 Canp Creek
3 War Woman
h Rogues Ford
5 Sand Bottom
£ Tallow Hill
Existing Dams
Savannah River System
Yonah
Tugalo
Tallulah Falls
Kathis
Nacoochee
Burton
Chattahoochee River Sy
Habershara Mills
Tennessee River System
Kottely
Hiwassee
Tabls M-38
Proposed and Existing Tater Power Developments
in Northeast Georgia Area
River
Savannah
Chattooga
Chattooga
Chattooga
Chattooga
Broad
Tugalo
Tugalo
Tallulah
Tallulah
Tallulah
Tallulah
;tem
Soque
Nottely
Hiwassee
—56—
Miles
above
Savannah
290.0
3«8.2
363.6
35U.1;
360.8
292.7
339-9
3U3.1
3Ulj.9
3a7.3
362.1
366. U
Type
of
Dam1
S P
S P
S P
S P
S P
S P
P
S P P
S P
S
S P
Proposed
Generat
ing Cap
acity Kff
I77-,500
13,700
15,UOO
27,600
11,800
U3.100
289,100
22,500
Il5,000
72,000
16,000
U.SOO
6,120
1,305
58 000
225)725
Estimated
Cost
$33,339,003
2,586,000
5,3811,000
5,81t7,000
2,780,000 1
15,190,000 1
65,126,000 I •
Source:
U. S. Engi
neers.
iS-storage;P-po«r
_

The Nottely Dam, a development of the Tennessee Valley
Authority, is located on the Nottely River approximately 2.3
idles south of the Georgia-North Carolina state line in Union
county. It is a storage unit for holding surplus water for
plants further downstream. No power units have been installed,
although provision has been made for the later installation of a
15,000 kilowatt generating unit. The reservoir has a volume of
190,000 acre-feet.
State ....
Eafiattriai
Expcriwat
Sution . . .
GtoroM
T«

Between 1939 and 1942, the seven Southeastern states had
the largest percentage increase in electric current consumption
of any area in the United States. Tables V-3 and 11-4 give
the details of consumption for the four years.
Table K-4
Hours of Electric Energy Consumption in
Southeast forTll Purposes for 1939 to 1942
State
North Carolina
South Carolina
Georgia
Florida
Tennessee
Alabama.
Mississippi
1939
2,725
1,509
2,175
1,154
2,822
2,193
557
13,135
1940
(000,000
3,376
1,S83
2,224
1,283
3,626
2,949
442
15,482
1941
Quitted
4,131
2,062
2,760
1,486
4,558
3,652
697
19,34
1942
4,470
2,602
3,757
1,616
7,155
4,034
608
"24"734"5
Per
Cent
In
crease
1942
over
1939
64.0
72.4
72.7
31.4
153.5
83.9
-8.8
83.0
Source: Regional Shifts in Population, Produc
tion and Markets, 1939-43. Bur< =au of Foreign and
Domestic Comerce.
Totals for
1942 in the ta
ble 11-4 are al
most equivalent
to the figures
for the entire
Pacific Coast,
which in 1942
had a total
consumption of
24,859 million
kilowatt hours,
an increase of
48.6 per cent
over the 1939
total of 16,729
million kiloiratt
hours. The
Pacific Coast
proportion of
the total United
States consump
tion was, in
1942, 12.99 par
cent, conpared with 12.71 per cent in 1939. Only the Middle Atlantic and
East Korth Central regions exceed the Southeast or Pacific Coast consump
tion of electric energy. The Kiddle Atlantic total for 1942 was
47,237,000, an increase of 55.8 per cent, while the East North Central
had a 1942 total of 42,728,000, an increase of 45.7 per cent.
Table H-5
Regional nse of- Soergy, in Manufactures for 1939
Dollar Expenditure for Fuel and
Purchased Electric Energy
Southeast
United States Southeast % of U. S.
Fuel f 850,464,000 \ 52,414,000 6.1
Purchased Electric Energy 465,426,000 56.940,000 12.2
Total Energy Expenditure Jl,315,890,000 4165,364,000 '8.3
Generated by Industries
Purchased
Millions of Kilowatt Hours Used
26,827
45.040
71,867
Source: 0. S. Census, Manufactures, 1939.
—53—
3,287 12.2
^,065 15.6
157352

The foregoing percentages and totals coapare total con
sumption. Not all electricity, of course, enters into indus
trial use. The 1940 census presents on a national basis
figures showing the dollar value of purchased electric energy
used by industries and the kilowatt hours purchased, and,as a
separate figure, kilowatt hours generated by industries.
Corresponding figures are also given for individual industr5.es.
State ....
Engiaccrinf
Eipcrimeat
Station . . .
Gtorgia
TV*
Industrial . .
. . Economic
Rewarcb . .
Table M-6
Kilovjatt Hours used by Manufacturers
In the Southeast in 1939
State
Korth Carolina
South Carolina
Georgia
Florida
Tennessee
Alabama
Mississippi
Region
Gener-| Pur-
Total ated1 1 chased
(000,000 Onitted)
2,322
1,470
1,309
485
2,777
1,710
279
10,352
821
538
342
339
495
643
109
TT2S7
Sources u. S. Census, Manu
factures, 1939.
1 By manufacturers.
1,501
932
967
146
2,282
1,067
170
7,065
The industrial potentialities
for the Northeast Georgia Area
inherent in the Savannah River
development may best be approached
by examination of these data for
the United States, which also in
clude a discussion of the expendi
tures for fuel. Following the
general discussion, individual
industries selected on the basis
of the general discussion will be
examined in greater detail in
terms of power costs in individual
states.
For 1939 all industry in
the United States expended
$1,315,890,000 for fuel and pur
chased electric energy. The use
of electricity totaled 71,867
million kilowatt hours.
Table K-7
The Largest Users of Fuel In Manufactures
in the United~States la 1939
Industry Tvpe
Blast Fjruaces
Steel Works, Rolling Mills
Petroleum Refining
Paper
Chemicals, Unclassified
Ceaent
Motor Vehicles
Bread and Bakery
Priaary Smelting, non-ferrous
Brick and Tile
Pulp
Heat Packing
Djaing t Finishing Textiles
Purchased
Electricity
(000 emitter!)
Fuel
$145,500
125,989
58,479
43,506
31,757
24,134
18,749
18,043
14,486
12,650
11,402
10,563
10,151
$523,449
* 1,444
35,304
10,904
15,387
16,580
9,908
16,645
11,394
11,040
2,725
5,518
7,026
2,106
1143,461
Sources U. S. Census, Manufactures, 1939.
—59—
Comparing the
percentage in Table
M-6 with the per
centage of Value
Added in the region,
7.1 per cent, only
the fuel figure is
below the regional
Value Added peroent-
»Se - The high per
centage for pur
chased electric
energy and kilowatt
hours reflect the
greater availability
of water power alectricity
in the region,
so that a lesser
part of the fuel
item in the region
is used for tne gen
eration of current
by manufacturers, as
well as a favorable
rate situation re
sulting from the

location in the region of 22 per cent of the nation'3 water
power available for generating eleotrioity. This is emphasized
^>y the fact that industry purchased 15.6 per cent of the pur
chased electric energy for 12.2 per cent of the expenditure
(Table Jt-5) . The extent to which electric energy is employed
by industry in the various states in the region is shown in
Table Jl-S.
Industry TytJQ
Steel Works and
Rolling Hills
Cotton Broad Woven
Xotor Vehicles
Chemicals1
Ice
Paoer
Primary Smelting
noi-ferrous
3raad and Bakery
Table M-8
The Largest Users of Purchased Electric Energy in
Manufactures i£~"the United states in 1939
Purchased
Elec
Fuel tricity
(000 Omitted) Industry
$125,989
8,830
18,743
31,757
3,791
43,506
14,483
16.043
* 35,804
22,705
16,645
16,530
15,971
15,387
11,640
11,394
Petroleum
Cement
newspapers
Cotton Yarn
Meat packing
Pulp Mills
Flour
Totals
Source: U- S. Census, Manufactures, 1939.
•"•Hot elsewhere classified.
Purchased
Electricitv
Fuel
(000 Omitted)
* 58,479
24,164
2,651
889
10,563
11,402
2,256
13737555
$ 10,904
9,908
7,205
7,086
7,026
5,519
6,226
$199,985
Table V-9
Manufacturers Generating Over One
Billion SiloTOtt Hours of
glescrie Eaergy, 1939
Industry Type
palp and Paper
Blast Furnaces and
Rolling Mills
Chemicals
Cesent
Petroleum Refining
Hayon and Allied
Products
All Smelting
Used in Industry
Gener Pur
ated chased
(000,000 Quitted)
6,087
4,331
2,731
1,298
1,268
1,027
927
17^553
2,972
5,118
3,806
1,402
1,505
211
3,694
IS7, 705
Source: U- S. Census, Manufac
tures, 1939.
—60—
While data are not available
by states for the use of fuel and
electric energy in individual
industry types, the national fig
ures will provide a general basis
on which the regional advantage
in terms of electricity may be
used as a means of selection.
Thirteen industries nation
ally are the largest purchasers
of fuels, aeeouating for 61.5 per
cent of 'the national fuel in
industry total (Table 3^-7). No
cdi3 industry in this group ex
pends less than $10 million for
fuel. These same thirteen in
dustries are frequently large
buyers of electric energy.
They used 31.3 per cent of the
purchased electric energy total.
Fifteen industries (shown
in Table n-8) purchased elec
tric energy in amounts over $5
million. These industries

ougnt 43.0 per cent of the purchased electric energy used by
all manufactures. They also bought 43.7 per cent of a'll fuel
purchased by manufactures.
For the United States, manufacturers generated
28,749,940,000 kilowatt hours of electric -energy. Of this,
,922,940,000 kilowatt hours were sold, leaving a net use of
E6.827 million kilowatt hours. Seven industry types each
generating over one billion kilowatt hours,used 17,659 million
kilowatt hours, and in addition purchased 18,708 million as shown in
Table JJ-9.
Suu . . .
Engineering
ixpcninriit
Sution . .
Georgia
Ttdt
Indoltriil . .
. . Economic
Ronrcb . .
All but one of the seven industry types in Table M-9 appear in
the two preceding tables. Tables M-7 and M-8 have ten common types betnaen
them. All of this emphasizes the importance of available electric
eaerjy to industry, since for most of the nineteen industries in the
three tables either heat or steam is necessary in processing; yet even
these industries buy two-thirds the electric energy bought by all indus
try, and produce and use (often as a by-product of their heat and steam
uses) an equal proportion of the total of electric energy produced
irithin industry.
The five usual uses of energy in manufactures provide:
1. Heat 4. Electrolysis
2. Steam 5. Illumination
3. Power
Fuels ranging from ooal, coke, oil, kerosene, gasoline, wood, gas,
and waste products are used to provide directly heat, steam, and power.
Indirectly they may provide heat, power, electrolysis, and illumination
through the generation of electric energy.
Electric energy may likewise provide all of industry's energy re
quirements, but, practically, the production of steam should be excluded,
and in some oases heat produced electrically will adversely affect
costs. Industry may secure electric energy from three sources; by
purchases from water power or steam plant producers, by generation by
steam or diesel plants operated by the industry, or by water power
plants operated by the industry. With this background, the relative
requirements of various industry types for fuel and purchased electric
energy emerge as a factor in the selection of desirable new industries
for the region which is discussed in connection with individual in
dustries.
Atomic
. ,
Energy
„
The atomic bomb which ended the war has a long range significance to
Seorgia and the Northeast Georgia Area. Ultimately, it may be expected
that atomic energy will profoundly affect the production of power, the
transmission of power, and even its application to mechanical problems.
At this early date it is not practical to make any sort of an estimate as
to when these results will begin to occur, or when they will reach general
use. The limited amount of information already released permits no
accurate time estimate, while the natural scientific caution of the rela
tively fow persons who know the whole story may be expected to prevent
jay estimates from that source; nor has policy been established by Congress.
The vaTue of waste used as fuel and tne costs of operating such
»ater power plants by industry may not appear in the figures reported
ia the census.
--61—

J
Eowsvsr, the tiro billion dollar research which produced the
boob must inevitably have developed a much larger body of
related information than has ever before been available at the
initial utilization of any previous scientific discovery of
comparable magnitude, such as the first use of fire, the steam
engine, or electricity. Hhile historically one might well
argue that the every-day utilization of atomic power would be
two or three generations away, this view takes no account of the
acceleration of technological application which has developed in the United
States during the past thirty years, and which has almost touched super
sonic rates during the war,
Further there are signs that the possibility of more immediate appli
cation of some atonic uses must be considered. One source close to the
secret has publicly asserted that a power plant based on atomic energy
couli be constructed for froa "450,000 to $100,000" and could be "running
by next April."4 Ho technical details were given, and,while it may be
accepted as a possibility there is no likelihood that such a plant
will be is operation by April, 1946. The statement, however, does indi
cate that such a development may be years closer than the general scien
tific expectation.
Ihe significance of all this to Georgia and to the Area lies in
the circumstance that, so far as one can judge, the processes involved
in altering uranium into the desired forms requires the use of large
quantities of electric current. The Coosa River in Georgia and Alabama,
the Chattahoochee Eiver, and the Savannah River are among the last few
places in the United States where relatively large volumes of electric
current may be developed by water power at favorable costs. This factor
together Tilth the circumstance that much of the .atomic development took
place in adjoining Tennessee,where the power resources of the Tennessee
Valley Authority were available, seems to point to the possibility that
when plans for the controlled release and utilization of the technical
data already developed are completed by the Federal government^the Coosa,
Chattahoochee, and Savannah Valleys may likely "beeon" a part of that
development.
Ihe somewhat unoartain possibility that an organized study of the
geology of North Georgia might lead to the discovery of uranium or other
ores useful in connection with atomic energy also exists. The principal
indication of this possibility relates to uranium and lies in the fact
that radioactive springs are known to exist in Georgia, generally in
association with the underlying granite sheet. A more complete and de
tailed geolo^i al mapping of North Georgia would provide the basis for
determining whether or not the existence of uranium or other atomic ores
was possible and, if so, where and at what depth they might likely.be
found.8
*Busjaess Week, September 15, 1945, quoting from an address by Dr.
Eueben 5. Sustavson, dean of faculties of the University of Chicago,
before the Executive Club of Chicago.
B See page 63.
—52—

Mineral Industries
Northeast Georgia contains a wide variety of minerals
ranging from gold to granite, marble, mica, asbestos, divine,
»nd sillimanite to semi-precious stones. Some are present in
large quantities, others are apparently mere curiosities.
The complexity of the geology of Northeast Georgia and lack"
of basic knowledge has long limited the scientific study of these deposits.
The Dahlonega gold field, for example, appears to be exhausted, but it is
not impossiole that the "pocket" characteristic of the known mines could be
interpreted to lead to more substantial veins at greater depth. It is,
however, impossiole to do the necessary interpretation without more exact
knowledge about the formations than now exists. Similarly, mica is present
but elusive. Although in 1943 Georgia attained fourth place ic United
States production, deposits are small and quickly worked out. Locating a
now mine is then a matter of "guessing."
The lack of scientific knowledge illustrated above leads to a recom
mendation that the first and most important step necessary for the more
complete developnent of the mineral resources of the Northeast Georgia Area
is a sound program of basic geologic research. Such a program includes:
(1) adequate topographic mapping based on aerial photographs; (2) detailed
large-scale geologic mapping.
The question naturally arises: "Has this not already been done, and
is not the needed information already in the various maps and bulletins
issued by the Georgia and United States geological surveys" The answer is
an emphatic "no." Almost all of the existing material is of a prospecting
or reconnaissance nature and cannot be used either to determine basic
structures, or to forecast "what may be found where." Predominately, such
puDlications represent only a description of deposits someone has acciden
tally stumoled onto or observed. Basically, the information they contain
Is useless for detailed correlative work.
Cost of Program; The question of how much such a program will cost
should be asked, and whether or not that cost will not be greater than the
probable benefits. The answer to this question is that the total cost of
doing what is recommended for the Northeast Georgia Area would be about •
1250,000, of which the United States Geologic Survey might assume about
half. Three to five years would be required to complete the work in the
lortheast Georgia Area. Five per cent interest on 4250,000 is |12,500. A
single large-scale industry (one producing finished goods selling for
|1 Billion with a payroll of about $350,000 and using minerals worth per
haps $150,000) would produce annual direct taxes of $10,000 to 415,000. In
directly, taxes on hornet occupied Dy workers, and on increased retail trade
»ould amount to as much more. On the other hand, if the mapping proved
that no new mining operations were practical in some fields, an annual sav
ing would result from avoiding the cost of prospecting which leads to no
discovery, or an investment in a plant which fails.
The complete cost of mapping a single quadrangle will range from as
Such as 425,000 for a nucleus 1 area down to 412,000 for the last quadrangle
i" a group. The controlling factor in thesa differences is the greater
Uiount of information available as the mapping proceeds and the possibility
of filling in some parts of the structure by extrapolation. The initial
The first quadrangle studied in a larger group.
—63--

investment of (25,000 in a single quadrangle can be amortized in
slightly less than fifteen years by an annual allowance of ten
per cent or $2,500 (figuring five per cent interest), an annual
amount which can easily be offset by any one of several economic
results from the location of a single usable deposit. For ex
ample, a mining operation with raw ore sales of $50,000 may have
payrolls of $20,000 to $30,000. Such a mine would add more than
enough tax revenue to wipe out the investment in a single quad
rangle. The profits of retail stores from sales to mine employees, taxes
on the $75,000 invested in the houses the miners occupied, rent on the
houses, the net profit of $S,000 to $15,000 from the mine, all would be net
additions to the economy.
Effect of Existing Methodsi The statement is often correctly made
. that almost any mineral can be"found in Georgia. The list of minerals
which have been found runs into the hundreds. Hhile this is truo, it is
also true that the general body of knowledge with respect to these minerals
has followed the pattern of accidental discovery, local reconnaissance, and
only occasionally the development of deposits which are of major econonic
importance. The large majority of discoveries so made have been either ma
terials which at the point of discovery prove to Be deposits of small size,
or materials for which the United States or even world market has thus far
been relatively small.
The existing mining industries which have been developed have experi
enced a haphazard and irregular growth which on the oasis of the knowledge
produced gives little promise of great future expansion. Many of the min
eral industries of Georgia seem to have reached a leveling-off period, •
wherein they must be involuntarily content with existing markets and exist
ing products.
Of course, the present mineral industries of this state can continue
to survive and, perhaps, grow very slowly. But it is doubtful that such
industries can reach maximum production under those same conditions. The
attainment of such a realization can Be made only if these industries as
sume an active role in the planning of their future courses. The prime
requisite for this purpose is a plan of active and fundamental research
which will evaluate and integrate the complex proolem of the mineral indus
tries in the South.
Research Methods; Research may be classified into two main division*:
first, fundamental research, and second, technologic research. It is ob
viously impossiole to draw a line of distinction Between these two divi
sions, for they overlap each other in many directions. -Technologic re
search deals with modifying, improving or designing a process, usually to
relieve soae immediate pressing proolem of a partioualr industry. For elample,
an investigation for the recovery of iron in an iron ore washing
process is technologic research. Fundamental research, on the other hand,
is an investigation which seeks basic principles which affect the broader
and longer term problems of industries. Examples of this might Be the de
termination of properties of a given material, as a means of finding nor
uses, or it could be an investigation of potential reserves in the light of
allied materials.
As the nane implies, fundamental research is the foundation upon which
industrial progress can be ouilt. For this reason, such investigations
should oe relatively unrestricted because their ultimate goal is unknown.
That is not to say, however, there should be no direction of effort or def
inition of purpose, but it is to be urjed strongly that the course of in-
—64—

vestigation be unhampered by any restrictive and selfish in
terests. Fundamental research, in other words, must not be sub
ject to the exigencies of the moment except insofar as they may
have some definite bearing on the problems at hand. Sut *
State ....
Eagumriaf
Grorgi'0
TKh
Indutrul . .
. . Economic
Rocarch . .
The geologic research proposed herewith is, basically, fun
damental in scope. It must include, however, because of this
fact, a detailed examination of the economic values involved in
the mineral resources of Georgia and their relation to those of the United
States and the world as a whole. The proposed investigation should also be
so constituted as to form a broad and stable foundation for suosequent min
eral investigation and industrial mineral application. The attempt to ful
fill the accomplishment of these purposes is an ambitious one out not over
ly so.
What Is Required: A first requirement for all mineral industries is
to know how~and where minerals occur. A second most important item is how
such of the mineral there may be at a given locality. These questions of
mode of occurrence, location of deppsits, and available reserves must al
ways be answered satisfactorily before any consideration may be given the
question of industrial application. It is obvious that prospecting must
precede mining, but methods of approach to the question of prospecting are
not so oovious when such work must yield information necessary for the deteraination
of the types and occurrences of the various minerals as well as
the tonnage reserves of that material in any given deposit.
Prospecting procedures in the past over the entire Berth Georgia rejioa
have, in general, followed the line of least resistance. That is to
say, there has been no concerted and directed effort toward the finding of
new deposits. There .has been, on the other hand, an enormous expenditure
of time and laoor by individuals and concerns having littis regard for any
integration of research knowledge. With few exceptions, prospecting has
oeen pefforaed in a very haphazard manner, especially when seeking new de
posits. This has not necessarily been so in extension of known deposits
but it has been true of the unknown deposits because of a lack of knowledge
of the conditions and environment of ore formations in this region. There
have been numerous investigations of the various ore minerals and rocks in
Georgia, but these hive seldom oeen conducted on lines which are conducive
to a firm understanding of the basic principles of ora deposits in these
specific localities. There has been too little attention paid to correla
tive causes and effects, just as there has been too little attention paid
to modification of ore deposits in this area oy climate, and weather, vege
tation, and lithologic environment. Each of these factors modifies, al
though not to the same degree, all mineral and ore deposits. At present,
«» know little of their effects on such deposits in Georgia. As a matter
of fact, our knowledge of the conditions of the formation of such deposits
is very limited because we know very few of the locations of deposits. De-
Sailed petrologic and strfttigraphic studies of the minerals and rocks of
this region are very few in number.
In the light of more recently developed geologic theory and tech
niques, only the partial quadrangle under way in the Cartersville Section,
the Stone Mountain quadrangle, and the Harm Springs quadrangle are suffi
ciently recent and in sufficient detail and on large enough scale to permit
the accurate correlation which is needed.
Two of the three quadrangles mentioned, however, have already produced
tangible results. There has been an increased production of barite and
*aganese at Cartersville, directly traceable to the work now in progress
—65—

on the Cartersville sub-quadrangle, -while the Stone Mountain
quadrangle, completed in 1939, disclosed data about the granite
which resulted in considerable aid to a thriving industry pro
cessing granite for chicken grit. The Warm Springs quadrangle
was napped primarily to determine lasic information about the
springs for the Warn Springs Foundation.
Part of the State-wide Program; Th.e program of geologic
mapping Being proposed here for the Northeast Georgia Area is a part of a
broader proposal embracing the research of this character needed all over
the state. The general plan is this: The areas which appear, on the basis
of present knowledge and operation, to De the more important would oe done
first, so that they could serve as nuclei around which additional areas
would be studied in the probaole order of their importance.
A general examination of the existing maps and information suggests
that eight quadrangles on the eastern side of the Area are of major impor
tance, while two additional ones on the west should ultimately be included.
These ten quadrangles include parts of Forsyth, Dawson, Lumpkin, Banks, anil
Madison counties and all of Rabun, Habersham, Stephens, Franklin, Sort, and
White counties.
Basic Study Needed; It is not until we have examined a region thor
oughly and in great detail that we are able to arrive at logical conclu
sions concerning it. The state of affairs in the region at present is
chiefly one of speculation. The large majority of mining activities in the
Northeast Georgia Area are based not on factual evidence out upon fortui
tous discoveries. How many good minerals deposits have been overlooked by
this latter projsss cannot be estimated. On the other hand, there is no
guarantee that a detailed investigation such as proposed would be produc
tive of additional deposits other than those already known. Such a process
of investigation would only permit a more careful and exact evaluation of
the potential mineral reserves of the Area.
Physiography
The Geology of the Northeast Georgia Area
The Northeast Georgia Area occupies portions of two main physiographic
provinces; namely, the Piedmont and the Blue Ridge provinces. The Piedmont
province, scrutinies erroneously referred to as the Piedmont plateau, is
characterized by gently to moderately rolling topography in which the ridge
summits and hilltops are generally coincident. The uniformity.of the up
land level is broken only by occasional monadnooks2 which stand prominently
aoove the surrounding terrain as isolated hills or mountains. Stream val
leys are commonly rather sharply incised below the upland level so that
gorges are characteristic of many of the major streams which flow out of
the Area.
Detailed analyses of the topography of the region have shown that it
nay be divided into two major divisionss first, on the south, Midland
Georgia; and second, on the north, Piedmont Georgia. The majority of the
Northeast Georgia Area lies within the latter section. The southern boun
dary of Piedmont Georgia extends roughly southwestward from a point Begin
ning on the Savannah River just northeast of Toccoa, on a line southwestward
toward Cornelia, then south, of Gainesville. and continues southwest-
TJonadnocks A hill of resistant rock standing in the midst of a
plenaplane.
—66--

mrd toward the Alabama-Georgia line. This boundary is an arbi
trary one based primarily on ft rough approximation of a given
altitude. In general, north of the boundary, elevations range
from about 1400 feet at the south to around 1800 feet at the
north. South of this line, elevations are 200 to 300 feet lower
fro subdivisions of Piedmont Georgia which are important to the
Area as a whole, are, first, the Dahlonega plateau,and second,
the Atlanta Plateau.
The Dahlonega Plateau, typically developed around Dahlonega in Lumpkln
county, extends northeastward to the Savannah River, but forms a small
curved-segment south of the city of Cornelia where its southern boundary
coincides with the southern boundary of Piedmont Georgia. Its northern
boundary is the contact between the plateau and the Blue Ridge province or
the Highland section. The Dahlonega Plateau might be termed the only truly
Piedmont section of the entire region, because of its position at the base
of the Highlands. From a width of more than twenty miles in western Gilmer
md Piokens counties, it narrows to but only a few miles in western Dawson
county.
Characteristically, the Dahlonega Plateau is a maturely dissected
platform in which the general level of the hilltops varies from 1600 to
1800 feet above sea level. It stands, therefore, several hundred feet
higher than the Atlanta Plateau, lying to the southwest, whose surface
ranges from 1000 to 1300 feet in elevation. An abrupt, irregular escarpmeat
about 500 feet high, situated northeast of Alto, prominently marks the
contact between the higher Dahlonega Plateau and the lower Midland slope
division of Midland Georgia.
As has been stated monadnocks are characteristic of the Piedmont prov
ince. This is particularly so of the Dahlonega plateau in which many prom
inent nobs are known and recognized. Among these arei Yonah, Mount Pint,
•nd Ifoont Walker. Elsewhere, Talona Mountain, Crown Mountain, Sharp Moun
tain, Sal, Pine, Skitt, and Lynch Mountains are among the most conspicuous
features of northern Georgia. These prominances exist in striking contrast
to the broad, level bottom and fertile valleys of the Sautee and Nacoochee
Hivers.
The greater part of the Dahlonega plateau is drained by the Chattahoochee
Elver, either directly or through Chestatee, Soque, and Sautee Rivers.
The eastern portion is drained by short streams flowing to the Tugaloo, and
the western is in the basin of the Coosawattee River. That part of the
plateau lying in the Area in Dawson, and western Lumpkin counties, is
drained by the Etowah River and its tributaries.
The Atlanta Plateau, second of the major divisions of the Piedmont
province in the Gaiuesville Area, occupies an important position in this
region. The city of Gainesville is situated in the northeastern portion of
the Atlanta Plateau, and the immediate region in the vicinity of that city
has been given the name of the Gainesville platform. ' This platform is a
distinct subdivision of the Atlanta Plateau, being separated from it by
lome 250 feet. There is no sharp escarpment between the Gainesville plat
form and the lower platform, called the Fairburn, but there are broad
slopes which merge the two areas gently. The average altitude of the
Gainesville platform, is about 1300 feet above sea level. That of the Eairtura
platform averages about 1000 feet. The stream pattern of the Gaines
ville area is in general of a branch-like pattern, called dendritic. The
>«jor trunk streams, however, fall into two different categoriesj one, the
Chattahoochee., is a subsequent stream; and the second, the Tugaloo, is a
—67--

transverse stream. Secondary and tertiary trioutaries of these
trunk streams have developed the characteristic dendritic pat
tern which clsarly marks the grain of the country and which has
fundamentally deternined the position and course of the major
trunk rivers.
Areal Geology
Statt....
Enparrthf
Evprrinat
Station . . .
Groroti
r«*
Indunul. .
. . EconOHk
Rnni.-b . .
Bed rock in the Gainesville area is comprised basically of igneous and
metamorphic rocks of very great age, but there are minor amounts of consol
idated sands, clays, and gravels which are formed into thin, discontinuous,
veneer-like deposits lying upon the older rocks. Vast lengths and inconprehensiole
numbers of years separate the two groups of deposits, since the
crystalline rocks are among the oldest known in the world, while the super
ficial deposits are almost recent in age. Both groups of rocks offer op
portunities for commercial developnent of mineral resources, but it is
likely that the crystalline rocks, being of wider spread area, will offer
greater opportunity on that account.
The crystalline rocks of the Gainesville area possess characteristics
which are conaon to rocks of the Piedmont all along the Atlantic Coast.
They are, however, sufficiently different from those of other areas to rarrant
the application of distinct names which indicate to the geologist the
inexact equivalency of these formations with those elsewhere. As a matter
of fact, though, the names applied to the oldest rocks known in this region
have seen derived out of the state, for in one case we speak of the Roan
gneiss and in another of the Carolina schist or the Carolina gneiss. Or m
nay speak of the Brevard schist, or the Murphy marble. On the other hand,
we may speak of the Stone Mountain granite or the Elberton granite, names
which have oeen derived from localities within the state of Georgia.
The Carolina gneiss is Dy far the most extensive and the most wide
spread of all the crystalline rocks in the Gainesville region. It consists
of a highly complax series of gneisses and schists which were at one tins
sediments and igneous bodies, • ooth intrusive and extrusive. Now, however,
these original rocks have been altered to their present form Dy several
periods of metamorphism as well as to alterations Dy younger injections of
igneous rocks in later periods of g'eolofic time.. The folding and faulting
which the Carolina gneiss has undergone has caused these rocks to be great
ly compacted, which ultimately resulted in the development of regional
schistosity.
The Kortheast Georgia Area is noteworthy for its geologic complexity.
The regional schistosity noted aoove in the Carolina series is the usual
result frosi preat dynamic earth forces which have caused folding and fault
ing to occur on an unprecedented scale. Such schistosity results from the
reorientation of component mineral grains within the various rocks at a
right-angled direction to the direction of major thrust. Obviously, close
folding would oe ouite common and faulting would, therefore, be a necessary
supplement. These two processes induced a linear arrangement of outcrop
bands which is now so common in this Area. These bands trend northeast and
southwest, but they,too, .are modified in detail and locally by subsequent
periods of folding and faulting, thus causing a systematic arrangement
which, up to date, has virtually defied all out the most generalized type
of interpretation or, conversely, an extremely limited and restricted lo
cality analysis. That is, we are anle in a oroad way to define general
trends and, at the same time, we have Deen aole in some instances to de
termine the geologic settings for mines and for areas which have very
limited extent.
—53—

There are three good reasons why more detailed information
on geology of Northeast Georgia is not available. First, the
rocks of the Area are so old and have undergone such great
nrtamorphosis that it is almost impossible to decipher their
origin. Second, these rocks have been suojected to such enor-
BOUS amounts of weather and erosion that their fresh characters
ere exceedingly difficult to find. Third, dependable correla
tions are impossible to make Because of the lack of fossils as
well as a lack of continuity of outcrops. It has, therefore, been possible
to correlate the formations in Georgia with those of other areas only in a
nost generalized fashion; determinations of equivalences within even
limited sections within the Area are not particularly dependaole. Descrip
tions of "formations 11 for this Area must consequently, always be Judged in
the light of their inexact correlation. It might be more proper to speak
of correlation of zones rather than formations.
Rocks of Northeast Georgia
The rocks of the Northeast Georgia Area consist primarily of granite,
gneisses, 3 schists,* phyllites,6 low-grade marble, slate, and various vein
naterials. Many of these substances are valuable coranercially, but many of
them have no material application in industry at present.
ir&nites and Gneisses
Granites: There are two major types of granite In the Area under discussi'oni
(1) Granular, (2) Forphyritic. The granular granites are those
which are completely crystalline throughout, with the size of the indivi
dual component crystals essentially equal. As a result, the rock acquires
« grainy appearance and is oest descrioed as "granular." The porphyritic
granites, on the other hand, are special phases of the granular type; all
gradations between the two kinds of rock may be noted in the field. The
distinguishing character of the porphyritic type is the occurrence of
rather prominent and strikingly larger crystals or "eyes" of feldspar 7 in
the finer "grained" matrix 8 of the ordinary granular type.
The colors of the granites vary from light-gray to dark blue-gray,
which, in places, may be further modified by the occurrence of a reddish
feldspar which adds its color component to the total overall color.
Utility of Granitesi One of the most important considerations in the
determination of the utility of a granite deposit is the system and spacings
of the joint and rift planes. These are actual fracture planes and
"Gneiss: A metamorphie rock, often corresponding in composition to
granite or some other feldspathic plutonic rock, but having its consti
tuents, especially mica, arranged in planes .so that it splits rather easily
into coarse slab.
4 Schist: Any metamorphio crystalline rock having a closely foliated
structure and hence admitting of division along approximately parallel
plane s .
E Phyllitei Argillaceous schist, intermediate between mica schist and
slate.
6 Porphyritici An igneous rock containing phonocrysts (scattered crys
tals) obviously larger than the surrounding matrix*
7 Feldspar: A mo.it important group of rock-forming silicates of alumi
num, together with sodium, potassium, calcium, and barium.
"Matrix: The earthy or stony suostance in which an ore or other ma
terial is bedded: the gangue.
--69--

potential fracture planes, respectively. In the former case,
they usually are planes of breakage near the vertical; in the
latter, the planes are more or less horizontally disposed. If
the sets of joints are approximately at right angles to one an
other so that incipient euoical Blocks are formed, then the
granite is suitable for dressed or dimension stone quarrying.
This is true, of course, only if the joints are spaced far
enough apart to permit the removal of relatively large masses of
rock as a single block. It is clear, therefore, that many exposures of
granite will not conform to these specifications for the fracture planes,
because, usually, the joints are too closely spaced and too irregularly ar
ranged. Granite not possessing these features can often be used as a
source of crushed stone or riprap.'
Itineral Content of Granites; The homogeneity of the mineral content
of the granites is worthy of considerable attention, for it has a direct
bearing on the physical properties of the stone when finished. In general,
the upper few feet of an exposure must be discarded, because of weathering
alterations in the rock. Elsewhere within the deposit, the operator must
always be on the watch for the inclusion of pegmatites10 or other more or
less abnormal mineral occurrences such as veins, country rock inclusions,
etc. Since these represent changes in the basic character of the quarryable
stone, they will affect color, crushing strength, resistance to weatheritgj
and the response to polishing operations. The inclusion of larger
phenocrystsV' however, does not materially alter the type of rock, if their
occurrence is uniform throughout the deposit. Porphyritic granite is quite
suitaBle for some ouilding uses where contrast with the usual uniform qual
ity of the ordinary stone is desirable.
Uses of Granite; The largest part of the present granite production
in the Southeast; now goes into the building-naterial industry in the fonn
of dicension stone and concrete rock. Much of it is also used as a road
base for macadamised roads.12 There seem, however, to be other fields of use
for granite. For example, the fines from crushing can oe made into a quite
good Duilding brick by the addition of cement. They can be used to replace
feldspar in ceramic formulas. Sone attempt has also been made to use these
same fines as a source of silica in the" manufacture of rook wool. The wide
spread occurrence of pranite and the relative ease of its production should
make it a desirable material for research. It is likely that such future
work will show that the greatest advantage which this rock possesses is its
density and hardness.
An investigation of the granites and gneisses by Thomas L. Tfatson, re
ported in Bulletin 9-A of the Georgia Geological Survey in 1902, does not
list any granite or gneiss in the Northeast Georgia Area. However, this is
a mistake, because granite and gneisses are now known to occur in the Area
Riprap: A foundation formed in water, or on a Bed of soft material,
by depositing broken stones loosely. Hence, the material used for such a
bed.
10 Pegmatite: A term originally applied to granitic rocks characterized
by intergrowths of feldspar and quartz, as in graphic granite; now applied
to igneous rocks of any composition but of particularly coarse grain, oc
curring as offshoots fron, or veins in, larger intrusive rock bodies, rep
resenting a flux-rich residuum of the original magma.
"phenocrysts: Large crystal, visible to the naked eye, usually of
perfect crystalline shape found in a fine-grained matrix in igneous roots.
12 liacadaniised road: A road whose surface is formed with broken stones
of fairly uniform size rolled into a 6-10 inch layer, gravel in interstices.
--70--

under consideration. A prominent belt of granite gneiss is
known to ooour in southeastern Lunpkin county and through the
central section of White county. It is considered likely that
the granite gneiss of the Delt just described will not fie par
ticularly suitable for building stone, although it prooably
could be utilized to some extent as crushed stone, liany other
types of rock occur in the Northeast Georgia Area which can oe
used for crushed or ruoole stone. Much of this rock has been
Eip

J
dual sold, better known as saprolitic1 * gold; and three, placer
gold or transported gold. All three types of occurrences have
been productive in the past. Today, however, value of gold pro
duction is relatively negligible when considered in relation to
the value of the total mineral production of the state of
Georgia.
The thorough and careful investigation to which the gold ___
deposits have Been subjected in Northeast Georgia indicates that the major
portioc of. the gol*2 deposits in this Area have been discovered. If this IB
so, then there is little opportunity for any great future development of
gold deposits in this region. Without douot, some gold still exists and IB
some cases profit can be made in mining it. However, the chances of loss
are greater and the probability of final profit less for gold mining than
for alnost any other industrial activity possible in the Area.
Saprolitic: Disintegrated ore, usually more or less decomposed which
lies in its original place.
--72—

Refractories Sutc ....
Engineering
The possibility of several high duty refractory industries
in the Northeast Georgia Area is indicated in a preliminary
report by the Georgia Department of Vines, Mining and Geology
on recently discovered deposits of sillimanite in Hart and Mad
ison counties (and adjoining Elbert), and other deposits of mas
sive kyanite in Towns county (and Clay county. North Carolina)
Experiment
Station . . .
Gtorgia
TKh
Indnttiul . .
. . Economic
Retearcb . .
and in Dawson county (and adjoining Cherokee, Pickens, and Gilmer counties),
The general locations of these deposits are shown in Map JJ-I.
Both sillimanite and massive kyanite are employed in the manufacture
of refractories for use where temperatures above 1600° C. are encountered,
in processes where rapid temperature changes occur, they are particularly
valuable*
The sillimanite deposits recently discovered in Hart and Madison
counties appear to offer the greater potentiality in the Area. The ulti-
«te production of spark plugs, electronic insulators, special chemical
porcelain, or super-duty refractories appears logical if further technical
research justifies the preliminary conclusions drawn by A. S. Furcron, As
sistant State Geologist, and K. H. league, TVA geologist.1
The manufacture of super-duty refractories for the glass and metallur
gical industries will lead to the largest tonnage use of the apparently
large deposits of sillimanite described in subsequent paragraphs.
The manufacture of spajrlc plugs, electronic and chemical porcelain may
prove more attractive, because of the probably higher value added and rela
tively smaller proportion of total costs represented by firing. These in
dustries, however, will
Map M-I
The Location of Sllliiiatiite and Massive Kya
Deposits' in the Northeast Georgia Area
FANNIN 'CA -
I - Ma-t. r/Ofrt, Mttf Mmdilon
. Counties-liltintonitt from
* •
'aunty, Grorg/*, +nd
Cl*y County, North Cirelin*
~sil!immnitc »rcm
J - Ctvrottff. pictttna, Gitmtr,
fnd Dfttaon Counties -
mifttrr Jkyfnite trfs
Prepared by TVA
—73—
use only small tonnage
of sillimanite, but will'
require much skilled la
bor. Establishment of
the spark plug indus
tries will depend on the
market resulting from
the automotive develop
ments in Atlanta.
The probable use
for the Dawson and Towns
county deposits of
massive kyanite would be
for super-duty refrac
tories. They do not ap
pear to be as promising,
and, at present, a kya
nite mining operation
appears more probable
than in situ manufacture.
1 Sillimanite and
Massive Kyanite in~Georgia
(A Preliminary Re
port) ; Georgia Department
of Mines, Mining, and Goology,
Bul. 51, 1945.

J
The extent of the sillimanite deposits is such that, if the
characteristics indicated by the preliminary report are verified,
the eventual result nay well be a large concentration of the
high alumina refractory industry in Georgia, possibly even one
for all refractories. The location of the refractory industries
is governed to a much greater extent by raw materials than by
markets. -7
State ....
Eofjx.ni
Exptnmmt
Sutioa . . .
Ttcft
buhuntt..
.
Roarcb . .
Tte large industrial markets for refractories are found in the steel
and the glass centers in a belt extending from Hew York to Chicago. Pro
duction is much more widely scattered, as is shown in Table 11-59. Tlhile
there were three clay refractory
Table M-59 plants ' reported . - for - Georgia -
in
1939, detailed figures are omitted
by the census to avoid disclosure
of figures for one very large
plant. It should be noted that
Missouri, the second state in to
Value of Product tal volume of production, has the
highest average value per plant,
of
Per reflecting the presence in Mis
Plants Total Plant souri of several very large and
aggressive manufacturers who con
48 »12, 340,613 $257,096 trol extensive deposits of dia-
14 9,554,375 655,375 spore. Only Missouri, Kentucky,
33 5,742,612 174,018 and Pennsylvania had per plant
11887 3,915,092 355,917 averages in 1939 above the United
1,541,033 162,629 States average of $255,710. In
1,368,077 183,509 each of these three states, there
1,322.544 186,077 are two or more plants with sales
135 42,191,454 255,710 of more than a million dollars, ao
that it is obvious that somewhat
more than two thirds of the 165
plants in the United States are
very small. Altogether, there
were refractory plants in the fol
lowing states in 1939j Pennsyl
Summary for States with Value of Product
Over >1 Million in Clay Refractory
Industry, 1939
State
Fennsylvanii
Missouri
Ohio
Kentucky
California
Hew Jersey
Illinois
U. S.
Source: U. 3. Census, Manufac
tures, 1939, Structural Clay Products,
Clay Refractories, Including Refractory
Cement Clay, Table Z.
vania, 48; Ohio, 33; Missouri, 14; Kentucky, 11; California, 8; Hew Jersey,
8; Illinois, 7; Colorado, 4; Alabama, 4; West Virginia, 4; Georgia, 3; In
diana, 3; Maryland,-3; Connecticut, 2; New York, 2; South Carolina, 2;
Texas, 2; Washington, 2; Idaho, 1; Massachusetts, 1; Michigan, 1; Nevada,
1; Wisconsin, 1.
TThile these plants are generally adjacent to a fire clay deposit of
some type, only in California, Nevada, and Georgia were plants located In
the same states with deposits of either kyanite or andalusite which were
regarded as the superior material for high alumina refractories until the
discovery in Georgia of sillimanite. For a good many years, a large plant
in Missouri has been mining kyanite in the Rabun-Habersham section.
Hot too much can be derived from a study of the census figures, since
the industry includes two broad types of production— ordinary fire brick
and other items of a similar grade, and high alumina refractories. The
high alumina group may again be divided'into regular and super-duty. Sons
plants nay produce all three types; others, only one; and the differences
of relationship which appear in Table M-60 may either reflect these nonoomparable
factors or they may indicate basic advantages which will usually
grow out of available raw materials or the availability of low cost fuel.
Table M-60 shows for 1939 the highest Margin value «175) for Missouri,
—74—

.
lith the second highest ($138) for "other states" which includes
Georgia- Pennsylvania has a Margin value of only $84 par $100
of Wages and Salaries. Obviously, there is nothing conclusive
.here because of the wide range of products included, but there
it an indication that the processing of refractories in Georgia
froB sillimanite would vary likely result in a Margin which was
definitely higher than the United States average for 1939 of
|105, shown in Table H-60.
Experi
Station . .
Txh
ludufrijl . .
. . Ecotwtajc
Rocarch . .
The production of the 48 plants in Pennsylvania is predominately of
the "fire brick" type. Of the total value of $12.3 million produced in
1939, |8.5 million was of the fire brick type, or about one-third of the
national production. Missouri, on the other hand, produced only $5.2 mil
lion out of a total of |9.5 million, or only slightly over & fifth of the
national total of $25.2 million, While it has been necessary for the cen
sus to combine states in presenting most of the production data on high
alumina, there are indications that present production is concentrated in
Missouri, Pennsylvania, and Ohio; Since Pennsylvania is probably the lar
gest market for high quality refractories and Missouri a relatively small
narket, it is fairly obvious that the quality of the product and the skill
of the management are probably the controlling factors. All of this leads
to the final conclusion that in the event the Georgia sillimanite is proved
to possess the qualities indicated by the preliminary work, good management
will be attracted to it.
Preliminary estimates seem to indicate that a mining operation pro
ducing a minimum of fifty tons of sillimanite a day should be able to price
the ore at about $20 a ton. Since kyanite must be calcined, this price for
sillimanite is likely to be in the order of one-third less than calcined
kyinite— a raw material of better quality for a lower price. In making
refractories, from ten to twenty per cent of fine f rained kaolin is added
to increase plasticity. This, of course, is available elsewhere in Georgia.
In the manufacture of refractories, the fuel requirements are hif-h.
In 1939 the cost of fuel was 8.79 per cent of the total Value of Product,
ihile in Missouri the fuel cost was 8.39 per cent. This seems to indicate
that the firing costs for higher quality refractories are a smaller per
cent of Value of Product; but considerably higher per ton. The problem of
plant location in Georgia is apt to be determined by the cost of fuel. Hefractory
plants of the sort suggested may be located in the Northeast Geor
gia Area at Hartwell near the northern end of the sillinanite belt, or
along the Southern railroad between Comer and Oarlton in Madison county,
provided the cost of fuel does not prove to be excessive. Profitable min
ing operations are to be expected in any event.
Uses of SilHmftnitei Purcron and league point out that sillimanite
has a processing advantage over kyanite for super-duty refractories since
"unlike kyanite it is not necessary to calcine it before use." Refractory
brick and shapes made from acid-washed sillimanite may find service in
[lass tanks and lehrs. Sigh temperature cements containing sillimanito can
probably be worked out. Finely ground sillimanite should prove a valuable
Ingredient in electrical insulators and chemical porcelain. The produc
tion of sillimanite enamels for insulation of jet-propulsion exhausts
•lould also be considered.
The data discussed by Furcron and league is preliminary. Additional
rtudles designed to develop technical data on apalling and behavior at
*arious temperatures are underway at the TVA laboratory at Horris, Tennes-
>aa.
—75—

More Rasearch Heeded; "The brick that have been made In
the pas- have been fired at 1475° 0. and 1600° 0." Furcron and
league point out, "It is lifcely that the firing temperature
nay be decreased without .ietriasnt to the excellent temperature
resistance shown. This would appear logical .because of the
constancy of volume of the sillimiite.
"Rafractories made fron acid-washed silllaanite are being
tested in glass tanks under service conditions. Further studies are neces
sary to complete the removal of iron-containing compounds for all white
products. An investigation of the use of sillimaite in all types of spe
cial ceraoics and refractories, including electrical and chemical porce
lains, is planned."
Uses of Kyanite; The uses of iyanite are described by the same
authors thus: "Jiassive kyanite fron Georgia nay be used in the same gen
eral type of refractories as the kyanite now imported from India. Refrac
tories which use kyanite as the principal constituent are classified as
high alumina refractories (approximately 60 per cent A^Oj). Refractories
made from calcined massive kyanite have a low coefficient of expansion
under service conditions, comparatively high malting points, and resis
tance to loads at high temperatures, thermal shock, corrosive action of
certain fluxing agencies and furnace gases."
JfcVay and Wilson2 give the more important uses of massive kyanite as
"(l) linings for Ajax-wyatt induction and indirect arc furnaces for meltiag
and refining brass and bronze containing more than 75 per cent of- copper
and those metals that require higher temperatures than does yellow brass,
(2) furnaces in which .silica brick can be used for continuous service but
spall during intermittent operation, (3) oil-burner ports and blocks,
(4) super-structure for glass tanks exclusive of the silica-brick crowns,
including the forehearth and mechanical feeder parts for forming machines,
and (5) heavily loaded kiln furniture for fast schedules in ceramic fir
ing.'
Discovery of Seorgia jjillimnite: In September, 1944, a belt of schist
-ich in sillfimnite was discovered in Hart, Elbert, and Ifadison counties
and described by Furcron and Teague. They prospected the better localities
and sent samples to the U. 3. Bureau of Vines Southern Experiment Station
at Tuscaloosa, Alabama, where a silliaianite concentrate was prepared.
Types of Sillimanite; Five types of sillimanite deposits, all found
in K°r^heas^~Georgia, are listed in their report:
(1) Sillimanite crystals and bundles of crystals dissemi
nated in schist which have been intruded and recrystallized by
granite and pegratite. This type of deposit seems to offer
most promise for the conmercial production of sillimanite. De
posits in South Carolina, (and) the belt described in this re
port from. Hart, Elbert, and Ifadison counties, Georgia ...
belong in this class.
(2) Stringers and lenses of fibrolite, or fibrous silli
manite and quartz in schist associated with intrusive pegma
tite and granite; the stringers my or may not be crosscuttiug;
also they may be sufficiently abundant to form zones of silli
manite schist which generally parallel pegmatite.intrusions.
2KeVay, T. H-, and Wilson, Hewitt, Substitution of Topaz, domestic
Icyanite, and synthetic mullite-coruadum for India kyanite i Jour. Am. Cer.
Soc., Vol. 26, Ho. S, August, 1943, pp. 68-71.
— 76--

States
United States
Alabama
California
Colorado
Illinois
Indiana
Kentucky
Missouri
Heir Jersey
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Other States
Wages
and
Salaries
$14,118
199
431
313
392
136
1.574
2,296
412
2,290
4,623
1,463
Tab la It-SO
Census Data on Refraotory Industries for the United States and by
StatesTo'r 1939 InojCucllng ValueTTeT^lOO of~PayrolT
Salaries
$1,794
28
39
42
60
30
176
366
79
269
626
191
1939 Census
(In thousands of dollars)
Cost of
Materials
$13,214
268
683
314
482
124
1,089
3,224
409
1,698
3,827
1,196
Value of
Products
442,3.91
661
1,641
898
, 1,323
201
3,916
9,564
1,368
5,743
12,341
4,657
Value
Added
$28,978
382
968
684
841
77
2,826
6,330
959
4,044
8,614
3,461
Ifcrgin
$14,860
183.
627
271
449
-68
1,252
4,034
547
1,764
3,891
2,008
Wages
and
Sal
a
ries
$100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Value Per $100 of Payroll
Wages and Salaries
Sal
aries
$13
14
9
IS
15
22
11
16
19
11
11
13
Cost
of
Mate
rials
$94
'136
135
100
123
91
69
140
99
74
83
82
Value
of
Prod
uct
$299
327
358
287
338
148
249
416
332
251
267
321
Value
Added
Source; II. 3. Census, Ibnufaotures , 1939, Structural Clay Products, Clay Refractories, 'Including
Refractory Cement Clay, Table 2.
'Represents an operating loss.
$205
192
222
187
215
57
180
276
233
177
184
•238
Ifergin
$106
92
122
87
115
-43*
80
176
133
77
84
138

The deposits described froa the Davy-Uountain-Brasstown
Church area* and from many other isolated occurrences
are of this type. These deposits are generally small;
fiae grinding is necessary in order to obtain a oon-
'centrate*
(3) Nodules and segregations of massive sillimanite
in schist; local occurrences noted from Davy
Mountain and Hart county.
(4) Button and flattened 'pebble-like' masses
of silliaanite (fi&rolite) and quartz in schist. This
Eipcnmat
] Station . . ,
Gtorju
Tnh
|[ lodutrul . .
. Eumonk
I Ruorch . .
SILLIMANITE BEARING SCHIST
IN HART, ELBCRT. AND
MADISON COUNTIES

peculiar type, "pseudo-conglomeratic 1 in character, is
descrioed from the region of Amioalola River.
(5) Sillimanite replacing kyanite. Examples of
this type nay be found in the Davy Mountain-Brasstoim
Church belt. Frindle3 figures an occurrence of this
type from Hyatt Hill Creek, 3 miles south of Hayesville,
North Carolina.
State ....
Ezptriaal
SutioD . . .
Iidutrii] .
..Eo»oi
Rtmnb .
The first two types are found abundantly in Hart, Hadi-
SOB and adjoining Elbert counties. Some of these deposits
appear to be better than those'thus far found in South Caro
lina. Host of the recently-discovered deposits in these
three counties occur in a belt of schist extending about 23
miles southwestward from Hartwell through Hart county, across
Elbert county, east and south of Bowman, and across the eas
tern end of Madison county to the Oglethorpe. county line.
Between Hartwell and Bowman, the belt is approx
imately two miles wide, and the sillimanitebearing
schist zone near its southwestern termi
nus is about a mile wide, although the exact
boundaries are difficult to trace because of
weathering. "The richest zone is found near the
middle of the belt between Little Coldwater
I* Creek, south of Hartwell and Holly Creek just
southwest of the Elbert-Ifadison county line,"
according to the report. "Isolated occurrences
of sillimanite-bearing schist
have been found beyond the bor
der of this belt, and detailed
prospecting in the future may
discover other belts with a
high sillljnanlte content in
this same general area."
Transportation: The sillimanite
belt is well served by
railroads and highways.
State Highway 36 crosses
the southern end of the
belt between Comer and
Carlton parallel to the
Seaboard Railway. Geor
gia Highway 17, -between
Bowman and Elberton and
connecting with U. S. 29
at Royston, is paralleled
by the Southern railroad.
1 graded soil road paral
lels the eastern side of
the belt between Elber
ton and Hartwell. Ifap
If- II shows a network of
secondary roads which
—79--
a Prindle, Lewis 1C.,
and others, Kyanite and
Yermioulite Deposits of
Georgia, Ga. Gaol. Surv.
Bul. 46, 1935.

connect the belt with the railways and improved roads. Hartwell,
at the northern terminus of the celt, is connected with
the Southern Railway by the Bartwell Branch.
Sute ....
Engineering
Experiment
Surion . . .
Gtoeaia
Tnh
ladnitrial . .
. . Economk
Rocarcb . .
Description of Sill

ations. A spark plug manufacturer prospected kyanite deposit
in Towns county on Gumlog Mountain as far back as 1931. Little
ore vas produced as a result.
Son ....
EnfinMTUI|
Experiment
Station ,
"Veins and lenses of coarsely-bladed kyanite occur in mica vW
schist, and locally are associated with quartz lenses. Deposits
of this type are usually small veins, or smaller lenses and nod
ules that are quite resistant to weathering; thus dornicks and
boulders of kyanite from such occurrences may be found locally in the
lodnittul . .
. . Ecowxnic
Rcitvcb . .
break-dov.il over the primary schist and gneiss. Very little kyanite of this
type has been mined in the state, probably because the deposits are small
tnd lack continuity."
Massive kyanite found on the property of A. J. Elldns in Daws on county
led to the discovery of numerous deposits in Daws on, Fiokens, Cherokee, and
Gilmer counties. Furcron and league report that "as far as is known, this
is the only occurrence of this massive type of kyanite discovered thus' far
outside of India. The massive kyanite described ... is unique in that
the individual crystals seldom exceed an eighth of an inch in length. Also
the crystals are tightly interlocked to form dense, compact masses with
little or no pore space. . . (unlike most kyanite which) when calcined
. . . becomes friable, ... the massive variety remains dense and tough.
Boulders of massive kyanite are bluish gray to grayish white in color; they
nay be confused in the field with massive barite, but are much tougher and
more difficult to break than barite; also massive kyanite frequently con
tains corundum. The index of refraction of kyanite is from 1.712 to 1.728
thus distinguishing it from sillimonite with refractive indices of 1.659 to
1.680."
Types of Kyanite Deposits: Four types of kyanite deposits were noted
by Furcron and league in the Northeast Georgia Area. Kyanite seems to be
formed at a lower temperature than sillimanite, although both minerals are
similar in origin and occurence.
1. Kyanite crystals disseminated in mica schist or quartzite.
The commercial deposits worked in Virginia, North Caro
lina, and Georgia are of this type.
2. Lenses, stringers, and vein-like masses of interlock
ing blue-bladed kyanite crystals associated with quartz veins
and stringers, and pegmatities. This type was worked west of
Ball Ground and ... on Gumlog Mountain, but, thus far, has
not been mined on a commercial scale because the deposits are
snail and local in distribution.
3. Kodules or segregations of dense massive interlock
ing crystals of blue gray kyanite in biotite schist; sices
range from 800-pound boulders to small button-like masses; as
sociated with pegmatites and intrusive quartz veins.
4. Kyanite showing alteration to sillimanite.
Ifessive Kyanite Deposits: The ore occurs as lumps and boulders,
thickly scattered through the soil and sub-soil. The size of individual
deposits vary from a few scattered fragments to several acres thickly
covered with kyanite lumps. None of the deposits have been prospected, so
i* is difficult to estimate the available tonnage, although it is not re
ported as large. Kyanite "may be found practically anywhere in the area
underlain by the kyanite-bearing Amicalola gneiss. Local concentrations
occur at many places."
—31—

Brick and Tile SB«....
Georgia is one of the larger producers of brick and tile,
ranking seventh in total production of red burning brick in the
United States for 1939. Five of the eight Southeastern states
were among the sixteen states producing over 100 million such
brick during 1939. For many years, Georgia has been shipping
brick into other states, particularly Florida (where there is no
EnfinKrinf
Experiment
Station .
Grorow
T«k
Indmtrial . .
. . Economic
Rouicb .
production except for two or three small plants), north along the Atlantic
Coast as far as Washington, and into adjoining Tennessee, Alabama, and the
Carolinas.
The manufacture of brick and tile is feasible In Hall and several
counties in the Northeast Georgia Area if (1) adequate supplies of clay can
be secured and (2) plants of economic size are established. On the basis
of the one known deposit,it would probably be necessary to import some
shale to improve both the green and fired strength and absorption of water.
This is true despite the fact that for years the Georgia production of
brick and tile has been very largely confined to three sections, (1) the
Rome Area (and adjoining counties), (2) Atlanta, and (3) along the" fall
line at Columbus, llacon, Hilledgeville, and Augusta. Natural gas is
available in n three sections.except at Augusta. From time to time,
brick and tile have been croduced at many other points in the state since
available clays are rather widespread in distribution. The concentration
in these three sections appears to have resulted from cost and transporta
tion factors, since most of the plants which have failed appear to have
had costs which were too high to meet competition, a condition which
usually resulted from small capacity, under 50 thousand brick per day.
While only one clay deposit is shown in Shales and Brick Clays of
Georgia1 for the entire Areayit is believed possible that other deposits
of colluvial clay might be found along the major streams in Habersham,
Banks, Stephens,and Franklin counties. The one deposit reported is in
Hall county. This deposit, formerly operated by the Hudson Brick Co., is
at Gainesville near the right of way of the Southern Railway. The small
capacity of this plant (25 thousand brick per day) probably caused its
discontinuance.
Some of the larger plants in Georgia are doubling their present capa
city in anticipation of increased markets. The indicated volume of indus
trial construction and home building requirements is generally expected
to at least double and possibly triple the Southeastern demand for brick,
tile, and other heavy clay products used iri construction.
More Plants Heeded; The large volume of construction forecast for
Georgia indicates that if clays are available, one or more plants with a
capacity of 100 thousand brick per day located in Northeast Georgia would
probably find a profitable market. In addition to the Area market (which
would not absorb the production of one plant), rail connections would per
mit sales in western North Carolina, South Carolina,or in the Atlanta
market which now imports about two-thirds of the brick and tile used.
Economic Problems
The major economic problem of the brick and tile industry is one which
is an outgrowth of war dislocations in the labor force. While it is a
Saith, R. W-, Bulletin U5, Geological Survey of Georgia.
—82—

national problem, apparently affecting the industry in all of thi
large centers of production, it must be faced in any plans for
expansion of the industry in Georgia. Whether the existence of
a serious labor limitation is one which will disappear in a
short time or one which will require major adjustments is diffi
cult to determine.
Tiro T.I *H ting Factors; Two problems relating to the postwar
composition of the labor force can limit the possibilities already de
scribed. Brick and tile plants in Georgia and, in general, in all of the
major brick producing areas of the United States,are today operating at
about forty per cent of capacity solely because of inability to secure
coinion labor in sufficient quantity. Orders are booked for six months or
more ahead. Then there are not enough brick-layers and other construction
craftsmen to lay the brick and tile, do the carpenter work and other jobs
necessary to utilize the vast quantity of materials which contractors and
industrial firms with expansion plans are unsuccessfully attempting to
place. The apparent shortage of common labor which is limiting brick and
tile production will increase as the volume of building increases, so
that it seems to be the view of material producers and large contractors
that these two labor situations, if they continue, may be expected to pre
vent planned construction to such an extent that when construction reaches
a point where between sixty-five and seventy-five per cent of existing clay
products capacity is being used,the supply of brick layers will be exhausted.
The obvious result will be that only a little more than a third of the
planned construction actually can be built without long delay. This criti
cal point may be reached before April, I°li6.
Price Level Lows Because of generally lower costs and a higher proportion
of "common 1' brick in relation to total production, prices in
Georgia' are the lowest in the United States. This fact must be taken in
to account in evaluating the 1939 data on the brick and tile industry from
the census shown in Tables M-39 and Jt-kO and M-W-.
Table H-bO shows the values per $100 of manufacturing Wages and, Sala
ries (described on page 87 ) for the United States, the Southeast, and the
individual states in the Southeast. AH comparisons in Table M-bO are in
terms of the expenditure for manufacturing Salaries and Wages. The items
have been selected from those shown in the bottom half of Table V-39.
Gross Margin and Value Added; The most significant items in Table
H-39 are, in order, Gross Margin (last line), Value Added, Value of Product,
and Cost of Materials. The Gross Margin item and the Value Added should be
considered together since the Value Added is uniformly $100 greater than
the Gross Margin (Gross Margin is the difference between Value Added and
the sum of Manufacturing Wages and Salaries). The United States value for
Gross Margin is $90 for each $100 of Wages and Salaries. The Georgia value
is $70, the lowest Gross Margin shown in Table M-UO. This Georgia Gross
Margin value probably is close to the lower limit for a satisfactory profit
situation. Only the values for the United States, the Southeast, and for
Alabama, South Carolina, and Tennessee should be considered for comparison
since the total Value of Product for Louisiana and Mississippi are rela
tively small and the North Carolina values appear distorted. The high
ralue of $185 for North Carolina reflects apparently the peculiar circum
stance that in North Carolina for the 1)1 plants reported,there are also
reported 3k "Proprietors and firm members.» In such cases the census prac
tice -is to exclude from the Wage and Salaries items any payments to such
Proprietors or firm members (in partnerships). One of the largest plants
—83—

in North Carolina is operated as a proprietorship rather than a
corporation. The effect of this rule is to transfer any such
payments from the Wage and Salary items to Gross Margin so that
in calculating the per $100 values, a double distortion occurs
since the divisor is reduced and,in the case of Gross Margin,
the figure to be divided is increased. For this reason, all
values shown in Table M-ljO for North Carolina are higher than
they should be, although it is not practical to estimate the
extent of the distortion. This factor also affects the values for Missis
sippi where 3i proprietors and firm members are shown with 11* plants and
in Louisiana where 5 are shown for 13 plants. These three states account
for 52 of the 86 proprietors shewn for 133 plants.
Another factor which contributes to variation between the figures
frost state to state in the Southeast is the fluctuation in the composition
of the total production. The brick and tile industry actually produces
eighteen different types of material (not including any size variations),
of which at least fifteen are produced in the Southeast. Costs and prices
anong these products nave a very wide range. Face brick and some glazed
specialties may be priced as much as two to four times common brick. The
volume in Georgia is very high in low cost, ccomon brick and structural tile
which tend to move at a closer price than face brick. In general, indus
tries in which the Gross Margin value is between $65 and $135 are apt to
have a highly favorable situation. Higher or lower values tend to reflect
sone condition which limits profit by either restricting price or inflat
ing overhead through some unusual item. Since the Gross Margin for Georg
ia in 1939 was $70 and since the wages in Georgia were at a low level, it
is to be anticipated that increased wages if accompanied by the efficiency
of mass methods such as the mechanical handling of material would result
in increased Gross Margins with only moderate price increases.
Value of Product; The values for Value of Product shown in Table
V-UO are fairly constant over the Southeast in comparison with the United
States as is shown in the following comparison:
Per
The only states with large varia-
Yalue Cent tions from 100 are North Carolina and
oo7Louisiana where the data appear to be
Product United distorted.
Per $100 States
Payroll Value
Cost of Material: The principal
item in the Cost of Materials group is
United States $267 100 that of mining clays. As is indicated
Southeast 319 119 by the figures for the Cost of Materials
Alabama 313 117 group and for the four sub-items, the
Georgia 267 100 effect of the 1939 wage structure which
Louisiana 357 13U was below the United States average
Mississippi 305 llli appears. The values for the group are
North Carolina U06 152 above the United States figure of $76 for
South Carolina 30k Ilk " n states except non-significant Louisi-
Tennessee 252 -9U ana, while for the Materials and Supplies
item of $23 for the United States only,
Korth Carolina (where the data are distorted) has a value above this level.
The fuel item (with a value of $1»3) is half or more higher than the United
States value in all states except Tennessee ($Ui) and Louisiana ($U5)>
Hhile this is in part due to the series of variations already mentioned,
the dollar figures In Table M-39 indicated that, probably efficient mining
operations have in part contributed to lowering the cost and that differ-
—84--

ences in basic accounting procedures hove inflated the result.
For the United States, the fuel item is approximately twice the
raw materiEls and supplies; for Georgia and the Southeast, the
fuel is seven times, yet firing costs are known t o be lower in
Georgia and Southeastern plants than elsewhere. This suggests
ttet different accounting procedures were probably employed.
In Georgia and the Southeast, mining costs are generally inte
grated with plant costs. Possibly in other regions the mined
Sme . . .
Enjii
Experiment
Station . . .
CfOfffia
T«*
ladmtiiil . .
..Economic
Roareb . .
clay was in many cases purchased from a subsidiary, resulting in an in
crease in the Cost of Materials and a. reduction in Wage totals.
Labor Costs; The general pattern of brick manufacture in Georgia was
established on the basis of low-wage labor employed in the moving of
naterial fron the mine to the plant and within the plant.
Bricks were moved from place to place in the plant by tossing four
at a time. Even under low wage conditions, small wage increases often
forced costs above selling price for plants with small capacity. The
natural result was the closing of most plants with a capacity of less than
fifty thousand brick a day since they usually lacked the capital necessary
to substitute conveyor belts, lift trucks,and similar mechanical material
noving equipment. This condition has been somewhat aggravated by wart.ime
changes in wage levels, and even more by upgrading of skills. At the
present wage ceiling of 65 cents for common labor, even the larger plants
cannot find enough labor because of the competition of less arduous jobs
at equal or hisher pay. Estimates indicate, for example, that it would be
more profitable to pay from $1.00 to $1.25 Per hour for a li.f.t truck opera
tor moving 500 bricks at a time than 65 cents for tossing four at a tim e,
even while writing off the thousand dollar investment in the lift truck
in four years.
Plant Locations; The relatively low price of brick as compared to its
weight (a thousand brick weigh about two tons) makes material handling the
key factor in all costs. For this reason, a greater economy in operation
can be secured by locating a heavy clay plant directly on a railroad in
order to permit direct loading onto cars. The plant site should also be
accessible to a paved highway. The clay pit should, if possible, be close
enough to the plant to permit convey or belt transportation of the clays.
Fuel; In the Northeast Georgia Area kilns would have to be fired by
coal, since natural gas is not available.
1939 Values; The data in Tables M-39 and M-ljl cannot be directly
related to costs per thousand brick in Georgia and the Southeast. Only
brick from "red burning clays" are shown for the Southeastern states (ex
cept Florida which has only minor production). Table M-ld. gives the pro
duction for selected states with totals for this class (which includes
most common brick) for brick produced in 1939,for total value,and for
value per thousand. For the sixteen states which produce over 100,000
thousand brick, Georgia shows the lowest sales value per thousand brick.
This figure of $8.87 per thousand brick, at the brickyard, is about onequarter
less than the average price in 1939 for all plants in the United
States. The low value in Georgia apparently reflects the higher propor
tion of "common" brick in the Georgia production, the lower firing costs
resulting from climatic conditions,and the generally efficient -operation
of the large volume plants.
—85--

Item
Number 'of Plants
'roprietors
Salaried Officers
Mfg. Total
Salaried
Wage Earners
listribution
Oonstruotion
Jther
Salaries and
Wages, Total ,
Salaried Officers'
Manufacturing*
Salaries
Wages
Distribution
Construction
Other3
Cost of Materials
Materials
Fuel
Eleotrio Energy
Contract Work
Value of Products
Value Added^
Margin*
U.S.
800
330
698
30,848
1,779
29,069
1,096
276
46
133,877,863
2,642,630
29,258,645
2,909,199
26,349,346
1,691,060
246,909
38,119
22,469,697
6,996,528
12,660,149
2,726,259
87,661
78,163,227
55,683,630
55,652,782
general Statistioi for Brick and Hollow Structural Tile Industry
in Detail for UnTEedUtates and SouEheast State sTor 1$$9
S.E.
133
86
108
6,047
2 75
6,772
238
56
5
$ 4,634,293
647,802
3,710,085
422,262
3,287,833
321,394
49,790
6,222
3,607,499
726,001
2,399,944
468,407
13,147
11,854,213
8,246,714
8,240,667
Ala.
20
10
14
897
51
846
104
__
$ 635,599
58,621
657,554
78,820
478,734
16,724
2,800
„
534,252
95,564
357,666
81,032
._
1,749,798
1,216,546
1,214,649
Ga.
• 13
2
20
1,036
61
985
94
29
—
| 876 ;902
116,219
646,208
70,771
574,437
93,160
21,316
__
620,537
66,736
452,532
101,270
-_
1,723,107
1,102,670
1,101,534
La.
13
6
12
414
19
395
22
._
1
1331,702
107,300
207,479
21,706
186,773
16,373
«
650
132,814
35,255
93,507
4,062
--
741,692
608,878
608,464
Miss.
14
14
11
463
22
441
8
11
--
|306,550
36,610
847,469
31,064
216,395
14,203
8,898
480
830,397
76,014
135,776
19,607
—
756,884
626,487
526,084
N.C.
41
34
30
1,495
65
1,430
4911
11,176,042
141,606
949,678
91,259
858,419
81,238
2,270
1,250
1,151,549
260,362
771,464
129,083
650
3,862,387
2,710,838
2.709,343
S.C.
16
13
9
833
•32
801
309
1
| 628,377
31,700
453,884
64.890
388,994
36,227
6,116
1,460
472,068
95,773
301,886
65,409
9,000
1,379,984
907,916
907,083
Tenn.
17
•LQ IP
909
35
874
9C
Zo
1
2
t 780,121
66,946
648,823
63,742
586,081
64,569
8,391
1,392
466,882
107,308
287,123
67,964
3,497
1,640,361
1,174,479
1,173,570
Souroei IT. 3. Census. Manufactures, 1939, Brick and Hollow Structural Tile Industry, 'And firm .. .
members (partnerships). 80f corporations. "^Included in Value Added and in Margin. *This item is the • £ o g^B
iivisor used in Table M-40. Includes supplies, oontraot work, fuel, and purchased eleotrio energy. 1 lojljj | 'jjj '*
'And Supplies. 7puroha3ed. 8By manufacture. BThis figure, not shown by census. Is calculated by ll •§ =•'*•: I!'.'
subtracting tha aum of manufacturing Salaries and Wage payments from Value Added. II ' ft*' • *•" ' li
1S1
V wto

Table M-40
o>

State
or
Group
United States
Southeast
Table U-41 f5£^i
Eipuiaat
Bunber and Value it Brick froia Red Burning Clays &£,»' '
and Value of Product for B rick and Hollow Ttcfc
—— Structural Tile foTll.S., S.lT"aSa ——— WSH:i
Selected States Tor 1979"" Roeucfc . .
01
4>
C
a
747
144
Brick from Red
Burning Clays
K
Brick
4,209,797
967,436
Value
149,136,085
10,151.487
Per
11
Brick
$11.37
10.49
Brick and Hollo*r Structure
Tile Industry
P]
1 £
800
133
Value
of
Product1
$78,153,227
11,854,213
States producing over 100,000 II Brick from Red Burning Clays:
Sew York
Pennsylvania
31. Carolina
Ohio
Illinois
Virginia
Georgia
JLlabaxa
Te^as
California
S- Carolina
Tennessee
New Jersey
Maryland
Jiichigan
Indiana
33
61
47
58
36
31
14
20
30
35
17
18
11
16
10
23
593,668
333,584
298,087
272,762
272,457
193,350
168,394
148,332
145,318
139,963
135,502
127,453
120,999
116,235
112,112
102,357
Other Southeastern States:
Mississippi
Louisiana
17
11
65,537
24,131
5,838,624
4,320,033
3,618,692
3,159,476
3,124,677
2,434,449
1,493,057
1,382,411
1,303,360
1,553,246
1,364,110
1,367,379
1,553,032
1,584,931
1,709,229
1,254,500
673,860
251,978
9.84
12.35
12.14
11.58
11.47
12.32
8.87
9.32
8.97
11.10
10.07
10.73
12.84
13.34
15.25
12.26
10.28
10.44
37
72
41
75
48
30
13
20
37
29
15
17
14
16
10
27
14
13
6,314,214
7,048,830
3,862,387
11,939,903
5,861,107
2,788,022
1,723,107
1,749,798
2,876 A007
2,009,173
1,379,984
1,640,361
2,393,122
1,670,924
1,946,375
3,143,078
756,884
741,692
Value
of Tile,
Other
Brick
etc. 2
29,017,142
1,702,726
475,590
2,728,797
243,695
8,780,427
2,736,430
303,573
230,050
367,387
1,572,647
455,927
15,874
272,982
840,090
85,993
237,446
1,888,578
83,024
489,714
Source: B. S. Census, Manufactures, 1939, Brick and Hollow
Structural Tile Industry.
i(This is the sane Value of Product shonn in Table H-33.
EThe difference between Col. 6 and..col. 3. This nay be an entirely
accurate figure since the values shown in Cols. E and 3 include some
brick produced in plants not included in Col. 6,and in some cases
plants are included in Col. 6 which are not included in Cols. 2 and 3.
However, this colum approximates the value of all buff brick (including
face brick), all types of glazed brick,and all types of structural tile.
—83—

Structural Tile Values: The 1939 values for structural
tile, buff brick, glazed brick and other heavy clay products
shown in the last column of Table M-U1 are almost altogether
structural tile for Georgia and the other Southeastern states.
The volume of structural tile has increased very considerably
since 1939j and current demands indicate that the value of
structural tile will continue at about one-fourth of the total
production of the industry.
Exptaoat
Sation . . .
lodutiul . .
. . Eco«nic
Ratarch . .
Size of Plant Versus Cost; Table M-ll clearly indicates the effect
of size of plant on cost per thousand bricks..' The total ualue of product
for 1939 shown for the Hi plants in Mississippi was $756,881), an average
of t£U,063 per plant. For the 13 Georgia plants the same average was
$132,SL6 per plant. The average plant price in Mississippi for brick from
red burning clay was $10.28; for Georgia, $8.87.
Price Structure; Brick and tile are priced by a system of discounts
from a base price. For common brick, this base price had been $l£ per
thousand (increased by OPA as a base ceiling to $17 in September, 191i5),
irith most quantity discounts in the Southeast between thirty per cent and
fifty per cent .
Modular Dimensions; ill the brick and tile plants in Georgia and the
Sou.the.ast which are members of the Southern Brick and Tile Manufactures'
Association are in the process of changing sizes of all material produced
to conform to the modular dimensions recently established through the
American Standards Association1 for all types of building material. These
sizes are based on a standard unit in place of four inches or multiples
thereof and are designed to eliminate all cutting of units in construction.
The effect of using modular dimensions is in general to reduce the labor
cost in laying brick or tile as well as cost of material,since none is
wasted through cutting.
The following is the technical data on the Hudson deposit at Gainesville,
based on Bulletin USt Veatch describes the deposit as contain
ing "Hi feet of red clay, underlain by 5 feet of bluish-white, more
plastic clay. These clays are not in place, but are typical colluvial
deposits." It was probably derived from a micaceous schist. The labo
ratory tests on this deposit are as follows:
Chemical Analysis
Loss on ignition .......... 7-02
Soda (Na,Ql ............ .38
Potash (Lo). ........... .67
Lime (CaO* ............ .00
Magnesia (UgO) ........... trace
Alumina (&e03). .......... 19.08
Ferric oxide (FezOj) ......... 6.9U
Titanium dioxide (TiO z) ........ .91
Sulphur trioxide (80s) ........ .00
PhospfTorus pentori.de (P^O.). ...... trace
Silica-(SiOu) .......... . 65.22
100.22
-The work of establishing the Modular Standards was done by Coantittes
A-62. The report may be secured by writing American Standards Association,
70 East U5th Street, Heir York 17, H«w York
—89—

Cone
36
Oli
02
1
3
5
Linear
Firing
Shrink
age
(based on
dry
length)
per cent
1.3
l.U
2.7
2.6
2. it
2.9
Total
linear
Shrink
age
(based on
plastic
length)
per cent
5.6
6.0
7.7
7.0
7-0
7-3
ibsorption
per cent
21.5
20. h
18.6
19.1
19.1
18.1
Modulus
of
Rupture
lib. per
sq.in.
286
369
1;60
339
Ii07
552
Color
Salmon
Salmon
Salmon
red
light
red
Fair
red
Good
red
Warpage
Little or
none
little or
none
Little or
none
Very
slight
Slight
Slight
Stale ....
Engineering
Ezperimnr
Station . . .
Georgia
7-«A
Indnnrial . .
. . Economic
Research . .
——— • —— —.

Glass and Sand
Deposits of sand and gravel are found in widely scattered
j«rts of the Northeast Georgia Area. Although little has been
used for commercial purposes, the sand and gravel are of fair
quality, and are generally suitable for concrete construction,
taiUiag mortar and plaster, and road construction. No foundry
or moulding sands have been reported in the Area. One large dejosit
suitable for glass is found in Towns county.
Glass
State ....
Engineering
Experiment
Station . . .
Grown
TV*
lodnttrul . .
. . Economic
Research .
The deposit referred to as suitable for glass making is the white
quartzite found in large quantity at the crest of the highest peak of Bell
Hountain, 2 miles north of Eiwassee. The upper part of the quartzite is
the purest; most of it snow white, with only a few ferruginous stains run
ning through it. Analyses of the purer quartz (l) and of the stained
quartz (2) are as follows i
Analysis of Bell Mountain
Moisture at 100°C
Loss on ignition
Ferric oxido(Fe2 Os)
Ifanganous oxide (MnO)
Silica (SiO£ )
Total
Samples
(1) (2)
This upper portion of the quartzite
is suitable for the manufacture
of quality glass. The iron oxide con
tent ranks it as sixth quality, but,
if this should decrease on further
analysis, the manganous oxide is low
0.03 enough that it might become fifth
0.19 quality, suitable for plate glass
0.38 (soe Table M-53, page 93 ). The
0.66 chief problem to be considered is the
____ 98.73 inaccessibility of the deposit, which
0.00
0.00
0.12
0.00
99.85
99.97 99.9^ is located at the top of a mountain.
Eiwassee, the nearest town, presents some difficulties as a possible
site for glass manufacture, because of its distance from large centers,
its lack of a railroad, and the probably higher fuel cost. Mining of the
quartzite and its shipment to glass plants elsewhere in Georgia should
not be impossible, in view of its apparent quality. It would seem pos
sible to work out a system of gravity transportation to move the quart
zite from the mountain top to the highway and then truck it to Blue Ridge,
the nearest point on the L. & H. railroad, or a little farther to Gainesville
on the Southern railroad. The first step in developing this de
posit would be further prospecting. If this confirms the analysis quoted,
then an engineering study should be made to determine if the idea of grav
ity transportation suggested is economically feasible, and, finally,
mrkets in -which it may be sold should be located.
Class Sands"
Composition: An ideal glass sand is made up entirely of the mineral
quartz which is free from inclusions of foreign substances. Sands con
taining 100 per cent silica, however, are not found in nature, although
some very nearly approach this composition. Minute inclusions of foreign
substances are sometimes present in the quartz grains themselves. These
•ay be divided into gaseous, liquid, and solid, the latter usually con
sisting of minerals of various kinds. The gases and liquids which are
soaetines included in quartz, generally have little effect on total
x reas, L. P., Preliminary Report on the Sand and Gravel Deposits of
, Georgia Geological Survey, BuTT 577 T55T-
"91—

composition, but the solid inclusions are often responsible for
the rejection of the material as a source of glass-making mate- Salt....
rial. Some of the common solid inclusions are: rutile, apa Experiment
tite ilmenite and also actinolitef chlorite epidote
Station . . .
tremolite f and tourmaline^ Besides the mineral inclusions in
quartz grains themselves, there are a considerable number of Indnniu!..
other minerals that may be present either as individual grains . . Econonk
or as thin films upon the surface of the quartz grains. Among ___
these have been identified a great number of common minerals, but some of
the mors common and heavier materials of this type are as follows: garnet,
hematite" hornblende" ilmenite, limonitej 2 magnetite, various micas,
rutile, staurolite, 3 etc.
When a complete chemical analysis of a glass sand is made, there are
almost Invariably found to be present, in addition to the silica which
constitutes the bulk of the sand, minute quantities of alumina, ferric and
ferrous oxides, lime, magnesia, titanium oxide, traces of the alkalies,
varying amounts of water, and occasionally a little organic matter in the
fora of coal or decayed vegetation. Some of these constituents are harm
less, while others have a very deleterious effect upon the glass.
According to the American Ceramics Society committee on glass stand
ards, the chief criteria for a good glass sand are that it should be prac
tically all silica and should contain very little iron. The sand must no^
be contaminated with stripping dirt or contain any fresh stone or pebbles,
for such impurities are often insoluble in the melting process.
Aluminai Alumina is generally present in glass sands in the form of
clay or kaolinite. It may, however, also occur as one of the micas or as
feldspar. Such clay, as well as much of the mica, can usually be largely
eliminated by careful washing of the sand, but alumina present as feldspar
cannot be removed in this manner. If the clay content of a sand is high,
the iron content also is apt to be high, as the clay is very likely to
have limonite associated with it.
The presence of small amounts of alumina in a glass sand is not
necessarily detrimental in the manufacture of the ordinary types of glass.
In sone instances it is not only harmless but actually beneficial. At
rSutiles Titanium dioxide.
3Apatite: Naturally occurring phosphate of calcium, with chloride or
fluoride of calcium.
*Ilme.iitei An oxide of iron and titanium.
BActinolite: A monoclinic amphibole. Amphibolesi An important
group of dark-colored, rock-forming silicates, of which hornblende is tho
commonest.
8 Chlorites» A group of allied minerals which may be regarded as hydrated
silicates of aluminum, iron, and magnesium.
Epidote: Common secondary mineral in igneous rocks.
8 Tremolite: A silicate of calcium and magnesium.
9Touraaline: A complex silicate of boron and aluminum, with, in ad
dition, magnesium, iron, or the alkali metals, and fluorine in small
amounts.
10 Eenatito: Oxide of iron.
^Hornblende: The common .b_lack, dark green, or brown variety of alumi
num a^phibole. It contains considerable iron and occurs in columnar, fi
brous, and granular form.
J^Limonite: An amorphous hydratsd oxide of iron.
Staurolite: Silicate of aluminum and iron.
--92—

present, there is a tendency among many glass manufacturers to
use more alumina in their glass than in the past. This is done
because it has been discovered that alumina decreases the solu
bility of glass in water, weak acids, and other chemical re
agents. Furthermore, considerable amounts of alumina in glass
result in comparatively low coefficients of expansion. Alumina
also is an aid in preventing devitrification.
Sute ....
Engiiiecruig
Experiment
Station . . .
Georgia
T>d>
ImfDStruI . .
. . Economic
Reuarcb . .
Iron Oxides; Iron, either in the ferrous or ferric state, because of
its coloring effect upon the glass, is the most detrimental impurity found
in glass sand. Ferrous iron imparts a green tint to glass, while ferric
iron produces a yellow tint which is not nearly so. noticeable. Since most
glass is made under reducing conditions, the green color is the one usually
developed. Hhen the amount of iron present is small, this coloring effect
can in part be overcome by the use of a deeolorizer, such as manganese
dioxide, nickel oxide, or selenium.
American glass manufacturers in recent years have been demanding an in
creasingly smaller iron oxide content in the sand they use. The sand at
present used in the manufacture of optical glass contains from 0.014 per
cent to 0.016 per cent of ferric oxide, that used for chemical glassware be
low 0.02 per cent, while for good colorless bottles and containers the sand
should preferably not exceed 0.04 per cent. Plate glass manufacturers use
sand containing from 0.05 per cent to 0.15 per cent of ferric oxide, al
though usually the percentage does not exceed 0.10 per cent. Some window,
glass manufacturers now demand sand containing less than 0.08 per cent of
ferric oxide. For ordinary green and amber bottles, sand containing from
0.3 per cent to 1.0 per cent or even more of ferric oxide can be used.
Iron may be present in the sand in the form of limonite, hematite,
nagnetite, ilmenite, biotite, hornblende, fluorite, or some other iron bear
ing mineral. A. little may also be introduced as metallic iron from the ma
chinery which is used in crushing the sand. If it is present as limonite
or hematite closely associated with kaolinite or clay, it may in large part
be removed by washing. If, on the other hand, the limonite or hematite
adheres closely as a coating to the quartz grains, washing is of no avail.
Metallic iron, magnetite, and limonite can be removed from sand by means
of a magnetic separator.
Table M-53
Percentage Composition of Sands of Various Qualities
(based on ignited samples)
Si02 A1 203 Fe a0 3 MgO
Win. Ifax. Max. Ifax.
Krst quality, optical glass ........ 99.8 0.1 0.02 0.1
Second quality, flint glass containers
and tableware ............. 98.5 0.6 0.035 0.2
Third quality, flint glass ........ 95.0 4.C 0.03S 0.5
Fourth quality, sheet glass, rolled
and polished plate .......... 98.5 0.5 0.06 Fifth quality, sheet glass, rolled
0.5
and polished plate .......... 95.0 4.0 O.C6 0.5
Sixth quality, green glass, containers
and window glass ........... 93.0 0.5 0.3 0.5
Seventh quality, green glass ........ 95.0 4.0 0.3 0.5
Eighth quality, amber glass, containers .... 98.0 0.5 1.0 0.5
Hinth quality, amber ........... 95.0 4.0 1.0 0.5
--93--

Lime and Magnesium: The amount of lime present In most
glass sands is so snail that it has no detrimental effects on
the glass. Jfagnesium, however, is much more apt to be intro
duced into the glass natch through the limestone used than
through the sand. The composition of the former, therefore,
must be -Hatched with respect to this constituent.
State ....
Experiment
Sution . . .
Cnraia
Tub
ladutriat . .
. . Ecoaottk
Raejrch . .
Alkalies! Alkalies enter into the composition of all or
dinary types of glass,and the minute traces occasionally present in the
sand are not harmful. Titanium oxide probably rarely occurs in glass sand
in sufficient amounts to have any detrimental effects on the glass. It
may oe present as individual grains of rutile, ilmenite, or titanite, or
as inclusions in the quartz itself. Grains of zircon, which are occasion
ally found in glass sand, are very undesirable Because of their refracto
riness.
Organic liatter: Organic matter is occasionally present in small
amounts in glass sand, either in the form of fragments of coal or as de
cayed vegetable matter. In the glass sands of Georgia, it is quite likely
that partially decayed material of this type will be found, particularly
in those regions where the glass sands have accumulated along stream ter
races or old sea terraces.
Sands used in the manufacture of lead glasses must be free from or
ganic matter Because of the reducing action which it exerts upon l«ad COBpounds.
Manufacturers of high-grade and special glasses made in pot fur
naces also usually demand an absence of organic matter in their sands. IE
the case of glasses in which salt cake is used as a source of sodium, soce
form of carbon has to be added to the batch to enable the silica to decom
pose the sulfates.
Size of grains; Uniformity in size of grains is perhaps of more i«-
portance irTa glass sand than the actual size of the grains themselves, al
though it is very essential that the sand be neither too coarse nor too
fine. Grain size has a very definite effect on the manufacturing process
of various types of glass. For example, the production of soda-lime glass
is conducted in three stages. In the first stage, the raw materials are
melted. In the second stage, the temperature is raised above the melting
point, and the so-called "fining" process occurs. In the third stage, the
glass is allowed to cool down to a working viscosity.
If the sand grains are too fine, the first reaction will take place
so rapidly that large volumes of caroon dioxide are liberated which cause
the ba-ch to foam badly; too-fine sand may also be responsiole for the
formation of a fine persistent seed in the glass. On the other hand, the
coarser the sand used.the greater is the tendency for the formation of
batch scum. If the sand grains are uniform in size, the attack on then
will be approximately unifonr., and, consequently, they will decrease in
size at a uniform rate in the melting process. The recommended specifi
cations for grain size are as follows:
Limiting Percentages of Various Sizes of Sand Grains
Through a Ho. 20 screen . . . . 100 per cent
Through a Ko. 20 and remaining on a
No. 40 screen ....... Hot more than 60 per cent or
less than 40 per cent.
—94--

Limiting Percentages of Various Sizes of Sand Grains, Cont.
Through a No. 40 and remaining on a
No. €0 screen
Through a No.-60 and remaining on a
No. 100 screen
Not more than 40 per cent
or less than 30 per cent.
Not more than 5 per cent.
Screen tests shall be made with sand dried at 110° C., using United
States Bureau of Standards standard screen sizes.
State ....
Engineering
Experiment
Station . . .
Georgia
Industrial . .
. . Economic
Preparation; The method of preparation of sand used depends on the
character of the crude rock or sand, as well as on the grade of sand de-
Eired. All sand has to be washed. With unconsolidated sand, the sand and
rater may be delivered through revolving screens covered with 12 to 18
mesh ilre-cloth, the oversize being taken away by drags or conveyors. The
sand of desired texture and the clay pass through the screens, and the ex
cess water carries off the clay.
The report of the Geological Survey of Georgia on the sand and gravel
deposits of Georgia was issued in 1921, and while certain references may
no longer apply, and certain landmarks may no longer exist, it is the most
complete and informative study of the subject. Descriptions of the sand
and gravel deposits in the Northeast Georgia Area have been consolidated
fron this report into Table M-52. No chemical analyses were available
except for the quartzite deposit on Bell Mountain.
Table M-52
Sand and Gravel Deposits in the Northeast Ceorgia Area
1Deposit
No.
Location
Banks County
Description
of Deposit
Use
Economic
Possibility
Workable Thickness in Ft..
1
2
TOiere Caraesville-Homer road
crosses Webb Creek, 2 mi. E
of Homer
Ballast pit £ mi. N of Alto,
71 of So. Ey.
Very good coarse
grained sand, contain
ing some mica, schist
and feldspar; fine
ness modulus of 2.52;
90 per cent retained
on the 48-mesh sieve
6 or 7, acres of
quartz schist, or
friable quartzite
with a little mica
and feldspar
Concrete ag
gregate
—95—
_

.1
o
•p
-H
aoo.
c
a
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Location
Barrow County
Marburg Creek, 3 mi. S of
Kinder, on Monroe road
Shallow Creek, 5 mi. S of
Kinder, on the Itonroe road
Dawson County
Table lf-52 (continued) Sand and Gravel
10 acres \ mi. E of Yellow Excellent coarse
Creek post office, and along grained yellow quartz
Anicalola Creek
sand, 'indarlain by
blue clay
A branch of Thompson Crsek,
just S of DiJcon
Chest-itee River above
Glover's Kill
Forsyth County
Eig Creek and a branch of
Vickery Creek, 1 mi. iT of
Cicming on Canton road
Chattahoochee River, on
eastern boundary of county
Franklin County
7.1iere ths Bowersville-
Caraesville road crosses the
rrorth Fork of Broad River
Stephens Creek, S and SE of
Carnesville
Hudson River, forming
southern boundary of county
Description
of Deposit
Small bars of coarse
grained muddy sand,
with at least 10 per
cent of the grains
composed of schist,
feldspar and limonite
Coarse-grained sand
Coarse-grained sand
underlain by red clay
Coarse-grained sand
Uediunt- to coarse
grained sand with
large percentage of
feldspar, liaonite.
and mica
Much coarse- and
fine-grained sand
Some muddy, fine
grained sand in streai
bed. Sand having
large percentage of
mica and limonite ex
tends along bank
SQall deposits of
fairly coarse sand
Coarse-grained sand
of very good quality
1 1 1
Use
Economic
Possibility
Local building
Local building
Concrete
Concrete
Concrete
Concrete
Concrete building
Building
Concrete
a
OB
H

Table M-52 (continued) Sand and Gravel
1Deposit
No.
Location
Habersham County
Description
of Deposit
Use
Economic
Possibility
10
«> n
rH O
m fc-H
0^30
tt«H
13
Eazel Creek, 1 mi. from
Clarice svi lie on Tallulah
Palls road
Reddish-yellow sand;
schist and feldspar
make up 50 per cent
of the particles over
14 mesh; mica common
in coarse flakes;
modulus of 2.61; 84
per cent retained on
the 48-mesh sieve.
14
Chattahoochee River, on
road between Clarkesville
and Helen
Sand and gravel;
fineness modulus of
4.42; 37 per cent
retained on the 4-
mesh sieve
15
Hazel Creek and its branches
Little Eazel Creek near
Mount Airy
Hall County
Natural concrete ag
gregate
Construction
of bridges and
other concrete
structures
16
17
18
Deposits north of Gainesvilli
from one to two miles on or
near Dahlonega road, and 1-g
miles north of Gainesville
Chestateo River, ten miles
wast of Gainssville, on
Dawsonville road, for almost
a mile above dam at Glover's
Mill
Chattahoochee River, in its
course through the county
Grayish-white sand
with large percent
ages of silt; finer
ness modulus of 1.99;
70 per cent coarser
than the 48-mesh
sieve. Brains al
most entirely of
angular quartz
Coarse-grained,
quartz sand, contain
ing a few black par
ticles of schist and
limonite; some largei
pebbles up to 1 or 2
inches in diameter
Coarse-grained quartz
sand
Concrete _____
State ....
Engineering
Erprrimcnc
Station . . .
Gnrffia
Tick
Indnitrul . .
. . Economic
Rcuarco . .
Concrete
19
Hart County
Llghtwood Log Creek, NPf of Excellent coarse
Hartwell on Bowersville road grained quartz sand
near railroad crossing with some mica
—97 —
Concrete 2

[Deposit No.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
26
27
Location
Hart County (cent.)
(continued)
Big Cedar Creek, Z miles
fron Barfcwell on Elberton
road
Savannah River bed near
Etephenson's and Green's
islands
Jackson County
Mulberry Fork of Qconee
River at Mulberry
22.ddle Oeonee River, 3 mi.
STT of Jefferson on Winder
road
Indian and Buffalo Creeks,
S of Jefferson
Curry Creek, 1^ mi. E of
Jefferson, above da
Lumpkin County
Yahoola Creek, on upper
Gainesvills road
Etowah Hiver, near Dawsonville
road bridge, at
Ajraria
Table il-SZ (continued) Sand and Gravel
—93—
Description
of Deposit
flakes up to £ In.
in size; fineness
modulus of 2.62; 84
per cent coarser than
48-nesh sieve
Medium to coarsegrained
sand contain
ing large flakes of
mica up to 1 in.
across; numerous
grains of schist and
some linonite
Coarse sand, gravel
on the bed rock
Quartz sand with con
siderable schist and
limonite; fineness
modulus of 2.71 and
85 per cent retained
on the 48-mesh sieve
Fine-grained sand
icith layers of coarse
grained sand and
gravel
Coarse-grained white
jiuartz sand
Coarse-grained clean
quartz sand
large bars of coarse
sand and quartz
Clean, coarse-grained
quartz sand; fineness
modulus of 2.39; 95
per cent coarser than
43-nesh
tfse
Economic
Possibility
Concrete
Concrete
Building
Workable Thlokn ea
State ....
Engin*rrioi
Expfrimtnt
Concrete Station .. . .
Gtoraia
Tub
fadaftfu! . •
. . Economic
Roetrch . .
•
1-li
3-6
-

Table M-52 (continued) Sana and Gravel
I[Deposit
No.
Location
Description
of Deposits
Use
Economic
Posibility
Ifortoble Thickness ft. in
Madison County
28
Broad River, above bridge
on Berkely-filberton road
Excellent sand
Concrete
Eabun County
29
Banks of Tallulah River
below Wiley almost to dam
White floe-grained
sand
Building
3-6
30
Along Timson Creek, from
Tallulah River to a point 6
miles above
Probably best sand In
county, clean,
noarsa-grained, gray
quartz sand
Concrete
31
Stekoa Creek, near Tallulah
Falls road, 1 mi. S of
Clayton
Fineness modulus of
2.59 and 76 per cent
coarser than 48-mash
32 Tiger Creek
Stephens County
Good, coarse-grained,
white sand; ten per
cent exceeds j| in. in
size; coarser par
ticles made up of 25
per cent quartz rest
schist and feldspar
33
A. number of points in Tugalo
River
Sand of excellent
quality
Concrete
34
North Broad River southward
from Dick's Hill road
Coarse-grained sand;
fineness modulus of
1.93; 67 per cent
coarser than 48-nesh
Concrete
2-4
Towns County
35
io
•7
Along course of Hog Creek, 2
mi. from Hiwassee on Clayton
road
Hiwassee Siver, from a point
about 4 mi. SE of Hiwassee
Bell, Mill, Scattaway, and
Cabin Creeks
Coarse sand and
gravel . Sample
showed fineness modu
lus of 1.56 and 58
per cent coarser than
4-mesh
Concrete aggregate
Pairly good sand and
gravel
lr= —— |
1 Sut*
Concrete I Enca«riij
II Eipirimtnt
1 Surra, . . .
Ctoqfa
1 T"h
I Induirill . .
1! P ———— I.
-99- I^L"" ' '

Table lf-52 (continued) Sand and Gravel
o
-P
W
i-i 0>
•SSf
Is4
O.CC
38
Highest peak of Bell Mountain
Heavy-bedded white
quartz which grades
into a more impure
granular guartzite.
underlain by horn
blende schist, over
lain by garnetiferous
rock
Glass, lining
furnaces, and
flux
Union County
39
Young Cane Creek, in SW part
of county
Bars of fairly good,
coarse-grained sand
Concrete
40
Nottely River, S of Blairs
ville
Some fine-grained
sand deposited in
small quantities
tl
Coosa Creek, 3 mi. S of
Blairsville
Fairly good sand and
gravel
12
Butternut Creek, 1 mi. HE of
Blairsville
Small bars of very
good sand and gravel
43
44
White County
Along course of Chattahoochee
River
Along Dukes Creek^ particu
larly near the Helen-
Cleveland road
Much coarse sand and
gravel
Gravel
ir^~^"~"
State ....
Experiment
Station . . ,
G7v£fl
Industrial . .
. . Economic
RtKJrcb . .
Sources Toas, L. p., Prelifflinary Report on the Sand and Gravel Deposlts
of Georgia, Georgia Geological Survey, 3ul. 37, 1921,
—100—

Timber
Forest trees are one of the obvious natural resources of
the Northeast Georgia Area. Slightly over sixty-one per cent
of .all the land is in forests. A somewhat smaller proportion
of land ia faras is in woodland, 40.8 per cent. The Chattahooshse
National Forest contains much of the best forest land
in the Area. Th« Area has a somewhat higher proportion of
hardwoods than Georgia as a whole.
State ....
Engineering
Experiment
Station . . .
Giorgla
Tteh
Industrial . .
. . Economic
Research . .
The data in Table M-22 is taken from Forest Planning - Georgia, the
only source which gives county totals. The more mountainous northern
Bounties of Lumpkin, Dawson, Kftbun, Towns, Union, and White all have nore
than eighty per cent of their total land area in forests. Counties with
lass than half their land area in forests are Franklin, Ball, Jackson,
Ifedison, Barrow, und Hart, while Forsyth has less than one third.
Barrow county had the highest return per acre, $3.82, shown for 1937.
Eabersham was second with J2.19 and Jfedison, third with $2.17, The only
other county with a 1937 return above |2.00 was Franklin with |2.06 per
acre. The fact that these four are among the better farming counties
probably has significance, although one reason for the low returns shown
Table 11-22
land in Forests in the Northeast Georgia Area, 1937, by Counties
Summary
and
Counties
Area Total
Banks
Barrow
Dawson
Forsyth
Franklin
aabersham
Ball
Hart
Jackson
Lumpkin
Ifedison
Bibun
Stephens
Towns
Onion
Khite
Total
Land
Area
Acres
2,739,200
148,480
108,800
135,680
154,880
174,080
180,480
274,560
163,200
218,880
177,920
179,840
236,800
115,200
110,080
204,800
155,520
Total .
Forest Area
Acres
1,693,543
93,929
41,127
122,019
48,803
83,169
123,381
124,109
55,801
96.460
161,298
68,621
208,295
60,972
96,044
179,633
129,882
Per
Cent
61.8
63.3
37.8
89.9
31.5
47.8
68.4
45.2
34.2
44.1
90.7
38.2
38.0
52.9
87.3
87.7
83.5
I/ind for Re
forestation
Acres
152,323
13,269
12,561
3,934
2,798
17,093
9,173
11,290
8,203
28,200
7,396
17,528
4,776
5,252
2,477
5,780
2,593
Per
Cent2
5.6
8.9
11.6
2.9
1.3
9.8
5.0
4.1
5.0
12.9
4.2
9.8
2.0
4.6
2.3
2.8
1.7
Annual Value
of Primary
Forest Produots
Total
42,346,970 $1.39
158,710
157,110
135,740
94,600
171,530
270,050
145,680
78,400
160,950
168,130
148,930
179,770
89,120
98,450
82,020
207,730
Per
Acre
1.69
3.82
1.11
1.94
2.0S
2.19
1.17
1.40
1.67
1.04
2.17
0.86
1.46
1.03
0.46
1.60
Source: Georgia Planning Board, Forest Planning, Georgia, 1939,
pp. 42 and 43. Cols. 3 and 5, per cent of total land aeres'TTn each
county.
glncludes woodland in farms.
Per Cent of total land acres in each county.
—101—

in many of the othor oounties is probably that during 1937
both the Chattahoochee national Forest and other large timber
owners ware limiting cutting in order to accumulate standing
timber. The figures for 1937, however, do indicate that oppor
tunities to improve forest income by increased application of
maintained yield operations are possible.
Table M-58 shows that 78.1 per cent of all standing timber
in 193S was pine, chiefly loblolly and shortleaf.
Sate
Engineering
Experiment
Suciofl . . .
Groraia
Tid,
Indnstriil . .
. . Economic
Retejicb . .
The cutting and processing of timber, the production of pulpwood, the
manufacture of consumer goods from timber and paper from pulpwood are the
ways in which this natural resource can contribute to the economic growth
of the Northeast Georgia Area.
It is necessary to discuss much of the problem of forost use in tenas
of all Georgia simply because census data on individual industry types are
only occasionally available by counties and because much of the forest
data are available only for large groups of counties, or for the state as
a whole.
Estimate of the total 1936 cutting in the Northeast Georgia Area and
the amount of standing timber in the Area's forssts are shown in Tables
Jt-26 and JJ-58. These estimates are calculated from Forest Service tables
by multiplying by 33.74 per cent the results shown in the tables in
Georgia Forest Resources and Industries. This figure represents .the per
cent which the forests in the Northeast Georgia Area are of the total of
those in the counties in the Forest Service's North Central Georgia Unit
in 1934 as shown in Forest Planning - Georgia, the only source which gives
county totals.
.
More Processing Seeded: Logging and rough processing operations ara,
of course, essential, but they result in much smaller total payrolls and
less total profit to the
Table lf-26
Estimated Saw Timber Production for the
Northeast Georgia Area, 1936
Type of
Commodity
Lumber
Cross ties
Poles and piles
Veneer
Cooperage
Miscellaneous
manufacturing
Fuel wood
Fence posts
Domestic farm use
Land clearing
Total
Pine
11 B Ft.
33,065
236
978
34
1,080
27,228
34
2,193
1,046
65,894
Hard
wood
11 B Ft.
4,150
877
2,396
675
169
5,027
337
202
304
14,137
All Species
Per
Cent
a B Ft.
37,215
1,113
978
2,396
709
1,248
32,255
371
8,396
1,350
80,031
46.50
1.39
1.23
2.99
0.89
1.56
40.30
0.46
3.00
1.69
100.00
Source: Forest Service, Department of Agri
culture, Georgia Forest Resources and Industries,
Miscellaneous publication No. 501. Calculated
from Table 53, page 67.
--102--
community than the suc
ceeding steps which con
vert these raw materials
for final use in indus
try and by the consuming
public. Much of this
conversion should logi
cally be carried on in
the Area.
The Value of Prod
uct produced for Geor
gia by all plants in
the sawmill, veneer
mill, and cooperage
stock industry in 1939
was $18, 175,000. The
cost of raw material
was $8,183,000 and the
Value Added 19,992,000.
"Figures for indi
vidual industries are
published by the census
for areas smaller than
states in only a few
cases.

This production was responsible for the payment of $4,754,000
in nages and provided the management with a margin fund of
$5,238,000 for the payment of taxes, purely management sala
ries, sales expense, and profit. These are sizable sums, but
if the 418 nillion worth of rough lumber had all been processed
further in Georgia, the added sales value would have been $40.3
million. Of this, $22.7 million would have been Value Added,
providing an additional sum of wages amounting to $13.5 million
which would have been paid out in the state and a further margin of $9.2
million which would have been disbursed in taxes, management, sales costs,
and profit. Actually, in 1939, the total subsequent wood processing for
Georgia fell far short of these figures. The actual 1939 processing, sumitarized
from Tables 11-28 and It-29 shows a total Value of Product of only
|22.5 million. The Wages and Salaries amounted to only $5.8 million, the
Ifcrgin was $5.7 million and the Value Added $11.5 million.
It is easily possible to more than doable the normal production of
timber in Georgia without endangering the future supply. The prevailing
drain on the total growth is considerably more than twice the part going
into lumber and pulpwood. This excess drain represents fire loss, mor
tality, and other destruction of trees due to poor forest management.
Since the rate of growth has for a number of years exceeded the total
drain, elimination of half the losses due to fire and other causes would
permit increasing the cut more than enough to provide raw materials for
Tree
Species-
Groups
Table It-58
Ket Board-root Volume of Live Trees in Northeast Georgia
Area. 1936, (Green Lumber Tally Based on International
j-Inch Rule) la the Various forest Conditions
Pines
Loblolly
Shortleaf
Longleaf2
Total pines
Hardwoods :
Yellow-poplar
Red gum.
Black gum5
Bed oaks
White oaks
Other hardwoods
Total hardwoods
Total all
species
Per Cent of total
Old Growth
Unout
38,430
25,305
2,260
65,995
12,079
7,693
4,217
6,343
11,876
14,711
56,919
122,914
5.9
Partly
out
21,557
23,179
13,328
57,864
12,619
4,319
4,656
10,021
10,763
11,033
53,411
111,275
5.3
Second Growth
Sawloe Size Partly Under
Sawlog
Uncut Cut 1 Slzei Total
In Thousa. ads of Board-fe tl
579,889
453,432
34,212
1,067,633
70,382
37,856
19,974
33,268
31,987
51,116
244,583
1,312,116
63.C
176,966
181,892
9,818
368,676
21,088
11,472
3,374
17,106
17,207
13,968
84,215
452,891
21.7
34,347
27,633
4,791
66,771
4,386
1,316
1,147
3,172
2,733
5,027
17,781
84,552
4.1
850,989
711,441
64,409
1,626,839
120,554
62,656
33,368
69,910
74,566
95,855
456,909
2^083,748
100.0
Source: A. R. Spillers, Forest Resources of North Central Georgia,
Forest Survey Release, No. 44, The Southern Forest Experiment Station,
Hew Orleans, La., Table 6, page 12.
^'Includes the reproduction and clear-cut condition.
BAnd other.
And tupelo.
—103--
Per
Cent
of
TotU
40.9
34.1
3.1
78.1
5.8
3.0
1.6
3.3
3.6
4.6
21.9
100.0

Table U-23
Produotira Fbrest Areas In »orth

Shortleaf-loblolly
hardwoods
Old growth i
Uncut
Partly out
Total
Second growtht
Sawlog size i
Vncut
Partly out
Under sawlog size
Reproduction
Total
Clear out
H o All conditions
7,300
6,500
13,800
118,400
86,300
265,400
33,300
502,400
--
516,200
1.4
1.3
2.7
22.7
16.6
51.4
6.6
97.3
—
100.0
7.1
4.7
5.7
18.1
17.5
23.2
19.1
20.4
19.1
102,600
138,700
241,300
655,900
487,000
1,143,100
173,900
2,469,900
7,200
2,708,400
All types
Old growth i
Unout
Partly out
Total
Second growtht
Sawlog size:
Unout
Partly out
Under sawlog size
Reproduction
Total
Clear out
All conditions
50,300
77,100
127,400
797,700
437,400
1,084,200
98,200
2,417,600
4,100
2,549,000
2.0
3.0
5.0
31,3
17.1
42.5
3.9
94.8
0.2
100.0
5.1
4.9
5.0
12.6
17.7
14.0
8.8
13.7
0.6
12.1
990,100
1,564,700
2,554,803
6,334,900
2,477,600
7,732,600
1,112,000
17,657,000
823,700
21,035,500
Sourcei A. R. Splllers, Georgia Forest Resources and Industries, Itisoellaneous Publication No, 501, The
Southern Forest Experiment Station, Hew Orleans, La., Table 33, pages 44 and 45.
1Per eent''of Georeia total for forest condition. Col. 4,
ra w » cr a
r— n cr rrm "-d
i
WH-rftJO* H-O.BW Wg
tNrt-{P»0 OO H-ci- >r3P
B*tr« *o&,»i wo *tfow
*"* B>^>oo6g. OH-OI'M eaaooorrcMp'dorol-j'pF.cD H- 5* % S. 3 o I
tf PO.g4O

Graph lf-24-25
Production and Consumption of Limber
SfGeorgia, 1922-j.s35~
1936
1934
1932
All lumber groim
in Georgia
All lumber consumed
ia Georgia
Lumber grown in
Georgia which is
also consuced in
Georgia
1930
1928
1926
1S24
1922
300,000 600,000 900,000 1,200,000 1,500,000
--106--
II feet b.m.

on rough lumber. This tends to limit the distance over which a
plant can profitably ship by rail, and may as a result, make it
unprofitable to attempt to compete with High Point for the con
centrated markets in the Bast. Ibny firms in these fields em
ploy their own trucks for shipments up to four or five hundred
miles. This procedure might be profitable over even greater
distances if a return cargo of as much as half a load could be
contracted for. Some difficulty in finding such a contract car
State ....
Eniinnrinf
Experiment
Station . . .
Georgia
Tec*
fadaitiul . .
. . Economic
Research . .
go Kith sufficient uniformity of load and destination would be expected,
and relatively few manufacturers may find this device practical. Where, as
is only occasionally the case, the product is relatively heavy, this prob
lem becomes less acute. The freight rate is somewhat lower, and the
Graph M-2U, 25a
Lumber Distribution and Consumption, Georgia, 1936
Total Produced - 876,863
Produced
in Georgia Elsewhere
T Produced
Export - 10)3,7U3
All Lumber
Consumed in Georgia] - 526,066
Produced in Georgia -
Import
______U33.1ZO
1
Georgia - W,035 I—
Export -
rgia - 60,500
«— Import -
J 1S,U65
iiio 200 o 260
11 feet b.m.

greater ratio of weight to volume makes the cargo more attrac
tive to common carrier trucks and even to barges and coastwise
boats. TTater transportation does not find light bulky cargo at
tractive, and, in consequence, their rate structures do not
favor this class of goods.
Table U-2l*
Distribution of Lumber Produced in Georgia by Destina
tion foj-nseieeted Years, 1922 to 1936, In Total and
by_ Types i£ Thousands of Feet Board Measure
All Lumber
Luicber grown In
Georgia and
shipped to:
Georgia
,Vew England
SJiddle Atlantic
Lakes
Central
Prairie
South Atlantic
East Gulf
Lower Mississippi
North Pacific
South Pacific
Kortli Rocky llountain
Foreign (exports):
To Canada
To other foreign
Unspecified
Total distribution
Georgia
New England
Kiddle Atlantic
Lakes
Central
Prairie
South Atlantic
East Gulf
Lower Jlississiopi
North Pacific
South Pacific
Ncr'h Rocky Mountain
Foreign (exports):
To Canada
To other foreign
Unspecified
Total distribution
1922
U feet b.n.
196,123
100,983
1*72,088
33,570
181,305
1,975
10l*,827
258,861
1*1*9
3,105
—
—
—
—
5,235
1,162,758
1930
21!;, 671
1*3,366
31*0,983
20,573
112,11*3
522
51*,193
225,679
1,861*
—
71*1*
—
1,733
21,181
—
822,899
192k
M feet b.m.
33li,689
96,1,90
1*88,701*
31,377
011,773
561*
132,655
1*99,097
—
———
—
—
1*,1*06
1,365,516
1932
90,391
• 27,336
115,1*36
15,1*01*
39,109
1*23
U*,l«7
98,251
—
266
663
—
18
8,179
—
319,562
1926
M feet b.m.
361*, 305
50,696
636,070
1*1,507
122,987
—
11*0,751
1*81,672
—
———
—
—
8,718
1,1*82,1*01
1931*
136,51*1*
11*,06U
191,81*6
l*l*,l*l*2
97,989 56
23,91*0
11*3,029
—
_
1,918
—
—
1*,509
—
521,793
Su» ....
Engineering
Experiment
Sution . . .
Georgia
Ttcfc
Industrial . .
. . Economic
Research . .
1928
11 feet b.m.
296,531
126,550
1*62,92
51*, 351*
212,811*
273
113,030
303,938
112
156
—
118
11,019
23,181
—
1,313,1*72
1936
1*33,120
37,192
163,201*
31,135
11*1*, 302
789
51*, 897
1*1*1*. 903
Ulil
_
——
—
——
876,863
Source: E. 7. Reynolds, A. H. Pierson, Forest Products Statistics
of the Southern States, U. S. Dept. of Agriculture, Statistical
Bulletin No. 69, June 1939, op. 1*3, 1*1*.
"Includes Georgia.
—108—

Sales Costsi Lower sales costs nay be expected from deal-
Ing with a more compact market. Small size plants can frequent
ly arrange with a few outlets to handle their entire production,
thereby making unnecessary a more elaborate sales organization
to deal with a large number of customers.
Ectent of Forests» Hie fact that about 78 par cent of the
forests in tKe" Area are in pine, mostly slash and longleaf, has
perhaps caused the Area to concentrate on the less profitable parts of the
timber market. Much of the Area production has gono into rough lumber for
Lumber grown in
Georgia and
shipped to:
Seorgia
Table M-2l* (continued)
Table M-2U, Distribution of Lumber Produced In Georgia
lew England
addle Atlantic
jkes
Central
Prairie
South Atlantic
Bast Gulf1
Lower Mississippi
North Pacific
South pacific
lorth Rocky Mountain
Foreign (exports):
To Canada
To other foreign
Onspecified
Total distribution
Georgia
dew England
Middle Atlantic
.akes
Central
Prairie
South Atlantic
tast Gulf *
Lower Mississippi
North Pacific
louth Pacific
!orth Hocky Mountain
Foreign (exports):
To Canada
To other foreign
Unspecified
Total distribution
1922
M feet b.m.
185,127
95,662
129,159
32,516
163,671*
1,902
99,1*59
21.6,501*
293
3,1*15
—
—
—
—
2,1*1*8
1,075,232
1930
199,621
38,531*
315,725
19,750
89,51*2
522
23,086
210, 3l

uilding purposes. Some of this lumber, when exported, has been —
further processed elsewhere and may even have been returned to |«£»tiini
the Area in the fora of finished lumber or consumer goods. Experiment
Tables M-24 and It-25 show the geographic distribution of lumber Stlc«r';«''
sales for the Georgia cut and the sources from which lumber used 7>rf!°
in Georgia are drawn. '"^Ecotonk
Rocucb
Georgia is apparently supplying the bulk of the timber •—
actually used within the state. In 1922, the total imports shown in Table
M-25 were 93,118 thousand ioard feet. For 1936, the same figure was
92,946 thousand board feet. In 1922, however, the total was divided ioto
approximately one-third softwoods , and two-thirds hardwoods. By 1936,
Table M-21* (continued)
Table M-21*, Distribution of Lumber Produced in Georgia
Lunber grown in
Georgia and
shipped to:
Georgia
New England
Kiddle Atlantic
Lakes
Central
Prairie
South Atlantic
East Gulf1
Lower Kississippi
North Pacific
South Pacific
Foreign (exports):
To Canada
To other foreign
Unspecified
Total distribution
Georgia
New England
Middle Atlantic
Lakes
Central
Prairie
South Atlantic
East Gulf1
Lower Mississippi
North Pacific
South Pacific
Foreign (exports):
Tc Canada
To other foreign
Unspecified
Total distribution
1922
M feet b.m.
11,001
5,321
142,929
1,051*
I7,lt3i
73
5,368
12,357
156
—
—
—
—
2,837
87,526
1930
15,050
U.832
25,258
828
22,601
—
31,112
15,33k
37
——
650
900
7,552
—
109,101;
—110—
Hardwood Lumber
1921*
M feet b.m.
1*1,205
3,091
23,273
2,679
36,151*
—
7,1*06
U3.383
—
—
—
—
2,886
118,872
1932
6,753
3,976
7,880
761*
1*,700
35
6,800
6,990
—
_
663
18
7,898
—
39,721*
1926
M feet b.m.
37,035
2,797
1*2,529
3,871
17,912
—
- 15,1*16
1*1,205
—
—
—
—
3,936
127,666
1931*
12,1*85
1,899
18,536
1,158
1*,561*
56
19,685
13,022
—
„ _
1,918
__
It, 509
65,31.7
1928
U feet b.m
1*2,11*1*
9,917
1*1,1.58
9,1*75
1*1*, 372
11*5
28,369
I*3,7li9
61*
_
9,371
23,12
—
210,01*2
1936
1*2,035
199
3,01*1
867
25,399
1*1*, 900
1*2,617
—
__
__
_
_—
117,023

this internal distribution of Georgia's timber imports had be
come about one-tenth softwoods and nine-tenths hardwoods. In
1935, Georgia consumed almost half of all the timber out in the
state.
Hardwoods Are Important> Khile pines are the major type
of tree found in the forests of the Northeast Georgia Area, the
hardwoods are important. Table tt-58 shows that 78.1 per cent of
Table 11-25
. for
Statt ....
Experiment
Station . . .
Groegia
TnA
lodutrul . .
.. Ei
Rourch .
Lumber shipped
to Georgia
and grown in:
Georgia
New England
Middle Atlantic
Lakes
Central
South Atlantic
East Gulf1
Lower Mississippi
North Pacific
South Pacific
North Rocky Mountain
Foreign (imports):
From Canada
Total consumption
Per Capita, feet
Georgia
New England
Middle Atlantic
Lakes
Central
South Atlantic
East Gulf1
£o»2i- Mississippi
North Pacific
South' Pacific
(forth Rocky Mountain
Foreign (imports):
From Canada
Total consumption
Per Capita, feet
All Lumber
1922
1921* 1926 1928
121 ,_
__ _
28U.958 122,822 185,660 526,066
98 1*2 6U 172
M feet b.m. 11 feet b.m. M feet b.ra. M feet b.m.
• 196,128 33li,689 36!i,305 296,531
_
758 _
— _ ~29U
21* 1*82
987
1,1*66
626 1,0X3
61i6
15,870 8,U18 3,992 12,87!i
263,71*6 39U.S53 l»19,02li 396.5U5
7,1.85
8,1*1*5 16,025 9,3l»9
510
1*60
86
533
11*5 Iii6 351 1,350
___
_
__. _
289.2U6 1OU,1S8 UO.,656 1*21,591
100
1143
152
UiS
1930 2U*,671 1932
90,391 1931* 136,5Ui 1936
B3.120
__ _
~570
2
—
U22
72 376
• 6U
2U6
2,597 127
152 11,911
10,709
739 1U.817 36,515
266,1*61; 118,320 165,316 1*67,726
2,373 l,kSk 2,878 5,81*7
1,519
879 I,3li3 2,761*
1,103
1;7S
520
958
,__
57
Source: R. V. Reynolds, A. H. Pierson, Forest Products Statistics
Jf the Southern States . " u. t>. " itept. . or . Agriculture, . . . Statistical Bulletin
'o.~i$9,- June 1939, pp. 59, 60.
Includes Georgia •
—111—

the standing timber in the Area's forests are pines and other
conifers and 21.9 per cent, hardwoods. Oaks and yellow poplar
are the predominant types. The standing volume of old growth
hardwoods, 110,330 thousand feet is slightly exceeded by the
123,359 thousand feet of pine and other conifers.
Stale ....
Engnittruif
Eip.rimtat
Station . . .
G«orjr«
Ttrf,
Indutriil . .
. . Economic
Rorarcb .
The hardwood second growth timber was reported as 244,583
thousand board feet which was in uncut areas and 84,215 thou- ,____ —
sand board feet in partly cut areas. There was also a total of 17,731
thousand board feet of second growth hardwood described as not of saw-loir
size.
6
Lumber shipped
to Georgia
and grown in:
Georgia
New England
Lakes
Central
South Atlantic
East Gulf1
Lower Mississippi
North Pacific
South Pacific
North Rocky Mountain
Foreign (imports):
From Canada
Total consumption
Per Capita, feet"
Georgia
New England
Lakes
Central
South Atlantic
East Gulf1
Lower Mississippi
Worth Pacific
South Pacific
forth Rocky Mountain
Foreign (imports):
Froa Canada
Total consumption
er Capita, feet"
Table 11-25 (continued)
Table It-25, Consumption of Lumber in Georgia
Softwood Lumber
1922
1921* 1926
101 _^ _
263,363 113,865 170,1*11*
91 39 59
M feet b.m. 185,127 M feet b.m. 293, l*8U V. feet b.m.
327,270
__ 758
— 395
——.
122
9,779 l*,70l* 1,939
150,555 31*5,989 379,975
5,857 6,760 11*,520
510
1*60
86
11*5
11*6 351
_
_,^
178
_
„__
267,214! 358,817 397,171
92
12lt
137
1930 199,621 1932
83,633 1931*
12U,059
_
__
__ 87 _
10,6
_
9,951 510 11*,063
21*9,032 110,663 152,158
1,211 1,251 2,330
1,519
879 I,3li3
1,103
1*75
520'
_._
1928
11 feet b.m.
251* ,387
25
6^996
352,000
8,139
533
1,350
371,01*3
128
1936
391,085
_
_
35,573
1*22,631
3,583
2,761*
958
57
_
1*65,565
152
1 Includes Georgia. _
—112—

More Value Can Be Realized; While the $2,346,970 shown in
Table M-S2 represents~only the value of lo£s and pulpwood, and
does not include any subsequent value added through further
processing, the variation in the average return per acre from
county to county, apparently points to the conclusion that the
value of primary forest products is much less than it should be
By dividing.the total annual value of primary forest products
shown in column 6 of Table M-22bythe number of acres in forest
Sou ....
Engineering
Experiment
Station . . .
Georgia
TKh
Industrial . .
. . Economic
Research . .
(column 2), an average of $1.89 an acre results. In contrast with this,
the same calculation for Barrow county results in an average of $3.82 per
acre, -while for Union county, the result is only $0.46 per acre. If the
Area average were increased to •squal the Barrow county rate, the $2,346,970
estimated by the Forest Service would increase 2.26 times this amount or
|5,304,152. Compared with estimates for sustained yield operations which
have been made by the Forest Service, even this Barrow county average ap
pears low when considered as a goal.
Table M-25 (continued)
Lumber shipped
to Georgia
and grown in:
Georgia
New England
saddle Atlantic
Lakes
Central
South Atlantic
East Gulf1
Lower Mississippi
Foreign (imports):
From Canada
Total consumption
Per Capita, feet
Georgia
New England
Middle Atlantic
Lakes
Central
South Atlantic
East Gulf1
Lower Mississippi
Foreign (imports):
From Canada
Total consumption
Per Capita, feet
•"•Includes Georgia.
Table 11-2$, Consumption of Lumbar in Georgia
1922
M feet b.n.
11,001
—
———
2k
1,071
6,091
13,191
1,628
__
22,005
8
1930
15,050
—
_ —
72
2,151
758
17,1*32
1,162
20
21,595
7
—113--
Hardwood Lumber
1921* 1926
M feet b.ra. M feet b.m.
1*1,205 37,035
—
—
———
—— Ii82
665
626 1,013
3,711* 2,053
1*8, 861* 39,01*9
1,685 1,505
»
——
55,371 1*1*,1*85
19
15
1932
1931*
6,753 12,1*85
1*22
570
. 289
6k
127
152
229
751.
7,657 13,158
233
51*8
——
•—-
8,957 I5,2lt6
3 5
1928
M feet b.m.
1*2,11*1*
—
—
269
61*6
3,878
1*1*, 51*5
1,210
——
5o,5U8
17
1936
1*2,035
2
"286
11,911
91*2
U5,095
2,261*
• ——
60,500
20

II
3 = i
" :lil!
T3 t ;T ^
*' 51 nlol ml
fi5[ti
C|M|
PI5 t
B |tn
ml
rf
3
£
Pu
n
§^
CO £
O Vt O
O O -P
§ 1 «*
r- 1 CM O o
« 0 fct 3
> P- *CJ
(0 I
£ w*d
0>
ic
a QO
V T3
3 G)
rH TJ
^ i-S
£°£.g
(0
n ^
O T3 f-
eo
J
•a - CM CM CO r-l O
NO f>- NO \O CO rH
«* • rt
C-- CM CM CO r-l O
NO f>- NO VOCO rH
«-» rH fH H H CM
"^ O CM -Zt rH CM
rH H rH H rH~
O-=I tA CM r- CM
CO O -J CO r-!CO
CM m CM CM f\

Table M-28
Census Data for United States, Southeast and Southeastern 5taV.es for
Forest Product'Industries Producing; II Seiai'-finihed
'Pfoduc'ts"and Rough'fndusfrial Ooods for 1939
1939 Census
In Thousands of Dollars
Value per $100 of Payroll 1
Industry
and
Area
Wages
and
Salaries
Value of
Product
Cost of
Material
Value
Added
Margin
Wages
and
Sala
ries
Value
of
Pro
duct
Cost
of Ma
terial
Value
Added
Mar
gin
O)
I
Planing Mills
United States
Southeast
Georgia
$80,395
11*, 356
1,753
$320,6llt
70,211
10,282
$177,735
lt2,3U3
6,315
$11)2,879
27,909
2,1814
$62,1,81,
13,5.53
2,937
100
100
100
$399
1*89
587
$221
295
362
$178
19U
225
$78
93
125
Plywood Ullls
Unitsd States
Southeast
Cooperage
United States
Southeast
Georgia
11,591;
1,661
8,205
352
72
38,879
5,633
38,261
1,670
5U3
18,325
2,593
2lj,3l8
1,111
Ii03
20.55U
3,01*1
13,9U3
560
lUO
8,960
1,380
5,738
208
68
100
100
100
100
100
335
339
1,66
Irtli
751,
158
156
1
296
316
560
177
183
170
159
19U
77
83
70
59
9U
Cigar Boxes, Wooden
and Part Wooden
United States
Southeast
2.53U
579
6,331
l,3Ut
2,1*83
510
3.8U8
833
1,311,
25U
100
100
250
232
98
88
152
lUli
52
W*
Wood Preserving
United States
Southeast
Georgia
11.77U
2,385
397
106,295
21,610
3,622
77.U77
15,620
2,791
28,818
5,989
831
17,Ol»U
3,601,
li3U
(continued on p. 116.)
100
100
100
903
906
912
658
671
703
2U5
252
209
Ilt5
152
109

Table U-2ft (continued)
H
H
O)
I
I
Industry
and
Area
Wooden Boxes,
except Cigar
United States
Southeast
Qsorgla
Baskets for Fruits
and Vegetables
United States
Southeast
Georgia
Rattan and
Willoimare
United States
Southeast
Excelsior
United States,
Southeast
Census Data for United States, Southeast and Southeastern States for
Forest Product Industries Producinni II Somi-finished
Products and RouKh Indus_trial goods for'1939
Wages
and
Salaries
$23,3W*
5.U35
1,222
5,286
1,130
191
1,381
61
1939 Census
In Thousands of Dollars
Value of
Product
987,35k
19,963
It, 102
1U,286
2,867
U21.
3,918
217
872 2,987
69 32U
Cost of
Material
&5,757
9.U05
1,655
5.7U9
1,239
132
1.67U
113
1,382
179
Source: U. S. Census, Manufactures, 19UO.
Value
Added
31)1,597
10,559
2.W.8
8,538
1,630
293
2.2M
10U
1,606
lliU
Margin
Value per 0100 of Payroll*
Wage:) Value
and of Cost
Sala Pro of Ma Value
ries duct terial Added
1
$100 »371i $196 $178
100 367 173 19h
100 336 135 200
100 270 109 162
100 25U 110 lltlt
100 222 69 153
863 100 28U 121 162
1»3 100 356 185 170
73k 100 3U3 158 18U
75 100 1»70 259 209
418,253
5,121;
1,226
3,252
500
102
Mar
gin
$78
9h
100
62
Ut
53
62
70
8U
109

Table M-29
Census Data for United States, Southeast and Southeastern
States for Forest Product Industries Producing;
III Consumer Goods for 1939
1939 Census
In Thousands of Dollars
Value per $100 of Payroll 1
Industry
and
Area
Household Furniture
United States
Southeast
Georgia
Upholstered Household
Furniture
United States
Southeast
Georgia
Office Furniture
United States
Southeast
Caskets, Coffins,
Burial Cases, etc.
United States
Southeast
Georgia
Wood Products
United States
Southeast
Georgia
Wages
and
Salaries
$101,, 519
17,393
1,353
37,11,5
U.203
, 267
17,319
U75
18,621,
1,518
352
22,691
3,003_
Value of
Product
$323,630
58,1,65
U.086
128,721,
11,, 338
980
5U,750
l,5U,
70,353
5,999
1.39U
69,186
10,087
310
Cost of
Material
$155,193
28,389
1,816
65,977
7,290
501
22,570
803
31,862
3,052
665
30,291
Mot
Value
Added
$173, U38
30,071,
2,270
62,71,6
7,01,8
1,80
32,180
71*2
38,1,91
2,91,8
729
38,895
5'83
Margin
$68,919
12,681
917
25,601
2,81,5
213
11,, 861
267
19,867
1,1,30
377
16,201,
2,U3,6
(Continued on p, 118)
Wages,
Sala
ries
$100
$100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Value
Pro
duct
I31U
336
302
3li7
103
367
316
325
378
395
396
305
336
279
Coat
of Ma
terial
$1W
163
13U
178
173
188
130
169
171
201
189
131,
1i
Value
Added
$166
173
168
169
168
180
186
156
207
19U
207
171
$
Mar
gin
$66
73
68
69 68
80
86 56
107 9lt
107
71
8

I
H
Industry
and
Area
Store Fixtures 1
United States
Southeast
Georgia
Public Building Fixtures
United States
Venetian Blinds
United States
Southeast
Window Shades
United States
Screens 8
United States
Lasts'
United States
Table M-29 (continued)
Census Data for United States, Southeast and Southeastern
States for Forest Product Industrie's Producing!
Ill Consuitiiner Ooods~for 1939"
1939 Census In Thousands of Dollars
Wages
and
Salaries
$23,510
1.55
1U6
8,1(97
6,165
117
U.32U
U.062
2.60U
Value of
Product
170,718
1,255
U30
26,679
25,965
U17
27,071
15,22)4
6,672
Cost of
Material
$30,507
U81
206
11,1*38
13,665
198
15, U10
7.8U2
2,026
Value
Added
$fjO,212
775
22)i
15, 2m
12,300
219
11,661
7,319
U,6U6
Margin
116,702
320
78
6,7Ut
6,135
102
7,337
3,319
2,0!j2
'Wages
and
Sala
ries
$100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Value per $100 of Payrolls*
Value
of Cost
Pro of Ma Value
duct terial Added
0301
276
295
31U
Ij21
356
626
375
256
$130
106
llil
t
135
222
169
356
193
78
«171
170
153
179
200
187
270
182
178
Mar
gin
171
70
53
79
100
87
170
82
78
Source: U. S. Census, Manufactures, 19liO. ,____
^Partitions, etc. . —....
For windows and doors, includes weather strips.
Includes related products .
* Calculated. See page 1 51t for explanation of formulas.
S3 ' 3" H fDtTJcrt
iipgH^fSfi
S"S • r6 3" *!-: £.3 I|: a 3

Wood Industries; The 1939 Census of Manufactures data on
wood processing industries, grouped on a basis of their nearness
to the forests on the one hand, and the extent to which finished
consumer good: are produced on the other, are "shown in Taoles
t-27, M-28, and lf-29, and present the 1939 census data for
these industries for the United States, the Southeast, and
Georgia, together with the Value of Product, Cost of Material,
Value Added, and Margin per $100 of Payroll, for each industry.
These are arranged according to the following scheme:
SUM ....
Engineering
Experiment
Station . . .
Georgia
Tee*
Industrial . .
. . Economk
Research . .
I. Raw Materials (Table M-27)
II. Semi-finished products and rough industrial good's (Table M-28)
III. Consuner goods (Table M-29)
Throughout the three preceding tables it is shown that generally
Georgia has higher 1939 margins resulting from the expenditures of $100 in
payrolls compared with the United States and the Southeast. The Georgia
figures are higher than those for either the Southeastern States or for the
United States for the sawmill, veneer mill, and cooperage stock industry,
in Sroup I; the planing mill, the wooden box, and cooperage industries in
Pine
1,000,000
900,000
800,000
700,000
600,000
500,000
400,000
Graph lf-30
Production of Leadin, •ing Types of
Lumber T5~] for Geo" :ia7~l909-193'57
Hard
woods
100,000
90,000
80,000
70,000
60,000
50,000
40,000
300,000
30,000
200,000
20,000
100,000
90,000
80,000
70,000
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
191 1920
— 119--
1930
10,000
9,000
8,000
7,000
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
.

1
Table 11-30
Lumber Production and Prices
for Georgia for Selected
• — — ^—
State ....
Engineering
Experiment
Station . . .
Ctofffia
Tee*
Industrial . .
. . Economk
Retcarcb . .
Kind of Wood1
1899
1909
1910
1911
1912
1913
Softwood
Cedar
Cypress
price
Eenlock
Spruce
White Pine
price
Tellow Pine
price
Total
Hardwood
Ash
price
Bassirood
Eeec!-.
Birch
Cherry
Chestnut
price
Cottonwood
price
Elffi
Hickory
Uagnolia
Maple
price
Oak
price
Red Gum
price
Sycamore
price
Tupelo
price
Walnut
Tellow Poplar
price
All Other
Total
Grand Total
—
14,545
$18.81
—
—
——
1,251,636
$8.47
1,266,181
1,320
$18.06
35
—
—
75
$20.00
—
—
—
163
—
155
$12.15
30,lt8l
$10.07
2,850
$10.87
—
—
—
—
100
10,1*1*7
$10.89
110
45,736
1,311,917
• 1,61,8
27,517
$21-39
966
2,789
31,321*
$13.43
1,194,987
$12.26
1,259,231
3,106
123.76
88
67
20
15
2,429
—
2,260
$15-1.6
274
1,171
—
535
$3.40
46,329
$15.68
4,828
$12.46
80
—
286
—
48
21,472
$18.80
10
83,018
1,342,249
9,929
27,081
$17.57
870
2,080
34,610
$11.76
901,035
$12.80
975,605
2,859
$18.98
118
80
19
—
1,343
$11-85
644
$16.75
330
1,098
—
599
$18.80
32,705
$14.13
5,540
$11.1,4
162
—
720
$14.75
99
19,633
$16.99
63
66,012
1,041,617
4,300
40,847
$19-63
—
3,982
—
701,135
$13-39
750,264
1,987
$17-94
60
381
10
—
755
$12-43
387
212
1,079
—
776
$12.67
25,033
$15-20
3,120
$12-75
76
—
982
—
31
16,447
$20.14
11
51,347
801,611
2,829
62,941
—
—
—
3,087
—
799,370
$14-34
868,227
2,838
—
277
184
17
—
861
—
248
—
203
1,274
—
367
—
38,135
—
9,711)
—
110
—
8,887
—
82
16,736
—
1,131
73,064
941,291
—
74,818
—
55
3.123
662,043
—
740,039
3,088
300
70
—
—
1,250
—
200
—
306
2,465
—
310
—
45,294
—
19,367
—
315
—
1,250
—
5
30,005
—
20
io4,2li5
844,234
Source: U. S. Bept. of Agriculture, Statistical Bulletin No. 69,
Table 4, pp. 15, 16, 17, and Table 49, p. 99-
Price data are presented only for those kinds of wood which were
reported in quantities sufficient to give rational average values.
Prices are per 11 board feet, and quantities are in II board feet.
—120—

Group II; the wood products not elsewhere classified, the cas
ket and the upholstered household furniture industries in
Group III*
For the excelsior, the rattan and willow-ware, the cigar
iox, the office furniture, and the Venetian blinds industries,
data for Georgia are not available, and, in consequence, this
comparison cannot be made, although most of these are repre
State ....
Engineering
Experiment
Snrion . . .
Gtargia
T«*
Indmtrixl . .
. . Economic
Raeatch . .
sented in the state fay a few plants. Only United States data are available
for public building fixtures, match, and window shade industries.
Kind of Wood1
Softwood
Cedar
Cypress
price
Hemlock
Spruce
Unite Pine
price
Yellow Pine
price
Total
Table 11-30, continued: Georgia Lumber Production and Prices
Hardwood
Ash
price
Basswood
Beech
Birch
Cherry-
Chestnut
price
Cottonwood
price
Elm
Hickory
Magnolia
Maple
price
Oak
price
Red QUID
price
Sycamore
price
Tupelo
price
Walnut
Yellow Poplar
price
All Other
Total
Grand Total
1911*
—
1*9,153
—
1,10.7
__
l*,2l*l*
893,316
918,130
2,1*37
—
60
162
10
—
3,631
115
—
h22
506
—
216
—
35,779
13,070
—
376
__
1,300
—
—
19,878
—
99
78,061
1,026,191
1915
Uo
1*9,703
$17.61
1,500
«
3,11*1*
$13-63
525,7U7
$11.93
580,13li
2,605
$21.56
115
152
61
—
U,7l*3
$13-97
211
$15-72
271
Ull
——
236
—
20.W7
$16.06
5,927
$12.97
11(9
—
589
$12.92
133
20,3lt3
$19.36
—
56,103
636,51*7
—121—
1916
10
51*, 305
$20.06
5!*o
_-.
i,lt5o
621,109
$12.96
677,721*
i*,3l5
— •
285
21(6
71*
—
1,1*55
—
1,077
—
31*1*
712
—
1*01
—
21*, 006
$17.91
12,306
$ll*.80
355
__
1,850
—
100
28,569
$18.17
111
76,206
753,930
1917
12
51,219
$26.05
80
__
1,575
51*7,870
$16.59
600,756
5,361
• —
—
2063
—
331
622
—
196
1,317
——
531
—
18,936
12,392
$16.75
275
—
2,125
"~35
28,252
$22.1*3
190
70,772
671,528
1918
—
1O,836
$30.90
702
__
2,631.
3521682
$22.08
397,901*
2,897
—
1(7
21d*
9
—
2,668
$29.32
777
—
181*
1.71O
— -
305
—
21,529
$27-1(3
7,723
$21.7lT
321
—
2,210
—
17
21,538
$37.63
358
65,568
1*63.1*72
1919
—
1(3,1*1(0
$10-85
821
__
1,857
$37-10
767,217
$21*. 51*
813,335
3,656
$63.02
82
235
' 8
—
2.1O3
$29-61
368
—
322*
1,138
—
1(00
$31.97
31*, 537
$32.1(0
15,510
$31.37
397
——
2,1(85
$29-96
2
18,575
$39-77
500
80,630
893,965

,
The basic indication from these tables is that wood pro
cessing can generally be made more profitable in Georgia than
elsewhere in the Southeast or elsewhere in the United States.
The household furniture industry and the upholstered fur
niture industry together, are examples of this probability. In
the case of upholstered furniture, Georgia plants have a margin
advantage of til per $100 of payroll over the United States and
Sure ....
Encijimulf
Experiment
Stition . . .
Georgia
TVcfc
Indutrul . .
. . Ecoflonk
Remicb
|12 over the Southeast. In the case of upholstered furniture, this margin
advantage would be likely to increase.
Table M-30, continued: Georgia Lumber Production and Prices
Kir.d of Wood1
Softwood
Cedar
Cypress
price
Hemlock
Soruce
Fnite Fine
price
Yellow Pine
price
Total
Hardwood
Ash
price
Sasswood
Beach
Birch
Cherry
Chestnut
price
Cottonwood
price
Elm
Hickory
ITagnolia
Maple
price
Oak
price
Red jmr. .
price
Sycanore
price
Tupelo
price
Walnut
lellow Poplar
price
All Other
Total
Grand Total
1920
12
1*5,863
$53.13
1*25
——
2,253
$36.31
1*78,51*7
$26.3U
527,100
l*,89l*
$55-37 50
10k
20
—
2,561
$31*. 57
133
$26.39
270
960
—
303
$38-. 25
26,003
$37.79
17,991
$35-51
5iH
$25-00
1,518
$32-97
3
17,169
$62.86
119
72,639
599,739
1921
1
60,668
$36.61
103
__
2,157
$19.1*3
660,826
$16.88
723,755
U,859
$3S.2I»
—
720
2
—
263
$22.00
11,6
—
20li
885
—
521
$23-20
18,2«6
$2U-6l
21,51*1
$23-21*
227
—
. 3,360
$23.71
1
17,767
$26.16
82
68,821*
792,579
--122—
1922
23
68,828
$Ui.07
671
__
ii,530
$25.70
659,025
$18.62
733,127
5,975
$32.81
—
37
13
—
1,550
$23.85
31*5
—
l*5o
700
—
708
$27.10
21,516
$26.20
21*, 197
$2lj.3l*
322
—
6,191*
$21*.36
10
lit, 162
$31.59
85
76,261,
309. 391
1923
5
75,799
$UU-35
817
__
U.773
$33-99
967,636
$21.90
1,010,030
5,707
$1*9-81
1*7
265
327
—
1,139
$2!,. 28
217
—
1*1*2
1,066
—
1,575
$26.95
26,621
$31*. 96
23,865
$30.98
516
—
i*,371
$25-i*3
29
31*,052
$51.27
122
100,361
l.lliO.^qi
1921*
10
68,899
$Ul.02
1,017
__
3,677
$22.30
1,010,930
$20.23
1,081*. 533
6,167
$1*3-35
58
179
8
—
1,1*29
$20.29
618
$25.38
911*
1,163
—
1,062
$31.99
36,391
$31.23
29,307
$23.05
607
$27.19
7,103
$22-73
20
36,383
$1*2.36
657
122,066
l.O6. 99
1925
6
62,709
$39-91
521*
, _
2,302
$32. 1*7
1,172,61*0
$21.80
1,238,181
6,lS9
$1*9-72
133
61
12
—
I,0li2
$25-00
730
$20.83
199
1*93
—
1,302
$31.63
39,839
$1*2.1*3
35,095
$U2.85
1,281
$22.1*0
3,215
$26. $7
__
37,032
$38.63
300
126,993
1,^,1 7k

The more reliable statistical data on timber production
are largely on a statewide basis. Table M-30 and Graph M-30
present for Georgia, as a whole, the annual cuttings by species
for selected ye'ars beginning with 1399. A by-county inventory
of the quantity and species of forests in Georgia is being made
by the School of Forestry at Athens. The study, however, has'
just been started, and it will be some time before the data will
be available. Tfhat field work has been done, however, indicates
that the apparently heavy cutting during the past four years has not par
ticularly affected the increasing supply of most woods.
Table 11-30, continued: Georgia Lumber Production and Prices
State ....
Engineering
Experiment
Station . . .
Georgia
Tich
Industrial . .
. . Economic
Research . .
Kind of Wood 1
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930
Softwood
Cedar
Cypress
price
Hemlock
Spruce
Ihite Pine
price
lellow Pine
price
Total
Hardwood
Ash
price
Basswood
Beech
Birch
Cherry
Chestnut
price
Cottonwood
price
Elra
Hickory
Uagnolia
Maple
price
Oak
price
Red Gum
price
Sycamore
price
Tupelo
price
Walnut
Yellow Poplar
price
ill Other
Total
3rand Total
11
1*0,91(6
too. 61
389
—
1,738
$31-79
982,2l;5
$20.06
1,025,329
7,5!0i
$i.8.39 U6
116
21
—
2,737
$31-29
893
$31-59
385
802
—
788
$31;. 6k
29,623
$32.87
37,91*9
$28.1,3
663
$25.26
3,811
$27.00
h
31t,5l7
$1(0.32
261
120,160
1,116,1*39
8
3U.U37
$1*1.01
153
—
1.U83
$31-11;
998,359
$17.72
1,031;, 1*35
11,515
$U9.!i2
132
67
57 1
3,2li3
$28.92
2,727
$29-77
36
73)4
—
802
$37. 61*
1*1,337
$33-1*8
57,815
$38.25
917
$26.19
6,009
$39.07
3
1*0,031*
$1*1-51
815
166,573
1,201,008
10
18,630
$30.61
322
—
1,022
$23-52
868, U53
$18.33
838, 1*37
5,05
$1(1-31;
35
150
201
—
5,789
$29- 111
1,205
$30.1*8
609
791*
—
3,705
$31-98
31*, 122
$28.71
1(8,296
$29-20
1,118
$26.10
1(,173
$2lj.07
_
I0t,098
$30. 2k
1,233
151,038
1,039,1(75
2
23,095
$1(6.17
1*36
—
779
$23.00
1,165,527
$18.15
1,189,339
6,303
$U2.91
1(3
11(2
10;
—
1,360
$29-00
2,189
$33-98
1,396
610
—
3,270
1(7,21*5
$26.89
61,21(0
$35.25
1,861
$29-13
9,862
$25-63
83
56,14(1
$33.50
it, 317
196, itll
1,386,250
13
19,317
$32.1(0
8
—
i,l(05
$12-53
611,321
$1U.73
632,561*
6,31*1*
$1.3.22
170
123
62
—
716
$15-37
3,366
$18-57
933
653
506
2,l*3!t
$32,36
25,067
$22. Ul
hk,h22
$28.25
2,080
$21.22
6,581*
$19.73
15
26,739
$29-76
206
120,920
753,1*81;
—123—

Yellow pine has aluays been the largest item in timber
production in Georgia, with an average production about three
times that of all other connercial woods.
Between 1927 and 1936, red gum wood was the second largest
item, with the exception of two years, 1931 and 1932, when cy
press was second. Cypress, however, is the second largest on
the basis of long term averages', having been in second place
from 1911 to 1927. In 1910, white pine was second (the first year that
this wood appeared among the first five) and previously oak was second.
Graph V-30 shows the fluctuations in the production of the five leading
types of lumber in Georgia for the twenty-seven year period, 1909-1936.
Kind of Wood 1
Softwood
Cedar
Cypress
price
Hemlocfe
Spruce
White Pine
price
Yellow Pine
price
Total
Hardwood
AST
price
Basswood
Beech
Birch
Cherry
Chestnut
price
Cottonwood
price
Elm
Hickory
Magnolia
Haple
price
Oak
price
3ed Sum
price
Sycamore
price
Tupelo
price
Walnut
Yellow Poplar
price
ill Other
Total
3rand Total
Table lf-30, continued: Georgia Lumber Production and Prices
1931
13
19,862
$29-13
8
—
612
112.00
379,868
$13.15
1*00,353
3,328
$39.38
122
38
2k
—
2U1
—
1*13
—
520
87
3k
766
$32.13
17,379
$18. ",9
16,1*1*3
$22.97
1,311
$19.51
5,170
$19-32
7
12,795
$22.23
76
59.25U
1,59,617
1932
22
6,812
$23.03
—
—
697
$13.09
235,01*2
$10.58
2U2.573
1,605
$23-83
1
30
13
—
31
—
127
—
ItO
58
12
283
—
6,125
$16.01
6,381,
$ll(.28
296
—
1,061
$16.73
—
1..792
$11.. 91.
225
21,083
263,656
—124—
1933
281
7,1.00
$30.11
—
—
32
—
10.2,737
.$13-91
1*20,1*50
5,61,3
$28.1*9
__
1*7
—
—
56
—
2,665
—
370
83
336
1*50
$23-97
10,613
$22.87
15,520
$25.53
616
$21.36
5, h8h
$21.00
—
10,913
$21.91*
—
52,796
1*73, 2ti6
193U
—
10,366
$30.1*2
—
575
1)06,169
$15-29
1*17,610
8,053
$1(8.10
—
2
3
—
—
__
695
—
199
226
51*1.
1,173
$28.1*3
13,686
$20.1*2
Ui,l*59
$25.15
Ii66
$26.95
h,9Z
$20.58
3
11*, 156
$30.95
21
58,611
1*76,221
1935
—
21,021
$25- 1J*
—
—
605
$11*. Ul
610.616
$li*-19
632,2i*2
6,660
$32.86
_„
16
10
—
—
_
183
—
363
60
271
2,566
$23-91
U*,282
$20.39
29,360
$17-51*
286
$2!*-95
8,225
$18.16
—
19,31*9
$26.71
8M36
713,878
1936
26
26,31*5
$27-82
—
—
1,1*90
.$17.06
738,11*9
$16.1,2
766,010
1*,952
$33.23
10
161,
1*2
—
58
_
719
$23.25
1,90
11*2
392
3,61*8
$25-33
19,1,33
$18. l£
3!*, 591
$21. ho
811.
$21.03
U.Slli
$19.53
1
29,191
$21.26
106,1*65
872.1*76

Ihese five timber species are yellow pine, cypress, oak, yellow
poplar, and red gum. The average per year production of these
same five types is shown for the 1909-1936 period in Graph M-30a
on a statewide basis.
* *
jmpregnated Woods
Another source for the wood qualities which characterize
the hardwoods is to be found in the processes for impregnation
SUM ....
Encmcfrinf
Elplrimmt
Station . . .
Georgia
Ttch
Indutriil . .
. . ECOBOBK
Rtturtb . .
of woods which are emerging from research laboratories. In general, these
processes (already in limited industrial use) are intended to make possibli
the same exact engineering of wood applications in industry as is the case
Graph M-30a
Long Tern Average Production of Leading Timbers
in Thousands of Board Feet
M ————————————————————————— Oak 27,
1 ————————————————————————— Yellow
1 ' '
Yellow Pine 725,908
22,428
40,512
619
Poplar 24,862
1 I i
0 140 280 420 560 720 8«
Thousands, V Board feet.
with plastics and light metals. Wood has many defects that must be offset.
It seasons slowly, it warps, splits, checks; it rots, stains, swells and
shrinks, pro/ides food for fungi molds and insects, and it has to be care
fully handled and finished before it becomes usable. Quality woods grow
slowly and in lir.ited areas, whereas soft low quality woods grow rapidly
and over extensive parts of much of the country, particularly in the South.
Soft Woods Used; By impregnating the soft woods with the proper chem
ical, many of their defects can be inhibited or offset in a large measure.
Through such a means all wood so impregnated becomes of better quality.
The application of these impregnation processes will mean that Southern
softwoods can compete with finer quality hardwoods in the manufacture of
specialties and furniture and that new uses may also be expected to be de
veloped in order to provide competition with plastics and light metals.
Phenol-formaldehyde has been the most widely used impregnator to date. It
i« the means of obtaining the highest quality and product so far developed.
However, its high cost has limited its application to a rather marked de
gree. From a standpoint of cost, the use of urea-formaldehyde now seems
aore advisable, though it does not give quite as high a quality product as
does the phenol-formaldehyde.
Ithat is probably the most advanced development project in the entire
country on the urea process of wood impregnation is now under way at the
State Engineering Experiment Station, Georgia School of Technology. Plants
of several different sizes in the pilot plant range have been built and op-
«rated in an effort to determine the best plant lay-out and means of comwrcially
treating wood with urea, as well as to develop operating data,
in acceptable degree of success in this work has been achieved by the State
Engineering Experiment Station. However, much remains to be done before
—125--
1
,

urea treated wood can be marketed in any appreciable quantities,
but it is anticipated that after several months,limited amounts "
will be used in industry.
Expcrimal
Station
Problems Being Studied; Ftadamental problems involving the ~ •
correct mixtures of chemicals, adequate pressures and tempera
tures, and variations of other factors all are in the process of
being worked out. At the sane time wood has beeo treated for
Indutiiil . .
. . EconMUc
Research .
use in electrolyte tanks, furniture, gears, textile spindles, instrument
boxes, tripod legs, end soft drink crates. Each of these items, when made
fron treated lunber, will be put into actual use in order to determine its
effectiveness by comparison with materials now being utilized.
There are proMems involved in the impregnation treatment of particu
lar woods which are in the process of being solved. Some species will not
accept treatment at all. Others will treat only in sapwood. So that a
consistent and predictable outcome may be had by a commercial treating
plant, ireans must be found whereby all woods can be treated with a consis
tently successful result.
When these problems have been overcome to a reasonable degree, it will
be possible for Georgia end southern softwoods to be utilized, in specialty
and high priced items heretofore entirely made from other woods. Wider
utilization and higher prices for marketable products can be expected to
improve the economic position of the Area considerably. At the same time,
the use of the cheaper, fast growing softwoods in furniture, textile parts,
instrument boxes, show cases and many other similar items, possibly will
brjng about a lowering of the final cost of all of these with a consequent
increase in number of units of any one item used*
Inquiries; The State Engineering Experiment Station, Georgia School
of Technology, will be glad to discuss these processes and their applica
tion with any interested industrialist, inquiries should be directed to
Dr. Gerald A. Kosselot, Director.
Koisture Control
Wood grown in the Northeast Georgia Area has a high moisture content
whenit is freshly cut or green. This moisture content varies from 34 per
cer.t for heartwood to more than 100 per cent for sapwood. For almost any
use, and particularly for most processing uses, the moisture content must
be reduced and controlled during the processing in order to avoid later
shrinking.
The t»io general methods of accomplishing this control are air ssasocing
and kiln drying. Air seasoning, in general, consists merely in storage
under conditions where air may freely circulate around each board. The
lumber should be under a rain-proof roof. In kiln drying the lumber is
placed in a chamber or moved through a tunnel kiln where heat is applied.
This cethod is much more rapid than air seasoning. If the rate of drying
is properly adjusted to the condition and character of the lumber, the re
sults are generally more satisfactory.
The advantages of air seasoned over green lumber and summarized in
the Wood Handbook3 by the Forest Products Laboratory as "reduction in
weight, with a resulting decrease in shipping costs; reduction in the
Per cent of bone-dry weight.
''Wood Handbook, 1935, United States Department of Agriculture, Forest
Products Laboratory.
—3.26—

shrinkage, checking, honeycombing^ and warping occurring in serrlce;
decrease in the tendency for blue stain and for other
forms of fungi to develop; reduction in liability to some forms
of insect attack; increase in strength; and improvement in the
o»pacity of the stock to hold paint or to receive preservation
treatment. 1"
State ....
Enginrcriag
Experiment
Station . . .
Groroia
TKh
Industrial . .
. . Economic
Research .
In the same way, the advantages of kiln drying over air
seasoning are described as: "Greater reduction in weight, and consequently
in shipping charges; reduction in moisture content to any desired value,
nhich may be lower than that obtainable through air seasoning; reduction in
drying time below that required in air seasoning; and the killing of any
stain or decay fungi or insects that may be in the wood."
The trade terms shipping-dry, air-dry, and kiln-dried indicate the
three general methods of seasoning lumber rather than an exact standard of
noisture content; these terms have several interpretations. Shipping-dry
lumber tieans lumber that is partially air-dried to reduce freight charges.
Air-dry lumber is lumber that has been expTbsed to the air for some
length of time. There appears to be no specification of how long the dry
ing should take. In extremely arid climatesjby.this method the moisture
content may be reduced to 6 per cent; for the United States as a whole, to
a possible minimum of 12 to 15 per cent.
Kiln-dried lumber is lumber that has been kiln-dried for any length of
tine. Properly Win-dried lumber in the upper grade softwoods and in the
upper and lower grade hardwoods will have a moisture content of 6 to 8 per
cent.
For most of the United States, climatic conditions establish an aver
age equilibrium for the moisture content of wood.in use at about 8 per
cent, in the Northeast Georgia Area this point of equilibrium is close to
the United States average but in coastal areas in the Southeast the average
is close to 11 per cent. In processing wood for any use where tight fits
or close tolerances are at all important,this difference should be taken
into account. For example, furniture could be made for use in South
Georgia and Florida by merely kiln-drying it to slightly below 11 per cent.
or use in inland points in Georgia and the Southeast, however, air condi
tioning of the factory might be required, in addition to kiln-drying to
slightly below 8 per cent.
—127—

Uses of Woods
The preponderance of pine in the forests of the Northeast
Georgia Area tends to obscure the smaller volume of hardihoods
which hare a much greater industrial importance than is indi
cated by the percentage of total forest acreage which they
occupy.
Suu ....
Enfuteriflf
Expcrinnt
Station . . .
Gforpu
T«J,
Imfemul..
. . Econoaic
Rocarcli .
The non-pine timber in the Area is largely located on fertile sroicp
soils or along the larger streams. Compared to the ever-present pine,
these hardwoods are extremely scattered, a circumstance which limits the
available information regarding the exact location, of each species. It is
probably true that individual specimens of almost every one of the fifty
different forest species usually listed as growing in Georgia, are to be
found in the Northeast Georgia Area. More than a dozen species exist in
merchantable quantities although woodsmen and manufacturers are apt to have
considerable hunting to do in order to locate some of the "pockets" of
hardwood in the overwheljning mass of pine. These hardwoods often are fousd
in groups of only a few tregs which are scattered through large areas of
pine.
The woods available in varying quantities in the Northeast Georgia
Area include:
I. Softwoods II. Hardwoods
Pine
Longleaf
Short leaf
Pitch
Pond
Loblolly -
Red Oak
Southern Hod
Black
Blackjack
Bluejack
Laurel
Shumard
Water
Turkey
Willow
White Oak
Post
Overcup
Live
Swamp Chestnut
Red and Sap Gum
Tupelo
Cotton Gum
Black Gum
Swamp Gum
Yellow Poplar
Cottonwood
Ash
Sycamore
Soft Ifeple
Elm
Hickory
Beech
The generally available information4 about the industrial uses and
general characteristics of these -roods is to be found in the following
pages.
The following sources of information have, in general, been used in
this compilation: Georgia Forest Resources and Industries, Forest Service,
United States department of Agriculture, Publication Ho. SOI; Forest Resourees
of North Georgia, Forest Service, United States Department of~T£r:
culture,~~P~ublication No- 45; Native Trees of Georgia, G. Norman Bishop.
School of Forestry, University of Georgia;~][merican Hardwood, United States
Department of Commerce; Southern Hardwoods, Southern Hardwood Producers,
Inc., Kemphls, Tennessee; Forest 'PlanningT Georgia, State Planning Board.
—123—

pines I. Softwoods
Yellow pine has long been the chief source of timber prof
its in Georgia. Production has averaged over three times as
jiuch as all other merchantable woods combined.
State ....
Engineering
Experiment
Station . . .
Ctoryia
Tec*
Indutrul . .
. . Economic
Rocatch . .
The longleaf, slash, loblolly and shortleaf pines have
nich the same characteristics and uses. The wood of the longleaf
is light reddish yellow; that of the slash is dark orange in the
heart with white sapwpod. The loblolly is brittle and not as strong as
other pines. The pitch and the pond pines are less often converted into
luniber, being more generally used as fuel and pulp or material for charcoel.
Uses for Pine
Low priced furniture
Kitchen furniture, cabinets, etc.
Chairs
Store fixtures
Truck bodies
Freight cars
Plywood
Woodenware
Wagon bodies
Caskets, coffins
Ship masts, spars, decking,
head blocks and deck beams
Telephone poles
Insulator pins
Reels for rope and wire
Silos
Braces
Veneer
Handles
Patterns
Templates
Excelsior
Cooperage
Toys, signs
Corner post«
Poultry orates
Pouring blocis
Railroad ties
Bridge timbers
Residential construction, trim,
structural members, sheathing,
flooring, etc.
Forms for concrete
Temporary construction
Boxes
Shipping containers
—129—

Oaks
II. Hardwoods
Oak is a general purpose hardwood and few other hardwoods
can equal it in the number of structural uses. It is strong,
bends and turns well, and takes a beautiful finish.
State ....
Experiment
Station . . .
Cnraia
Tnh
Industrial . .
. . Economic
Research
The principal species of oaks occurring in North Georgia
are the black, southern red, blackjack, bluejack, laurel, live, overeup,
post, turkey, shumard, swamp chestnut, water, rhite (rare), and willow.
Classed usually as red oaks are the southern red, black, blackjack, blue-
jack, laurel, shumard, water, turkey and willow. Classed as white oaks
are the post, overeup, live (really a distinct type), and the swamp
chestnut oak.
Bed Oaks: Among the red oaks the two more valuable species are the
southern red and the shunard. The others are occasionally used in con
struction but chiefly as fuel.
Uses for Red Oak
Household furniture
Lawn furniture
Office furniture
Toilet seats
Staves for barrels and kegs
Patterns and flasks
Bridge timbers, railroad ties
Heavy timbers for construction
Locomotive bumpers
Girders and templates
Toys
Coops
Floors
Veneers
Derricks
Elevators
Insulator pins
Telephone boxes
Cider-presses
Ifachine parts
Planing mill products
Agricultural implements
Incubators
Tannin from bark
Tihite Oak; Although white oak is scattering in the Northeast Georgia
Area, it is listed because of ito inany important uses and characteristics.
TChite oak is hard, heavy, quite tough, very strong, durable, almost impen
etrable to liquids. Live oak, chestnut oak and overeup oak are very simi
lar to white oak in both characteristics and uses.
Uses for White Oak
Household furniture,
affice furniture
Pjultry crates, billiard cues,
wicker hampers
Wagon wheels, gear parts, bodies
Handles and parts for plows,
cultivators, corn planters,
cotton and peanut planters,
other agricultural implements
Plywood for furniture and panels
Splint-bottom chairs
Radiator covers
Loom parts, fence posts
Saw-handles
Pulleys, rollers
Pumps
Meat blocks
Tight boxes
Brackets
Derricks
Dowels and hubs
Insulator pins *
Oars
Toys
Beams
Hurdles
Stair treads
Surgical splints
Toboggans, sleds
Curtain poles
Coat hangers
Interior trim, doors, panels, etc.
—130—

Uses for White Oat (Continued)
Tight barrels
Kegs, tubs, and vats
Car construction
Flooring
Railroad ties
State . v .
Engineering
Experiment
Station . . .
Georgia
Tid>
Industrial . .
. . Economic
Research . .
Post Oak: The humble post oak has several of the quali
ties of the white oak. It is close grained, resistant against
weather conditions, and slow in seasoning. " The wood is a darker brown
than that of the white oak. The familiar sight of the scrub post oak on
the dry, gravelly or sandy upland, may lead us to overlook the fact that
down in the rich soils of the swamps and river bottoms, these oaks fre
quently grow to good sawlog size.
Uses of Post Oak
Fence posts
Eailroad ties
Rough construction
Barrels and other cooperage
Other Oaksi Three other oaks, the overcup, live, and chestnut, have
much the same characteristics as the white oak. The live oak is very
tough. The swamp chestnut oak is not only tough but splits easily. The
overcup oak is strong, tough and very durable*
Uses for Live Oak
Hauls
Meat blocks
Pulleys, rollers
Railroad ties
Other uses similar to white oak
Uses for Chestnut Oak
Cooperage
Easkets
Agricultural implements
Uses for Overc Oak
Furniture
Tight cooperage
Beams
Veneer
Car construction
Veneer
Fence posts
Cooperage
Agricultural implements
Wheels
Splints for chairs
Other uses similar to white oak
Handles
Crossties
Insulator pins
Agricultural implements
Other uses similar to white oak
Red and sap gum lumber together constitute our most important allsouthern
hardwood. Both are from the same species of tree, but may not
com-! from the same individual, tree. A young tree, even of saw-log size,
•ay be all sap wood. Most of the high grade red gum lumber is produced by
the tree of three feet or more in diameter.
Because the larger gum trees are scarce and the average run-of-tha-
"111 log contains more sap than heart, the sap gum leads in volume manu
factured, and the price is cheaper than that of, the red gum. If gum is
thoroughly dried by a slow process, the inclination to warp is much re-
—131--

duced. Inside rather than outside use is preferred generally.
Some industries use sap gum entirely. The smooth light surface
stains well and is an excellent base for any paint or enamel.
Sap gutt is used in large quantity by manufacturers of inexpen
sive to medium priced lines, while the red gum is used for both
the medium priced and higher priced items.
The shipping container manufacturers depend much upon the
supply of the lower grades of re

Uses for Blank Gum
Household furniture
Office furniture
Veneer for furniture
Ifallets and mauls
Wagon wheels
Shipping containers
Rollers
Clothes pins
Rough floors
Hoppers
Uses for Swamp Gum
Turning and shaping
Woodenware
Artificial limbs
Ship and plane models
Soles for play shoes
Yellow Poplar
Wood tills
Paving blocks
Brake blocks
Toys
Rug poles
Signs
Interior trim
Roof trusses
Hubs
Curtain stretchers
Drawing boards and tables
Wood bicycles for children
Toys
Sat. ....
EnfUctriiif
Expf
Station
bdonriil . .
. .Eeooo-ic
Romcb . .
Yellow poplar is light, soft, sometimes brittle and is easily worked.
The color varies from light yellowish to greenish brown. Because it is so
pleasingly responsive to the use of hand tools, poplar has been called our
most versatile wood.
Uses for Yellow Poplar
Carving, wood blocks
Molding
Chairs, fixtures
Caskets, veneer
Trunks
Patterns
Churns
Kitohenware
Ironing boards
Baby carriages
Aeroplane parts
Camera cases
Tobacco hogsheads
Shell cases
Boxes and crates
Clocks
Cottonwood
Mirror backing
Carpet sweepers
Wooden novelties
Vegetable baskets
Woodenware
Light cooperage
Core stock (furniture)
Poultry crates
Incubators
Egg carriers
Interior trim, banisters,
cornices^ sash, screen doors
wall panels, columns
Siding
Sheathing
Piano rims
Swamp cottonwood makes up the bulk of southern cottonwood timber.
Quantities are not very great but are found in mixtures with other hard
woods, notably red gum, oaks, and sycamores along the river swamps.
The wearing qualities of cottonwood may be exemplified by the fact
that this wood won first place in a recent contest sponsored by the na
tional Wooden Box Manufacturing Association. Cottonwood is light, soft,
weak, even-grained. The heart is prayish to dark brown. The wood resists
splitting and lends itself to nailing. Plywood use of cottonwood takes
r-133—
.

advantage of the qualities of light weight and strength. Manu
facturers are using this wood for agricultural implements,
laundry appliances and planing mill products.
Ash
Sun ....
Eflfiamiof
Experiment
Station
Uses for Cottonwood CT!$>©
Industrial . .
. Eamnuc
Low priced furniture Vehicle parts Rmi^b""
Trunks Templates, excelsior
Inside trunk parts Veneer
Soft drink and sample cases Toys, matches, cheese heads
Laundry appliances Mill products
Woodenware Boxes, crates
Brush backs Low grade lumber
Agricultural implements
Georgia has two species of ash, the white and the green. The lumber
industry lists both as white ash and makes a distinction according to tex
ture. The white ash produces a larger proportion of tough material than
the green ash. More of the wood of the green ash is coarse grained,
brittle and of poorer quality. This does not mean that a tough textured
board cut from a white ash is superior to a tough textured board cut from
the green ash.
The two commercial grades of white ash are known as cabinet grade and
tough texture. The lumber is separated into these two classes when cut.
There are fe*r large ash trees. The specialized uses, however, Justi
fy seeking them out, and, since ash produces a good average grade of timber
lumbermen find it profitable to handle this hardwood from small trees.
The fact that young ash burns well even when green has encouraged its
use as fuel and reduced the lumber possibilities.
Uses for Ash
Cabinet work, refrigerators Plumber's material
Trim for public buildings Billiard table rails
Furniture frames Vehicle parts
Tea room chairs Wheelbarrows
• Ifusical instruments Tackle boxes
Play ground equipment Baseball bats
Kitchen equipment Tennis rackets
Brush backs Auto parts
Flooring Airplane parts
Hill work Locomotive cabs
Tool handles Ladders
Food containers Elevators
Venetian blinds Churns
Cooperage Butter tubs
Machine frames
The usual Georgia sycamore is the button-ball, a typical stream bank
species. The wood is moderately heavy hard, strong, tough, difficult to
season, retains its shape after bending, and resists splitting, warping
--1M--

tnd cupping* Surfacing sycamore requires a high speed cutting
head. At low apeed the surface nay chip. Vegetables, fruits,
and eggs packed in sycamore containers acquire no odor from the
wood. The possibilities of sycamore utilization have never
been thoroughly explored. Good effects are secured with.quar
tered slice veneers.
Uses for Sv
Turning (for shaping and turning,
one of the best of woods)
Furniture, bedroom, living room
Display cases for dresses
Containers for foods
Butcher's blocks
Rotary-cut plywoods for trunk
shelving and floor boards
Cooperage
Tpys, handles
Ship building
Veneer
Woodenware
Panel stock
Vehicle parts
Musical instruments
Sun ....
EnfiaraiBf
E»f riant
Surio. . . .
Indutriil . .
Rocarcb .
Soft maple is likely to be located in damp, low ground. Warping,
twisting, or cupping of this beautiful wood is unusual. The texture is
fairly hard and strong. It glues easily and is one of the best to stay
in place. In the furniture industry, soft maple has long been in great
demand.
Uses for Soft Maple
Living room furniture
Cocktail tables
Breakfast room furniture
"Parlor frames" for upholstered
chairs and davenports
Bobbins
Die blocks
Wood type
Hosiery forms
Parasol handles
Blueprint frames
Shoe forms, lasts, heels
Bowling alleys
Cot frames
Coat hangers
Curtain poles
Yard sticks
Butter ladles
Crates for eggs, fruits
vegetables (Ash, freer
from odor and taste)
Butter tubs
Shipping containers
Elm
The American or white elm is known to lumbermen as Southern soft elm.
It is a rapid grower and the production has been increasing since the ear
ly thirties. Elm is fairly hard and tough but softer than the tupelos.
The shock resistance is high and it is difficult to split. The elm is not
plentiful in this Area but is found in moist fertile soils near streams,
associated with soft maples, pecan and sycamores. Blm is an excellent
bending wood.
Uses for Elm
Athletic equipment
Sporting goods
Shoe heels and lasts
Toy wagons and kiddy-cars
Woodenware
—135—
Shocks
Food containers
Trim for low-cost construction
Hay racks
Slack cooperage

Uses for Elm (Continued)
Veneers
Hubs
Ladders
Elevators
Agricultural implements
Kitchen cabinets
Broom handles
Auto parts
Boat building
Baskets, boxes, crates
(lower grades nay be
used for these)
State . . .
&,,».««,
Elpcniuu
Station . .
Ttc*
Igdmtrul . .
RtMireh . ,
If hickory had ever existed in large, pure stands, there might be no
sizable hickory standing today. Nature's protection against destruction
is in scattered distribution. Among the well known qualities that have
created a steady denand for this wood are strength, elasticity and tough
ness.
Uses of Hickor
Bandies for striking tools
Kagon parts
Ladder rungs
Run implements
Gymnastic bars
Men's clubs, stores and dens
Lasts
Tripods
Trunk slate
Solf clubs
Insulator pins
Brackets
Ifallets
Loom parts
Tent poles
Sucker rods for pumps
Police clubs
Archer's bows
Grain cradles
Auto and truck parts
Dowels and skewers
Poultry crates
Incubators
Beech
Beech is not plentiful in this Area but is included because of its
rare qualities. In two respects, at least, it tops the list of southern
hardwoods, in maximum tensile strength and in ability to hold nails and
screws. Beech is restricted to moist, well-drained soils, usually near
streams. The wood is hard, heavy, strong, tough and not durable in con
tact with the soil. It turns well and responds with satisfactory results
to machine tools. The low pries of beech, its excellent properties and
its smooth, hard surface are likely to insure a growing demand for the
products of this wood.
Basswood
Uses for Beech
Bedroom furniture
Showcases and fixtures
Brush backs and handles
Laundry appliances
Interior finish
Boxes and baskets
Clothes pins
Flooring
Paneling
Cabinets
Spools
Bobbins
Tops
ffoodenware
Basswood is one of the softest of the hardwoods, and demand has in
creased rapidly for it during recent years. This demand may be due largc-
—136—

jy to its increased use by the navy for making patterns, but it
it also the best excelsior wood known. The wood is soft, light,
fise-grained, and practically free from warping.
Uses for Basswood
Drawing boards
Picture frames
Holding
Templates
Woodenware
Veneer
Honey-comb frames
Food containers
Wash boards
' Ironing boards
Venetian blinds
Trunks, luggage
Pianos
Cigar boxes
Toys
Excelsior
State ....
Eoginmuif
Experimtnt
Station . . .
Gtorgia
Txh
Indaitrial . .
. . Economic
Rtacaicb . .
Dogwood is found on fertile, well-drained soils throughout Georgia.
The wood is heavy and very hard, strong, close-grained, and light brown,
tiaged with red. Because of these qualities, the demand for dogwood has
been great, and often it is not allowed to grow to large size where it is
accessible. The usual diameter is from two to four inches. A few trees
are found thirty to forty feet high, having a diameter of one to one and
ons-half feet.
Uses for Dog
Shuttle blocks
Die blocks
Bobbins
Dominoes
Gunstocks
Insulator brackets, pins
Novelties
Pulleys
Hedges
Rollers
Shoe heels and trees
Spindles
Tenpins
Indian clubs
Dowel's
Mallet heads
Golf stick heads
Gavels
Black Walnut
Black walnut is the most valuable single tree species growing in
Gflfcrgia. It rarely grows in pure stands, a natural condition which has
helped prevent its extinction. Walnut takes a beautiful finish, resists
•arping if properly seasoned, and is moderately easily worked. The wood
has about the hardness of the tupelo class, endures well, is even-grained.
and has the quality of staying in plaoe. The beautiful dark, chocolatecolored
grain is generally admired.
Uses for Black Walnut
Furniture—beds, tables, cabi
nets, desks, chairs
Musical instruments, record con
tainers
Show cases and fixtures
Closet poles, bathroom shelves
Picture frames and molding
Caskets
Drop-leaf tables and type
writer desks
Silver and china chests
Veneer and panel construction
Interior finish
Gun stocks
Sewing DKchines
—137—

A
Catalpa or aatawba, origir-ally native only to. the south
western part of the State, is rare in saw-log size and grows
chiefly in cultivation. The native tree is of slow growth, in
contrast with the rapid growth of cultivated specimens. Catalpa's
chief interest lies in the fact that its wood is quite
different from any other. farmers prize it for fence posts,
and it is used for general construction purposes on many farms.
Uses for Catalpa
Fence posts Road construction
Out-door construction Plumber's woodwork
Ground sills Crossties
Conduits in the soil Troughs and vats
Eoney Locust
Except to an experienced eye, locust lumber resembles red oak. It
weighs about the same but is harder, has freater bending strength, and
greater shock resistance than red oak. The locust is armed with thorns
which have tended to discourage its use. The wood is fairly durable in
contact with the soil, and is strong.
Uses for Honey Locust
Fence posts Tlindow frames
Hheel hubs Exterior doors
Ties Sills
Construction Lawn furniture
Porch flooring
Persimmon
Persimmon is one of the hardest, heaviest and strongest of American
hardwoods. Although white oak is a little heavier, persimmon is much
harder, and in addition, remains smooth under continuous wear. Only the
sapwood is used in industry, but the heart usually composes only a small
part. The wood turns easily, planes smoothly, and takes an excellent
polish. It does not respond to gluing, and is subject to splitting from *
nails and screws. When green, it should be worked in winter only.
Willow
Uses for Persimmon
Gulf cluo heads Billiard cues
Shuttle blocks Ibllets
Machinery brush handles Children'.= vj'iicles
Shoe lasts Pulleys
Skewers Toys
Willow is soft-textured, light in weight, strong for its weight, and
easily worked. It is one of the best woods for gluing, remains flat, and
resists shrinkage. The variable color of the wood adds to its attractive
ness. Its light weight, 2800 pounds per 1000 feet, makes it economical to
chip to distant markets.
--138--

The qualities of "to splinter" and "no check" have added
to itS value. Trees large enough for lumber are found only in
remote swamps and river bottoms.
Uses for Willow
Wall paneling
Veneer pieces
Table tops
Fancy suites
Light chairs and beds
Shipping containers
Beverage boxes
Interior trim
Artificial limbs
Toys
Apiarist's supplies
Barn and cellar floors
--139--

Paper Industries
The Northeast Georgia Area possesses five advantages which
should jcake it attractive to paper industries. These are:
1. Ample supplies of pulpwood
2. Water
3. Ample rail and highway transportation
4. Accessible supplies of kaolin for filler
Sutc , m...
Eafiucriai
Experiment
Surion . . .
Georgia
Ttdt
Indnitriil . .
. . Economic
Research .
Table M-22 indicates that within the Northeast Georgia Area there are
1,693,882 acres of timber-land—all irithin less than seventy-five miles of
Gainesville. Very conservatively, this timber-land can produce from
£00,000 to 800,000 cords of pulpwood annually. This is sufficient to pro
vide raw material for the production of pulp at the rate of from 800 to
1,500 tons a day.
Predominately, the timber involved is longleaf, although slightly over
twenty per cent of the standing timber represents various hardwoods. The
only basic pulpwood drain existing is represented by pulpwood being shipped
at the. present time to Savannah.
Stable Supply; The pine pulpwood described represents a stable annual
supply so that transportation costs from the forest to the mill will not
tend to increase from year to year as is the case with -sources whioh have
a lower annual rate of growth. The demand for wood pulp for paper and
other uses has increased rapidly in recent years. In 1920 the United
States production of pulpwood was only 3.E million tons; less than half a
million tons of this were produced in the entire South. Under war condi
tions the 1944 United States pulpwood quota was approximately fourteen
million tons. More than half, or eight million tons, of this had been as
signed to the South.
This war bulge from the 10.4 million tons required nationally in 1942
results from the huge total of Army and Navy supplies and munitions. This
does not, however, imply that a demand of this order will disappear with
the peace. For years, the major part of the paper supply has gone into
various packaging uses. A postwar shift from munitions to civilian goods
will cause relatively little change in national productivity if the nation
al productivities are maintained at some level comparable with the war
period. Better packaging of civilian goods is already being resumed and
the extent to which individual items now are being given special protective
wrapping may well be expected to increase. War developed methods used will
require more paper.
Postwar Market: The extent to which postwar consumption may be expected
to rise in comparison with pre-war levels is indicated by Table If-12
quoted from the Monthly Eeview of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta for
September 30, 1944.
In contenting on this table, the Heserve Bank publication says:
TCiat does the postwar future hold for the pulp and paper industry
The United States Department of Commerce has made forecasts of estimated
domestic product. The department took 1946 as the assumed first postwar
normal year and calculated production of wood pulp for various levels of
gross national product ranging from 145 to 154 billion dollars. The sta
tistical projection indicates that, with a gross national product of 145
billion dollars, domestic production of pulpwood would be 10.89 million
—140--

short tons, imports would total 3.J5 Billion short tons, and do
mestic consumption would be 14.24 million short tons. On the
optimistic assumption of 165 billion dollars gross national
product in 1946, all these factors would increase. Eomestic
production of wood pulp would then bo 12.00 Billion short tons
with'imports of 3.68 million short tons and approximate domestic
consumption of 15.69.
Table 31-12
Estimated Production of Paper and Paperboard iff 1946
at Various Levels of Gross National Product1
(Levels of gross
national product in
billions of dollars)
Item
Paperboard ....
Wrapping paper ...
Book paper . . . .
Tissue paper ....
All other paper > . ,
1941
(Actual)
119.20
17.30
8.25
1.05
2.75
2.02
.96
2.27
145.00
Estimated for 1946 at various
levels in Billions of Dollars
In
21.00
10.44
.57
3.65
2.18
1.22
2.94
150.00 155,00 160.00 165.00
Production
Millions of Short Tons
21.62
10.75
.58
3. 73
2.25
1.25
3.03
22.24
11.05
.60
3.88
2.31
1.29
3.11
22.85
11.36
.62
3.98
2.37
1.33
3.19
23.47
11.67
.63
4.08
2.44
1.36
3.29
Source: Domestic Commerce, June 1943, p. 26.
Gross national product includes total expenditures for consumers 1
goods and services, capital formation by private enterprise, and the prod
uct of Government.
z Although domestic newsprint production displays a downward trend at
estimated production levels in 1946, this does not necessarily indicate a
falling-off in consumption of newsprint. From eighty to eighty-five per
cent of all paper imported into the United States is composed of news
print.
"... In the years just preceding the war, the pulp and paper industry
as a whole had a good bit of excess capacity, and there were a number of
marginal plants, i.e. plants that could operate only on a high market.
During the war, this capacity has almost all come into production and the
problem has been that of meeting rising denands. It ssems likaly that
total demand will fall somewhat at the end of the war, but the experience
of the Southarn branch of the Industry seemingly will differ from that of
the industry as a whole. In the first place. Southern plants are newer and
larger, and Iwve lower unit costs than tha average plant in the country,
and, in the second place, the development of successful processes for
bleaching sulphate pulp nafces it likely that the paper industry will con
tinue to neve South so that the fall in production will probably be concen
trated in the Northern plants. Another favorable factor, at least so far
as Southern plants are concerned, is the increasing stress upon attractive
packaging. Jraft japer and paperboard made from pine pulp thus have a
bright future in the development of new outlets for packaging materials in
postwar America. 1*
—141—

Existing Plantsi Three paper plants are already established
in Georgia.Three more are located just across the
Florida line. All six of these plants have tidewater locations.
Two of the three in Georgia produce a finished productj while
one produces only the raw pulp. The Union Bag and Paper Corpor
ation of Savannah, established in 1936, and the St. Mary's Kraft
Corporation of St. Mary's established in 1S41, produce a Kraft
wrapping paper. The Savannah plant converts its production into
Stair .
Expc
Sution . . .
GfOrffu
T*h
Indumiil . .
. . EeoBoraic
Rcttarcb . .
bags. The Brunswick plant produces pulp which is finished By mills in
Pennsylvania. In general, these plants tend to show a more profitable op
eration than the United States industry average. One factor in this is
that these plants being new installations are probably more modern and ef
ficient. Other factors, however, may contrioute to this result. These
arei (1) the availability of a more stabilized source of wood pulp as al
ready discussed, (2) the availability of water transportation, (3) likely
lower power costs, and (4) more progressive policies.
Census Comparisons; In 1939 there were only two paper mills in
Georgia, so that direct census data were not published. Operating condi
tions were, however,
Table lf-13 Tery similar to those
for Florida. Compari
Paper and Paperboard Industry
sons between Florida
and the United States
United States Florida are shown in Table 11-13.
Item
Wages and Salaries
Salaries Only
Value of Product
Cost of Material
Value Added
Margin
Thou
sands
of
Dollars
$175,540
32,930
933,016
532,261
400,755
225,215
Per
$100
Pay
roll
$100
19
513
303
228
128
Thou
sands
of
Dollars
$ 1,406
219
14,125
' 7,335
6,790
5,384
Per
$100
Pay
roll
$ 100
15
1,005
522
483
382
The general indica
tion from the margin
items in the table at
the left is that paper
mills in the Georgia-
Florida pine area have
an advantage in margin
equal to the difference
between the United
States figure of $128
and the Florida fig
ure of (382, or $254
per $100 of payroll.
Finished Paper: The inclusion of finishing as well as pulp making
in a paper operation is a definite advantage to the community since the
finishing operations greatly increase the Value Added and in consequence
require plant payrolls several times those of the pulp mill or mills which
supply the finishing plant. This factor contributes in part to the Gross
Margin advantage for Florida plants already mentioned. All of the Florida
plants are producing finished Eraft wrapping paper.
Tlearly all the kaolin used as a filler in paper finishing is produced
in Georgia—largely along the fall line between Macon and Aiken, South
Carolina, just east of Augusta. The Northeast Georgia Area has direct
rail connections with Macon, a circumstance which should provide some ad
vantage in the manufacture of low—priced bond and book papers.
—142—

Handicraft Industries
numerous small handcraft industries producing items such as
hand-made novelty jewelry, hoolced rugs, hand-made furniture t pot
tery, and novelties of many kinds appear possible in counties
such as Eabun, Babera'ham, Stephens, Unite, Lumpkin, Towns, and
Onion. Their profitable development would largely be dependent
on the expansion of a tourist business in the Area, since tour
ists are the natural market for such items.
Expcruuac
Sutiog . . .'
Tidi
bducrul . .
. . Eeomomif
Raenth . .
The basic economics of such a development, however, are difficult to
describe. In many eases the successful efforts appear to grow spontane
ously as the result'of an idea, or casual circumstance, rather than out
of deliberate plan. Capital does not appear to be important in the be
ginning, and probably should not be employed extensively until sales have
attained a stable level, since this will tend to minimize possible losses.
It is only after such enterprises have made considerable progress
r-jth tourist sales that any attempt should be made to establish a market
through retail outlets at points outside the Area. Then, occasionally,
such items nay find a market which justifies factory methods and which
nay lead to a national market through department stores, gift shops,
antique shops,or decorators,depending on the nature of the idea itself.
Such varying raw materials as native stone, pine cones, wood, clay,
semi-precious stones, feathers, or almost any common thing may be the
starting point. Skills as varied as whittling or modeling may be em
ployed. There is no rule to describe how to start. One simply makes
something out of the materials at hand for any of a dozen reasons, some
one else happens to see and like it,and perhaps a brisk demand develops.
Only with crafts like hooked rugs, hand-weaving or pottery is there
initial need for any formal business organization; or for equipment to
start. Either hooked rugs or hand weaving require looms. Both require
purchased materials and designs. Some sort of "factoring" may provide
materials and designs, make loom building instructions available,and
finally buy the product. This is in effect the way the bedspread in
dustry got its start in northwest Georgia.
A pottery, on the other hand, requires only a source of clay, a
pug mill, a kiln and a pottery wheel— plus skill and a feeling for
design. Ware should be glazed, a procedure nowhere as difficult as is
sonetines thought. Highway display and tourist sales are the obvious
backbone of sales, but if the design is sound and the turning skillful,
>. narket in department stores or decorators' shops is possible.
—143--

Plastics and Rayons Sm,
The Northeast Georgia Area offers raw material, power, and
labor advantages for the expansion of cellulose plastics and
rayon manufacture in the Southeast. Additional rayon production
will likely be desirable, because of the increasing demand for
this fiber by Georgia, South Carolina, and Alabama textile
mills.
Engineering
Experiment
Station . .
Groroia
Tid,
Indtutrul . .
. . Economic
Ranrch . .
There are three general types of plastics—natural, semi-synthetic,
and synthetic. The natural plastics include those substances whose basic
chemical structure has been created by nature, such as rosin. The semisynthetic
plastics make use of natural chemical structures but modify or
regenerate these by further chemical reaction or treatment} in this class
fall the cellulose and protein plastics. The third class, that of the
synthetic plastics or resins, comprises those polymeric materials which
are created by chemical reaction from organic chemicals capable of such
interaction; it includes such plastics as Bakelite, Saran, and Plexiglas.
Plastics and fibers are closely related on the basis of chemical
structure and constitution. Acetate rayons, for example, differ only
slightly from the corresponding plastics, while such synthetics as Saran
may be extruded as a fiber or molded as a plastic. Even Nylon finds use
as a plastic.
Cellulose Plastics; The cellulose plastics are made either from cot
ton lir.ters or pulpwood, both of which are available in the Area. The
other principal raw materials required, depending on the plastic, are
nitric acid, sulfuric acid, acetic acid, and acetic anhydride. Sulfuric
acid is produced in Georgia by the lead chamber process but only in con
centrations suitable for use in fertilizers. None of the other chemicals
are produced in Georgia. Strong sulfuric acid, however, is produced at
Copperhill, Tennessee, and nitric acid at Muscle Shoals, Alabama. Typi
cal cellulose plastics include the celluloid type (nitrocellulose), cel
lulose acetate, and other cellulose esters and ethers, many of which can
be molded, extruded as fibers, etc. Rayons fall in this class, as does
cellophane.
Natural Plastics; Georgia is the largest producer of naval stores in
the Ifaited States. While this industry is not in the Northeast Georgia
Area, its accessible location in South Georgia might offer a raw material
advantage. Two possibilities exist, both of which should be considered:
(1) the development of new plastics from rosin and turpentine through re
search, and (2) the manufacture of ester gum resins from rosin and glycerol.
Ester gums are important in the paint industry.
•
Glycerol, necessary for the manufacture of ester gums, is a by
product of soap manufacture. This is significant in that the establish
ment of a soap plant would add glycerol to the already available rosin,
and, while the soap industry is highly competitive, the Southeast pro
vides a good soap market. Because of the availability of vegetable oils
and rosins required, various graces or soap can Be produced at a competi
tive cost for sale both in the regional market and in the populous East.
If the advantage of a local source of glycerol could be added to that
inherent in being adjacent to the naval stores belt, the manufacture of
ester gums might prove attractive. A sound source of ester gums might
begin the concentration in the Southeast of the widely scattered paintindustry.

Protein Plastics; The manufacture of protein plastics from
casein, soybeans, and similar agricultural products should also
be considered, even though tonnages are not comparable to the
cellulose plastics.
Plastic Processing; While plant investments in plastic
processing will range upward from $2,500 per manufacturing em
ployee, production rates per machine are high, and, in conse
quence, the turn-over of working capital can be rapid.
State ....
Eafiaccriaf
Experiment
Station . . .
G*oryia
Ttth
lodutrul . .
. . Ecoaomu
Rcwjrcb . .
The production of finished articles from all types of plastics is
certain to continue to be one of the nation's expanding industries. The
Chicopee Hills have already engaged in the production of woven plastic
screen cloth and are preparing to build a plastic processing plant at
Cornelia. While this industry is extremely "foot-loose" and may in
consequence be established in a great many places, the Northeast Georgia
Area has two advantages: a favorable electric power cost for the opera
tion of die presses and potential market in the automotive plant expan
sion at Atlanta. Other markets for more general consumer goods such as
kitchen gadgets and novelties are also available in the Southeast, where
there would be an advantage from the viewpoint of distribution.
Basic management requirements call for alert chemical and mechanical
engineers in both production and sales, and sound art design by qualified
artists is definitely required for the production of consumer goods. The
cost differences between superior and "just average" products are often
slight, and, as a consequence, continued sales and profit depend on tech
nical imagination.
Of these plastics and fibers, the purely synthetic types appear to
offer no special opportunity in the Area, since neither coal nor petroleuE—
the chief raw materials— are available in Northeast Georgia on
a competitive basis.
As mentioned, the textile industry in the South provides a ready
market for synthetic fibers, either for use alone or for blending with
cotton or flax.
—145—

Clothing Industries
One of the probable opportunities for industrial expansion
In the northeast Georgia Area is in the clothing industries,
nationally this group represented a total production of over
three billion dollars and employed about 720,000 wage earners in
1939. As an industry it is concentrated in the Greater New York section,
in St. Louis, in Rochester, K. T., in Chicago, and to a lesser degree in
las Angeles. Production in the Southeast has been expanding in recent
years, particularly in Georgia and Tennessee and in smaller volume in North
Carolina^ Mississippi, and Louisiana. Table 11-55 (page 148) shows the lo
cation by states of the 300 establishments in the 31 types of clothing
industries found in the Southeast in 1939.
The 1939 value of clothing produced in Georgia is believed to be be
tween $36 and $40 million,although direct figures are not available in the
census for" either Georgia or other Southeastern states in sufficient de
tail to permit a very accurate summary. The Georgia employment exceeded
seven thousand,although an exact figure is not available from the census.
Employment and value have both increased during the war period. While the
total value in the Southeast is still a small proportion of the United
States total, signs of growth are evident, particularly in Georgia, which
justify an examination of the possibilities of further growth and the
probable direction which it may be expected to take.
The complexity of the apparel industry is indicated by its division
into 57 separate industry types by the Census of Manufactures. For 1939,
data were published in six major groups in which these 57 industry types
were divided into 13 sub-groups as summarized in Table K-54.
Group
Table 11-54
General Summary of Apparel Industries
Tor united States in j.959 ~
Men's Wear
Ken's Eats
ffomen's and Misses'
Outerwear
Children's, Infants'
Outerwear
Wor-en's Accessories
and Millinery
Furs and Miscel
laneous
Grand Totals
of Number Sub-groups
5
2
1
1
2
2
13
CO
q>
»w
11
/="
13
7
10
6
7
14
57
Total
Average
Wage
Earners
318,214
23,739
207,642
23,604
87,472
55,721
716,592
Value
of
Product
(Add
000)
$1,099,769
77,927
1,015,757
96,484
373,463
371,230
$3,034,630
Source: U. S. Census, Manufactures, 1939.
—146—
The future of the
industry in the South
east may continue a-
long the lines which
have concentrated over
half the labor em
ployed in making work
shirts in the South
east, and, in Georgia,
of over ten per cent
of the employment in
the "semi-dress trou
sers, wash suits and
washable service ap
parel" industry, and
over 5 per cent of the
employment in "work
clothing (except
shirts)." Almost all
the blanket-lined
coats in 1939 were
made in Georgia. The
question of entering
the style field, how
ever, should be raised.
The current trend in
Southern textiles to-

nurd mixed fiber fabrics, the more intensive promotion of cot
ton as a style fabric by the Cotton Textile Institute, and the
recent entry of m«iiH into the fashion market as a center of
origination, all point to the possibility that a new fashion
alignment nay be in the making.
The war has upset the fashion dominance of the Paris dress
makers. Hollywood has been an entry in .the field for several
years and is apparently solidifying its position through aggressive mer
chandising based on the use of designs from Hollywood dress salons by the
moving picture industry. New York has a firm background of museum material
and con-petent designers working with established manufacturers, but lacks
the particular glamour that is a requisite for setting fashions. Miami at
tracts the select group whose approval makes a good design become "the
fashion," as well as the equally important and larger group who "accept"
the "approval" of the select group.
It is very doubtful if any other point in the Southeast could provide
a similar background for a new fashion promotion, without which fashion
garments could not be added to the productive enterprises of the region.
Opportunities may well begin to develop in Georgia—and the Northeast
Georgia Area—for the manufacture of fashion garments, particularly in the
loner and middle price ranges, which are based on Miami fashion trends and
merchandised through showings at the Miami style show which was inaugurated
last fall.
Such operations must of necessity be built around a combination of a
good designer, a competent fashion merchandiser,and an intelligent produc
tion Ban. A sound capital position is always desirable, but design is the
factor which makes or breaks in this field.
The position of Georgia—in the center of the cotton te;rtile industry
and halfway between a developing style center and the major consuming mar
kets— and an increasing emphasis on finished fabrics, provide interest-
Ing possibilities. From a distributive view, fashion garments manufac
tured in Georgia can reach retailers in all major cities east of the Mis
sissippi and in most of the South in two days by express and overnight by
air. Twenty-four hour delivery in New York, Chicago, St. Louis, and De
troit is possible. From the fabric viewpoint,style fabrics are being in
creasingly finished in Georgia and the Southeast. The development of ade
quate design resources, then, is the heart of the problem. At the present
time, it must be admitted, good designers are scarcer in the Southeast
than elsewhere. This simply reflects the fact that,in general, industry
has made less use of skilled designers of all kln'ds than it should. In
creased demand which recognizes that good design costs real money will
find those who have the skill. Design material is, however, well repre
sented in the various college libraries in Atlanta and'in the Atlanta Car
negie Library. Museum items (other than paintings), however, are very
limited and largely confined to private collections, or scattered in non-
Buseum public buildings.
As has already been pointed out, much of the existing apparel indus
try in the Southeast was originally attracted on the presumption of low
wges. Garment industry wages hav« always been somewhat higher than tex
tile wages, as is shown by a study of the averages published by the United
States Department of Labor. 1 The present trend is for the average for
Figures n.gures quoted are from Survey of or Current C Business issued monthly by
the United States Department of Commer"ce7
—147—

Table M-55
Hunber of Plants In Southeast by States
"for Apparel Industries, T831T
Industry Type
Total Hunber of Plants ....
Ken's and boys' suits, coats, and
Hen's and boys' shirts, collars, and
Contract factories 1 ......
Trousers (semi-dress), wash suits, and
Sport garments (except leather) and other
Hen's and boys' hats and caps (except fell
Bat bodies and hats - fur felt ...
Finishing of Hen's and boys' hats.
Women's, children's, and infants'
underwear and nightwear ofi
Cotton and flannelette-woven fabrics .
Silic and rayon woven fabrics ...
Corsets and allied garments ....
Work gloves and mittens, cloth, cloth
and leather combined .....
Suspenders, garters, other goods from
purchased elastic material ....
Robes, lounging garments, dressing gowns
Trimmings, stamped art goods, and art
Children's, infants' wear, If.E.C . .
Women's and misses' dresses (except
House dresses, uniforms and aprons . .
Coats, suits, skirts (except fur coats)
Women's and misses' clothing H.E.C . .
nK *»
• O
WE-.
300
31
4
27
6
19
30
77
5
9
Z
1
1
1
6
4
2
3
3
8
8
4
1
3
1
2
2
10
5
16
4
6
•
A
19
1
4
2
2
5
1
2
1
1
£
• •
S
90
7
1 8
1
2 9
4
4 27
3
1
1
1
2
1
1 5
1
3
2 6
5
S
5
21
2
4
A
42
13
3
4
9
5
1
2
1
1
2
1
0
.
X
40
1
6
1
4
10
1
1
3
2
1
1
3
2
1
1
2
0
w
16
3
2
1
1
2
2
1
2
2
in
72
i •
5
1
1
20
21
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
4
Source: D. S. Census, Manufactures, 1939.
1 1 proeessing notarial owned by customer.
2Sot elsewhere classified.
—143—

women's clothing to be higher than for men's clothing. The
July, 1945, average wages per hour werei women's clothing,
fl.026; men's clothing, $0.891; and all textile wages averaged
|0.763 per hour. In January, 1942, these same hourly rates
werei women's clothing, |0.627; men's clothing, (0.663; and all
textile wages, JO.571. On a slightly different basis in Janu
ary, 1940, all wearing apparel had an average hourly rate of
|0.634 and all textiles, |0.4-99. Going back still further,
yearly averages in 1935 were again on a slightly different basis, for men's
clothing, JO.580, and for cotton textiles, $0.78 per hour.
The increase indicated for women's clothing (from $0.627 in January,
1942, to (1.G26 in July, 1945) over the other classes seems to reflect a
greater scarcity of available labor. One probable cause of this scarcity
is found in the failure, of the industry, particularly in the large cen
ters, to provide for the training of young replacements in the higher
skilled hand-sewing jobs. This results in there being few workers in the
largest producing areas who are under forty. The establishment of adequate
training programs for these skills, essential to the production of all
fashion lines above the lowest price classes, could possibly be accom
plished more easily in the Northeast Georgia Area where practically all
workers would have to be trained than where an already trained labor force
of considerable size already exists, even though such a labor force is
deficient in key skills.
These comments are of necessity somewhat general. This is largely
because the complexity of the available data and the constant change in
herent in the detail of almost every phase of the industry make it some
what hazardous for those who have not learned by hard experience to ap
praise the whims of fashion and their dependence on the unchanging prin
ciples of design.
—149--

Agricultural Industries
The processing of agricultural products, particularly for
food, is one of the fields in which new industries may be in
troduced into Northeast Georgia.
Food Processing
The rather limited production of vegetables indicated by Table A-37
on page 211 does not mean that it is impractical to grow vegetables for
canning, quick-freezing, or dehydration. This low existing production
simply means that up to this time no satisfactory market has existed which
would justify engaging in large-scale vegetable production. This absence
of previous large-scale vegetable growing might even be regarded as a
favorable factor for the development of either a canning or freezing in
dustry in the Area. In sections where fresh market production is estab
lished a conflict is apt to develop between the level contract price for
processing and the fluctuating price for fresh market sale. The profit
able growing of vegetables is a decidedly intensive form of agricultural
specialization.
If a market were available, it appears probable that sufficient acre
age might be secured for the growing of vegetable crops in nearly all
counties to justify the establishment of several canning or quick-freezing
plants in the Area. Hall, Habersham, Habun, Stephens, Jackson, and Hart
counties are the more logical locations which should be considered.
For example, the following crops appear to have greater probability
of being grown for canning in the Northeast Georgia Area than elsewhere in
the states
1. English peas in Union, Towns, Wiite, Rabun, and part
of Habersham counties.
2. T.ima beans in all counties.
3. String beans in all counties.
U- Tonatoes in an counties.
5- Asparagus in all counties.
The production of any or all of these crops for either canning or
freezing, to be successful, would require:
1. The provision of agricultural supervision by the
processing company.
2. The development of auxiliary irrigation to provide
a more even supply of moisture, even though some of
the counties have annual rainfall of as much as 6
inches. The quality of crops, however, is more depen
dent on even supply of water than on any particular
total. Without the highest quality of crops, neither
canned nor frozen foods will pay.
The physical investment in a canning plant with a capacity of approxi
mately 2,hOO cases per day would range from $hO,000 to $60,000, including
land and buildings, the difference depending on the varying types of prod
ucts processed and on their specific equipment requirements. Depending
on the grade and quality of the product, such a production would require,
—ISO—

in addition, processing working capital ranging from $50,000 to
$225,000, and merchandising working capital ranging from $50,000
to possibly $UOO,000. These working capital requirements, how
ever, would be relatively short-term. The maximum amount would
probably not be required for over three or four months; working
capital ordinarily would only be needed for a total period of
not over nine months.
SUM ....
Engineering
Experiment
Station . . .
Grorgia
Ttch
Industrial . .
. . Economk
Resutcb . .
Crop conditions frequently limit the effective operating period in
any particular canning plant to between two and four months. For those
plants which operate primarily to process some particular crop with a one
to three months' season, the addition of some product which can utilize
all or a part of the canning equipment and which is not dependent on the
completion of canning within twenty-four hours of harvest will reduce over
head ratios, increase profits, and permit paying higher prices for raw
materials.
A cooked product from dry rather than fresh materials is one of the
obvious solutions. Products such as baked beans, canned spaghetti, and
soups indicate the general type for this possibility. Communities in
terested should consult the Food Preservation Prospectus published by the
State Engineering Experiment Station in 19/il.
Census Data and Ratios; The canning industry in the Southeast
lacked $d of equalling the 1939 U. S. average gross margin of $192, while
Georgia lacked $130. The following are the 1939 census figures and the
values per $100 of plant wages and salaries described on page $\ '. The
low gross margin for 1939 reflects crop conditions in Georgia of that
year. For 1937, the gross margin value per $100 of payroll was $155 for
the U. S. and $165 for Georgia. .
Item
1939 Census Totals and Ratios Per $100 of Payroll
Wages and Salaries
Salaries only
Value of Product
Material
Value Added
Gross Margin
U.S.
(Add
000)
$ 79,OW.
13,806
587,3ii3
356,281
231,062
152,022
1939
S.S.
(Add
000)
$ 3,6W>
597
21,882
!U,li83
10,U27
7,399
Ga.
(Add
000)
$ 1*67
117
2,OU6
1,288
758
291
Per $100 of
Wages and Salaries
U.S. S.S. Ga.
$100
17
7ii3
U51
292
192
$100
16
601
398
286
186
$100
25
1)38
276
162
62
The average expenditure for purchased electricity was $2.90 and
for fuel was $6.00 per $100 of payroll
Hoick-Freezing
The broiler industry probabjy provides the largest quick-freezing op
portunity in the Northeast Georgia Area. A specialized plant, freezing
only chicken, is probably the most economic operation, since the investment
in plant would be less than for a plant freezing fruits and vegetables in
late summer and early fall and broilers in the fall, winter, spring, and
early summer. There would be an economy, too, in processing only one
product. Such an operation should preferably buy, kill and dress as well
—151--

as freeze, since this provides a closer control over quality.
Freezing broilers should tend to stabilize the price and increase
total annual sales for the reason that excess production can be
carried forward for sale when the supply may be less than the
demand. This will require the availability of considerable zero
storage. In general, a part of this should be at the plant and
a part in scattered public cold storage plants. Since the ex
pansion of cold storage facilities has not kept pace itith the
Stite ....
Enguieerinf
Experiment
Station . . .
Croegia
Tieh
Indnstrial . . t
. . Economic
Resurch . .
general increase in denand, a new operator should make sure that the storage
at distant markets is available.
Freezing chickens, whole, is practical by any of the processes dis
cussed later. Because of the bulk of a chicken, there is little cost dif
ference. Cut-up chicker,, however, can be processed more rapidly by the
inversion or air-blast processes.
The principal advantage of the quick-freezing process over an ordinary
freezing process lies in the fact that, because of the extremely short tine
involved in freezing, the ice crystals formed within the cell structure are
very small, and on thawing, the damage to appearance and physical structure
due tc cell rupture is reduced to a minimum. Bacteria and mold growth are
prevented, and the foods are preserved in essentially the fresh state. The
principal types of quick-freezing are: direct immersion, indirect immer
sion, air blast, indirect contact, multiple spray or fog freezing, and
other methods.
Hhile considerably more than half of the quick-frozen foods now on the
retail market are being frozen by the indirect contact process, the direct
icmersion method is potentially interesting from both a production and a
merchandising viewpoint. Both freezing and thawing each require only a
fraction of the time needed for most other quick-freezing processes since
fruits and vegetables are frozen individually rather than in a compressed
package.
One of the problems connected with a quick-freezing operation is that
of securing sufficient volume to maintain the plant in operation for a
considerable period each year. There is an obvious difference between
plants specializing in a single crop, which may not be available for more
than six weeks to two months, and those freezing a combination of crops
and poultry, meat, or fish, permitting every-day operation throughout the
year. The enployment of mobile plants which nay be moved from one area to
ar.other affords one solution. If production were confined to fruits and
vegetables, however, it would not be possible to prolong operations by
this method over nore than four to six months. For this reason, considera
tion should be given to the utilization of production time not otherwise
ecployed; for example, a mobile plant could be icoved to the coast, and
fish could be frozen during the winter. Fixed-location freezing plants
car. process crops growr. within a radius of not more than an hour's travel.
As a maximum, they could possibly serve a farmer producing large tonnage
located as far away as two hours, but his crops would be subject to risk
of wilt and other deterioration.
Census Data and Ratios; The following are the 1939 census figures
arc the value per $100 of plant wages and salaries described on page 5k.
The average expenditure for purchased electricity was $10.90 and for
fuel was 81.60 per $100 of payroll.
--15K—

1939 Census Totals and Ratios Per $100 of Pa
Item
Salaries and Wages
Salaries only
Value of Product
Material, etc.
Vd.ue Added
Sross Margin
U.S.
(Add
000)
$ 1,937
281
10.107
6,183
3,925
1,988
1939
S.S. 1 Ga.
(Add (Add
000) 000)
Data
available
lot
Per $100 of
Wages and Salaries
U.S. $100 1U
522
319
203
102
S.E. $100 Ga.
$100
Sure ....
Engineering
Experiment
Station . . .
Georgia
TVcft
Industrial . .
. . Economic
RewJtcb . .
Sharp-Freezirg; The sharp-freezing process is accomplished by keeping
the product in a refrigerated room at temperatures of 0°F, -ltf"F, or -20°F,
Titf. or without air circulation. While not a quick-freezing process, this
method possesses certain advantages for fruits which are to be used for the
isaking of jams, jellies, and filling for pies and pastry; for vegetables for
sauces sj)d some soups, and for freezing meat. These advantages are chiefly
those of lower cost, both in processing and packaging. However, sharpfrozen
foods do not compare with quick-frozen foods in the possible return
to the fanner for Ids crops, nor in appearance and table-appeal, because
of destruction of cell walls.
Locker plants; The locker plant represents an effort to provide a
cornbina.tion of quick-freezing, sharp-freezing, and zero storage for the
farmer. In its inception, the central idea was that the farmer would
utilize the plant as a basis for preserving, by freezing and storing, such
of his crops and meats as were desired for his own use. At first, however,
the plants were chiefly located in larger towns, which made them more
convenient to townspeople than to farmers, and urban users tended to ex
ceed rural ones. Now, however, with the spread of rural electrification,
they are beginning to appear in smaller towns and. even at crossroads; and
individual farms or groups of farms are putting in small installations.
Locker plants afford an indirect source of farm income, since their princi
pal use is to preserve farm-grown food for farm consumption.
It is probable that the present locker plant will ultimately develop
two special functions: (1) a processing service for the preparation and
freezing of meats, and the quick-freezing and packaging of fruits and
vegetables for the farmer, and (2) bulk cold storage.
Having learned the advantages of freezing, it seems probable that many
farmers will eventually have some type of refrigeration which will provide
ooth IjCPF and 0°F storage sufficient for a month or more, and will use the
locker^plant only for bulk storage. Others may find it practical to install
sufficient cold storage to take care of their entire requirements.
—153--

Taxes
Scan ....
Engineering
Experiment
Station . . .
lo the industrialist the tax rate of a county or state may
be of real significance despite the fact that it is not a mjor
item of his expenses. It is a reasonably accurate indication
of the attitude of the local government, demonstrating its
friendliness, or lack of it, towards industry, its progressiveness,
and its desire to render those services which make a com
Indaitria! . .
. . Economic
Rettarcb
munity a desirable business location. Thus a low tax rate, although it
perhaps appears attractive at first glance, may indicate a lack of services
which would constitute a definite drawback or added expense to industry.
On the other hand, a relatively high tax rate is sometimes more favorable
than appears on the surface, since it may indicate that the local govern
ment renders better-than-average service to industry.
In order to determine the effect of taxes on industry, the State En
gineering Experiment Station is making a detailed study of tax practices
in Georgia and the adjoining states. Some of the data collected for the
tax report for counties in the Northeast Georgia Area are presented here
IB preliminary form.
The total tax rate, including the state levy (5 mills in Georgia),
county levy, school, and
Table T-l other levies applying to
an industrial site out-
Total State and County Tax Rates for Industrial side of but within one
plants in the No ____ 'st Georgia Zrea Located
" OatsicEe ~oFJ but Within
argest City in
Counties
Total
Tax
Rate .
Kills
Banks 39.5
Barrow 28.5
Daws on 28.0
Forsyth 43.0
Franklin 30.0
Habersham 21.0
Ball 39.5
Hart 26.0
Jackson 35. C
Lumpkin 10.0
Hadiscn 30.0
Ratun 34. C
Stephens 37.5
Towns 20.0
tnion 20.C
Hhite 38.8
Assessment,
Per Cent of
Actual Value
Tax Index2
Plant
Real Inven
Estate tory
26.33 19.75
14.25 14.25
B.40 14.00
25.80 21.50
7.50 15.00
8.40 15.75
26.33 26.33
10.40 10.40
14.00 14.00
2.50 2.50
18.00 18.00
11.33 11.33
18.75 18.75
10.00 10.00
10.00 10.00
50 19.40 19.40
Plant
Real Inven
Estate tory
66 2/3 SO
50 50
30 50
60 50
25 50
40 .75
66 2/3 66 2/3
40 40
40 40
25 25
60 60
33 1/3 33 1/3
50 50
50 50
SO 50
£0
1Ineludes the state tax levy of 5 mills.
TJhe tax index gives the mills per dol
lar of actual value. It is the product of
the total tax rate and the rate of assessment.
—154-
mile of the largest torn
in the county, is given
for counties in the
Northeast Georgia Area
in Table T-l. This
table also presents the
various rates of asses
sment on real estate
and plant inventory;
in the last column the
product of the total
tax rate and rate of
assessment is presented
as the tax index for
each county. This
index is given as mills
per dollar of full
value.
A comparison of
these indices reveals
wide variations from
county to county. Tax
on real estate varies
from 2.50 mills in
Lumpkin to 26.33 in
Ball and Banks, and, on
plant inventory, from
2.50 mills in Lumpkin
county to 26.33 mills
in Hall county. These
assessments are typical
of other Georgia counties

The individual industrialist is, of course, primarily in
terested in knowing approximately the taxes he would have to
pay should he locate his plant in a given county. This infor
mation may be obtained from the various sections of Table T-2,
wf.ich were derived from balance sheets reflecting the actual op
erations of Georgia firms, v;ith the figures disguised. They
serve to show approximately what taxes industries of similar
size or operation would pay in the counties for which informati
TTBS received.
Numerous apparent inequalities between individual counties appear
in Table T-2. Some of these without doubt arise from the fact that at
present practically all taxes in some counties are assessed against land
and retail firms since little industry exists in the county. The addition
of several industries, in such cases, would so alter the revenue picture
that new policies might be expected which would tend to wash out some of
these apparent differences.
• Table T-2
Typical Balance Sheets for Representat ive Industries and
TotaT~Taxes Applying to the Saae Industries, by~
Counties, for Hortheast Georgia Area
Candy Manufacture
Typical Balance Sheet No. 1
Corporate Ownership
Assets
Liabilities
Cash
Accounts Receivable
Inventory
0. S. War Bonds
Total Current Assets
Fixed Assets t
Real Estate
Equipment
Investments i
Cash Value Life Ins.
Prepaid and Deferred
Treasury Bonds
Total Assets
$149,247.72
123,413.41
121,749.89
3,892.07
398,303.09
19,050.73
38,101.45
4,943.98
17,510.64
22,090.11
500,000.00
Accounts Payable
Reserve Income Taxes
Funded Debt Current
Total Current
Liabilities
Comcon Stock
Surplus
Funded Debt
Total Liabilities
Net Working Capital
Current Ratio
Tangibla Net Worth
Net Profit
$ 11,624.75
48,434.65
11,571.01
71,630.41
105,191.00
195,897.48
127,281.11
500,000.00
326,672.67
5.85
301,088.61
52,920.79
Total Taxes by Counties: Banks $3,921.49; Barrow $2,564.28; Daws on
12,430.65; I^orsyth $3,94 3.24; Franklin $1.356.68; Eabersham $2,692.61;
Hall $4,726.01; Hart $1,875.51; Jaclcson $2,786.27; Lumplcin $462.17;
Madison $3,235.16; Katun $2,042.48; Stephens $3,369.33; Towns $1,603.94;
Union $1,803.94; White $3,503.51.
—155—

Table T-2 (continued)
State ....
Engineering
Typical Balance Sheets for Representative Industries and Experiment
Total Taxes Applying to the Same Industries, by
Station . . .
Georgia
Counties, for Northeast Georgia Area
Tech
Industrial . .
_ .. , • . Economic
Knit Fabrics
Cotton Yarn Rejeirdi . .
Typical Balance Sheet No. 3
Assets
Typical Balance Sheet No. 4
Corporate Ownership
Assets
Cash
Arcc-nts Receivable
Inventory
Total Current Assets
Fixed Assets:
Real Estate, Buildings
l&chinery, Equipment
Investments:
Cash Value of Life Ins.
Prepaid
Total Assets
Liabilities
Accounts Payable
Accrjals
A/C Payable Affiliate
Reserve - Income Taxes
Total Current
Liabilities
Common Stock
Surplus
Total Liabilities
Ket Working Capital
Current Ratio
Tangible Net Forth
Ket Sales
Net Profit
Div: desds
$ 13,649.54
7,454.19
15,360.22
36,464.52
7,454.50
14,909.63
825.14
345.98
60,000. CO
$ 5,791.74
2,003.53
4,712.56
9,272.63
21,780.46
14,369.37
23,850.17
60,000.00
14,684.15
1.60
38,219.72
277,00.48
8,082.25
5,747.82
Total Taxes by Counties: Banks $905. 84
{!arrov.- $551.22;Dawso& $507. CO; Forsyth
f856.79; Franklin $296.58;Eabersham.
$553.C2;EaIl $1,007.07; Hart
$405.99; Jackson $646.16; Lumpkin
$145.24; Kadisor. $692.69; Rabun
$441.20; Stephens $767.58; Towns
$415.7S;Dnion $415.75;TVhite$797.74.
— 15S--
Cash
Accounts Receivable
Ir.ventory
U. S. Treasury Notes
Margin Deposits
Total Current
Assets
Fixed Assets:
Real Estate, Bldgs.
lichinery, Equip.
Investments :
Cash Value Life Ins.
Total Assets
Liabilities
Accounts Payable
Reserve - Income Taxes
Total Current
Liabilities
Common Stock
Surplus
Total Liabilities
Ket Working Capital
Current Ratio
Tangible Net Worth
$ 346,825.23
145,076.93
61,090.20
148,893.01
25,779.78
727,765.15
67,894.42
155,738.84
9,120.09
4,085.67
1,000,000.00
$ 31,624.99
396,778.55
428,403.94
138,814.20
432,781.86
1,000 000 .CO
299,361.21
1.68
571,601.05
Total Taxes': Banks $6,604.87; Barrow
$3,807.72:Dawson $3,424 .56; Forsyth
$S,019.26;Frankl5.a$2,02 0.19;Habersha»
$3,705.83;Hall$7,007.05 ;Hart$2,788.32
Jacks on$4 , 692 . 03 ; L'Joipki n$698.62;Madi-
3on$4,800.60;Habun $3,0 35 .45; Stephens
$4,999.13; Toras $2,632 .41; Union
$2, 632. -11; TOiits £5,197.75.

laDie r-z ^uonnnuea^
Typical Balance Sheets for Representative Industries and
Total Taxes Applying to the Same Industries, by
Counties, for Northeast Georgia Area
Brick Manufacturing
Typical Balance Sheet No. 5
Corporate Ownership-
Assets
Cash
Accounts Receivable
Inventory
War Stamps
Total Current Assets
Fixed Assets:
Real Estate, Buildings
Machinery, Equipment
Furr.iture, Fixtures
Investments:
Cash Value of Life Ins.
Treasury Stock
Prepa id
Total Assets
Li&tilities
Accounts Payable
Accruals
Reserves for Taxes
Total Current
Liabilities
Common Stock
Surplus
Total Liabilities
$ 9,930.32
27,596.98
43,017.17
37.28
80,581.75
74,226.00
138,325.00
53.23
3, 136. CO
1,657.10
2 jVJcU npn • op y

Table T-2 (Continued) II =
I -v •
Typical Balance Sheets for Representative Industries and |! Ei'tmnoit
Total Taxes Applying to the Same Industries, by
Counties, for Northeast Georgia Area
Canning and Food
Typical Balance Sheet No. 7
Corporate Ownership
Assets
Cash
Accounts Receivable
Inventory
U. S. Treasury Securities
Total Current Assets
Fixed Assets:
Real Estate
Equipment
Miscellaneous Receivables
Investments »
Cash Value of Life Ins.
Supplies
Total Assets
Accounts Payable
Accruals
Reserves - Taxes
Total Current
Liaoilities
Comcon Stock
Preferred Stock
Surplus
Liabilities
Total Liabilities
Net Working Capital
Current Ratio
Tangible Net Worth
$ 40,881.63
6,077.12
16,735.23
9,964.78
73,658.76
60,498.71
30,249.35
719.71
260.27
3,712.45
5,300.75
175,000.00
$ 3,628.14
40.90
1,876.82
5,545.86
19,830.40
54,533.60
95,090.14
175,000.00
68,112.87
13.18
169,454.95
Total Taxes: Baaks $2,724.31;Barrow
Jl,535.73;Da.wson $1,226.52; orsyth
$2,S7E.13;Franklin$810.21;Babershajn
$l,252.23;Hall$2,834.48;Bart$l,121.92
Jacks on$l , 720 . GO ; Lumpkin$2 72 . 80 ; Jfod i-
son $l,938.79;Rabun$l,222.24;Stephens
$2,019.41; Towns $1,078.92; Union
$1.078.92: White $2.100.02.
—158—
1 Station . . .
1 Georgia
1 TVch
Kitchen Furniture II . . Economic
Manufacturing [] Rnorch . .
Typical Balance Sheet No. 8
Corporate Ownership
Assets
Cash
Accounts Receivable
Inventory
Total Current
Assets
Fixed Assets:
Real Estate
Equipment
llisc. Receivables
Investments t
Bank Stock
Prepaid
Post War Tax Refund
Total Assets
Liabilities
Accounts Payable
Accruals
Notes Payable-Officers
Taxes
Total Current
Liabilities
Comcon Stock
Surplus
Total Liabilities
Net Working Capital
Current Ratio
Tangible Net Worth
$ 7,981.47
23,618.09
50,678.24
82,277.60
1,728.47
3,456.94
489.22
98.27
333.14
1,566.16
90,000.00
t 5,365.97
946.92
9,955.70
20,102.75
36,371.34
30,464.32
23,164.34
90,000.00
45,906.47
2.22
53,629.09
Net Sales
425.-377.39
Net Profit
8,695.63
Total Taxes:8anks$l,135.25;BarroTr
$796.35;Dawson $774.83; Forsyth
$l,209.29;Franklin$419.78;flabershan
$867.95;Hall $l,471.S8;Hart $581.73
Jackson$307.10;Lu3ipkin $140.46;ifc.di
son$l,006.34;Rabun $633. 92; Stephens
$1,048.25; Towns $559.43; Union
$559.43; TThite $1.090.15.

7/ater . sm...
Ordi
Engineering
Experiment
Station . . .
_. _ _ _ _ _ - Georgia
Water Is necessary for almost every human activity.
nary living, the growing of crops, and manufacturing all require
water in some form, frequently in large quantities.
1 Indmtnal
. .Economic
Rcmrcb . .
The available information on water in the Northeast Georgia
Area comes from three sources. Stream gaging reports give an
indication of the volume of water ordinarily originating as rain water,
which moves over the surface of the land and flows in its streams. The
second source of information deals with water which is flowing within the
ground and which is a normal source of supply through wells. The third
source of information deals with the chemical characteristics of the avail
able water, particularly that from underground sources. In «n three cases,
the volume of available information is much less than it should be for an
adequate discussion of the Area's water problems, but this is a condition
which exists in many parts of Georgia.
Source of Data; The information contained in this section is based on
available reports and investigations made by the Department of liines, Min
ing and Geology, Georgia State Division of Conservation, in co-operation
with the Geological Survey, United States Department of the Interior. Sys
tematic investigation of the ground-water resources of the state has been
in progress since 1938, but, owing to limited funds, the studies in this
Area have been on a small scale. Further successful development of the
ground-water resources of the Area will require more detailed investigation
than has hitherto been possible. Requests for additional information or
field investigations should be addressed to Captain Garland Peyton, Direc
tor, Department of Mines, Mining and Geology, Ij25 State Capitol, Atlanta
3, Georgia.
Recommendations ; A much expanded program of water research is a defi
nite need, not only for this Area, but also for the state as a whole. Uuch
larger funds should be made available for co-operation with the U. S. Geo
logical Survey in its three fields of water activity so that sufficient in
formation will be at hand to answer the necessary questions with respect to
the supply and quality of water for its various uses. Additional streamflow
data is desirable so that recurrent flood problems can be properly
dealt with and as a means of evaluating the possibilities of increasing
crop values through supplementary irrigation. Further information about
underground water supplies will contribute to the solution of problems af
fecting drinking water for cities and towns and water for use in industrial
processing and for supplemental irrigation.
Surface Water
The Northeast Georgia Area lies in the mountain and upper Piedmont
regions where the streams generally carry substantial quantities of water.
Eecause the supply of ground water in the Area is generally limited, most
of the larger municipal and industrial water supplies come from streams.
Information regarding the flow of streams is collected and published
by the Geological Survey in cooperation with the Department of Mines, Min
ing and Geology of the Georgia Division of Conservation. The basic streamflow
information consists of the daily record of the flow at gaging sta
tions on the rivers and smaller streams. At the present time, 30 gaging
stations are maintained in the Northeast Georgia Area or on streams that
drain jjart of the Area.' Map G-5 shows the locations of the gaging stations.
—159—

Table 3-5 lists the gagir.g stations and gives -a. summary of the
extremes and the average flows.
Stream-Flow: Streac-flow data are presented as discharge
in "second-feet" (c.f.s.), an abbreviation of cubic feet per
second. For comparisons between stations, or for applying the
data from the gaging station to other areas, it is convenient to
use the terc. "second-feet per square mile" (c.s.m.) which is the
State ....
Engineering
Experiment
Station . . .
Industrial . .
. . Economic
Research .
discharge at the station divided by the number of square miles in. the drain
age basin above the station. It should be borne in mind that this is an
average value and night be presumed to imply a uniform contribution of flow
free each part of the drainage basin. This is not generally true, especi
ally in this A.raa where the runoff from the mountain region is much greater
per unit of area than that from the Piedmont region. For comparison with
rainfall, it is convenient to use the term "runoff in inches", which is the
depth in inches to which an area would be covered if all the water draining
froc it in a given period were unifonnly distributed over its surface.
River Gaging Stations; For each gaging station listed in Table G-5
the nap number is given to identify it with Map G-5- The stations are
listed by drainage basins in downstream order, mainstream stations first,
followed by the stations on tributary streams. Following the station name
is the drainage area in square miles. This value is essential to the use
and interpretation of stream-flow records, as the drainage area is the
principal factor that determines the size and discharge of the stream. In
order to apply to ungaged streacs the stream-flow data from the gaging
stations, it is first necessary to know the drainage area at the site on
the ungaged stream. Within certain limits, the discharge for the ungaged
stream may be found by multiplying its area by the appropriate discharge
in second-feet per square miles at the gaging stations.
Following the drainage area in the table there is shown the number of
years of record that are available at the station. The longer the station
has been operated, the tore reliable and complete will be the information
regarding the stream flow at that place. Many of the station recoras are
short, and many of the longer records are for broken periods.
Discharge; The information concerning the maximum discharge relates
to the highest flood during the period of record or for the highest known
flood for which definite information is available. At some stations, the
discharge has not yet been determined for the maximum flood of record. It
is very certain that, for every station listed, the maximum flood shown
has beer, or can be exceeded; longer and more complete records of stream
flow in other parts of the Southeast have attested to this. In general,
the floods in the mountain region tend to be greater than those in the
Fiedzsnt region, and flood flows on snail streams are relatively more
severe in proportion to their drainage areas than are floods on larger
streams.
The information on minimum discharge is for the lowest flow daring
the period of record. The three gaging stations that were in operation in
1925 show much lower miniraums than do those stations for which information
concerning the 1925 drought is lacking. It is unfortunate that more com
plete records of the 1925 conditions in Georgia are not available, but,
since the existing records show that the 1925 conditions have occurred only
once (or possibly twice) in the past century, the deficiency in records is
not as serious as it would be if similar conditions were to be expected
more frequently. In general, the minimum flow of streams in the mountain
—160—

egion is much greater than is the minimum flow of Piedmont
streams. For most water-supply purposes, the information regard
ing minimum discharges is the most important, as the data show
the continuous flow that is available without the construction
of storage reservoirs. The information in Table 3-5 is a sum
mary of what is known about the major streams in the Area. The
subject, as it pertains to smaller streams, is further discussed
below.
Sut« ....
Engineering
Experiment
Sution . . .
TVcft
Induitria! . ;
. . Economic
Research . .
Five-Year Averages The information on the 5-year average discharge
is based on the period from October 1, 1938, to September 30, 19U3, for
which complete records were available for most of the stations. The records
for some stations were too brief to permit their being used to show the
Table G-U
Map Number,
River and
Gaging Station
1. Chattooga R.
near Clayton,Ga
6. Broad B.
near Bell, Ga.
. Oconee R. near
Greensboro, Ga.
10. Apalachee E.
near Buckhead,G<
11. Chattahoochee E
near Leaf, Ga.
12. Chattahoochee E
near Gainesvill<
Hi. Chattahoochee R
near Norcross
18. Chestatee R.
near Eahlonega
19. Etowah R. near
Dawsonville,Ga.
20. Etowah R. at
Canton, Ga.
21. Arnica] ola R.nea
Dawsonviile, Ga
25. Nottely R. near
Ivylog, Ga.
29. Toccoa R. near
Dial, Ga.
Minimum Stream Flow in the Northeast Georgia Area
Drain
age
Area
Square
Miles
.
203
11.20
3090
1.36
i5o
559
1170
153
103
605
81.7
215
177
Years
of
Record
191.0-10. 169
1927,
1929-31
1937-U3
1901.-13
1915-31
1937 -hi
1937-13
1902-08
191.0-1.1.
1937-Ut till
1903-1.3 725
1929-31
191.0-U.
191.0-1U.
1897-99
1901-0l(
3937-Wi
1939-10.
1937-1.1
1911t-lUi 11.3
Normal
Minimum
Cubic Feet
Per Second
1,06
311.
102
107
96
80
315
66
108
Per
Square
Mile
0.83
.29
.29
.23
.71
-73
.62
.63
.78
.52
.78
.50
.81
10-Year
Minimum
Cubic Feet
Per Second
11.6
170
172
hh
72
275
Uio
1.9
55
211,
58
79
lilt
Pei-
Souare
Mile
0.73
.12
.16
.10
.1.8
.1*9
.35
.32
.53
.35
.68
.37
.61.
1925 Minimum
Cubic Feet
Per Second
_
—
60
—
—
—
132
_
—
—
—
—
60
Per
Scuare
iaie
_
—
.06
—
—
—
.11
_
—
—
—
—
.31.
Fre
quency
Source: Prepared by U. S. Geologic Survey, Water Resources Branch.
—1S1--
_
—
1-1(
—
—
_
1.2
_
—
—
—
_
1.6

5-year average. At other stations, one or two of the years were missing,
but it was possible to estimate the average from the available record.
The average discharge on streans in the mountain region is greater than
on Piednont streams. Thus, the average discharge on the main rivers
which head in the mountains tends to be higher than that on the rivers
the North
rg
ge Fe
Di Se
Discharge
Fe Second
r- -
OJ CM
30
c c
It
05 O\ CO CJ W £ ra
ft ."^-
Number, iap
and River
OCOi-H
^4Jr-i
ooo
-P >, «
CO .-H in
>O
Ov
1 1 1
I
£
*-!°
££33
pjooajj
JO SOBSJ
^H a7ccti!>r-iC
O 1 1 -=f
CO 1 1 CO
K O 0
T> «oo
OIrHC'
or-io
1
1
O
C^
r-t
CO*
8 i-5
ON 1
j1 I
CO
O
f^
CM
O
^co
—162- -

•nhich lie wholly within the Piedaont region. This information
shoirs the continuous flow that might be developed by means of
complete storage regulation. In order to produce the average
discharge as a continuous flow, enough storage must be provided
o 1 p- 1
ft
CM
1A r- 1
H
en m
\o vo
8 8
CVI OJ
U\ *A
l-l r-1
CO I CVJ
CO 1 V
NO V\
CVJ CVJ
CO 1 CO
O\ I CO
rH rH
S
^OJ
s
rH
\o
en
s
o
u\
rH
o CM
8
CO
I !
! !
1 c*-
1 \o
Cvl
CVJ
1 s
rH
!
!
———————
State ....
Engineering
Experiment
Station . . .
Indmtml . .
. . Economic
Rourcb . .
1
O 1
CO 1
o
m rH
-3 vO
CM O
-=t 1A
3 ^
-s o
U\ CM
,8 |
O r-t
m OJ
< <
CO OJ
•O rn
CA O
l-f\ VO
s
rH
-3 O
£ £
$
rH rH
H rr\
CM m ^1
co
» ^
^^ O
r- -O
-a rH
O O
3 3
o\
rH CM
$ >
H CVJ
-3
O O
C— t^t
rH rH
. . 10
>0> . e8 -O • CS
«-HKc3«05lS
IIll
loll
i si i
O C o C
H r-f
O O O fc
| o-gjj
* S a 3
O C O C
-a 1A
rH r-i
CO 1 CO
O I CO
'*' t
CVJ \O CVJ
rH f- n
n-v
S ° S
»
rH
+3
* S
c o
s
I2
£ •u
0)
3CJ

5-Year Average
Annual
—
398
U65
Per
Square
Mile
—
2.25
2.00
Runoff
in
Incheu
—
30.5U
27.15
c* Q, e+
' W CD p1
>* ft) S
Map Number,
River and
Qaging Station
Ohio River Basins - Continued
28. Ivylog Cr. near
Ivy log, Oa.
29. Toccoa R. r.ear
Dial, Qa.
30. Toccoa R. near
Blue Ridge, Ga.
Drain-
Area
Square
Miles
16.7
177
233
^<
0) O
2
31
31
Maximum Discharge
Date
2/ltf
7/16
7/16
Table Q-5 - Continued
Discharge in
Second Feet
Total
797
9,200
13,900
Per
Square
Kile
L8
52
60
Minimum Discharge
Date
8/1,2
9/25
Source: Prepared by U. S. Geologic Survey, Water Resources Branch.
—
Discharge in
Second Feet
Total
8.2
60
—
Per
Square
Mile
.U9
.3lt
—

value of the minimums i'or an tne years ol' record. For some
star/ions oruy 5 years ol' record was available; the longest rec
ord w^s i'or iu years. The normals based on tne longer periods
are much more reliable than those on short periods, but the
latter are probably not seriously in error. For areas between
gaging stations, the values were computed from the data I'or the
gaging stations as given in the table, even though different
periods of years were used for the two adjacent stations.
Sutc
Engineering
Experiment
Station . . .
Croroia
TiA
Industrial . .
. . Economic
Rociich . .
Ten-Year Minijaums ; The ID-year minimum discharge represents the low
flew that would occur, on the average, one year out of ten, or ten times a
century. Tills value was obtained by statistical analysis of all the minimums
of record. In most cases, it closely approximates the low flow of
J.9U1. That the iy'ui minimum can be tajten as a 10-year minimum with some
confidence is shown by its frequency as determined from the three longest
records in the Area.
Per Cent Difference
1.9m. Frequency in Between i9iu Minimum
Years Per Century and lU-Year Minimum
Oconee River near Greensboro, Ga. It. 2 . -8 per cent
Chattahoochee River near Norcross B.6 -6 per cent
Toccoa Kiver near Dial 32 tih per cent
The 10-year minimum may generally be accepted as the dependable yield
of a stream without the use of storage, since more severe droughts rarely
occur. The relative severity of droughts of varying frequencies may be
estimated by comparison between the 10-year minimum and tne normal minimum.
Where tne two minimums are near the same magnitude, it is reasonable to ex
pect that the 100-year minimum would not be much less than the 10-year min
imum. On the other hand, if the 10-year minimum is proportionally much
lower than the normal minimum, the lUU-year drought may oe expected to be
very severe.
The iS'i'y Minimum; That this may be expected is borne out by the com
parison at tne three stations wflere l9 cannot now be ascertained.
Fortunately, the duration of severe low-water conditions in the North
east Georgia Area is generally not vary long. For example, on tne Apaiachee
River near BucKnead, Georgia the minimum day was U01 second-feet in
l9lU; tne minimum weeK averaged >8 second-feet, 21 per cent greater; the
minimum 2-weeK period averaged ol second-feet, 'if per cent greater; ana tne
air.invm jO-aay period averaged /i socond-feet, or ub per cent greater.
Caution should be used in applying the information on Map G-ij to small
—165—

drainage areas. A number of estimates that were made of the
19U. minimum flow from small drainage areas within the larger
drainage basins used for this analysis showed that some yields
were as little as one-half of the average. Lacking other in
formation, this factor of safety Bay well be applied to the
10-year cir.Li.ua values shown.
Start ....
Engineering
Experiment
Suiion . . .
Gtoegia
Tick
Industrial . .
. . Economic
Retearcb . .
Further Details; Complete records of discharge are pub
lished in the "annual surface water-supply papers of the Geological Survey.
Those for the Northeast Georgia Area appear either in the series for Part 2,
"South Atlantic Slope and Eastern Gulf of Mexico Basins", or for Part 3,
"Ohio River Basin". Original records for the stations in Part 2 may be
consulted at the Georgia office of the Geological Survey, U.1 Grand Theatre
Building, Atlanta, or at the office of Captain Garland Peyton, Director,
Georgia Department of Mines, Kining and Geology, 1^5 State Capitol, Atlanta.
Original records for Part 3 may be consulted at the Tennessee office of the
Geological Survey, hii2 Post Office Building, Chattanooga, Tennessee.
River Gaging Stations in the
Northeast Georgia Area
—166—

Map G-U
Uinimm Yields of Selected River Basins
jCn" the NorEEeast Georgia Area
State ....
Enfiaccriiif
Exptrimtnt
Station . . .
Cforgia
Txh
Indoitrial . .
. . Economic
Rocjrcb . .
Key:
The upper figure within
the drainage area is the
normal minimum discharge in
second feet per square
mile.
The lower figure is the
ten-year minimum discharge.
•Gaging station (see
Table G-U).
—167—

Agricultural Summary
In 1940, the Northeast Georgia Araa was predominantly rural
la population since, of the total population of 197,373, the
rural total was 174,868. Of these, 130,456 lived on farms which
numbered 23,551. yor seven counties (see Table A-61, page 205),
more than 70 per cent of these farms W3re occupied by subsistence
operators who consumed more than half of the total value pro
duced.
Table A-lia
S:.--na"y
a.-.d
GounV>.s
Area Cotal
Panel I
Panel II
County
Total
Land Use Averages Per Farm in the
Area for 1939, b^jr Panels
All
Fares
73-8
69-2
75-9
Average Number of
Acres Per Farm in
P10»7-
a'ole
Pas
ture
5-S
h.6
5.9
Wood
land
30.1
21.6
3u.2
Crop
land
26.3
31-9
23-6
Source: Caloi^Lat-sd fron Table A-li.
Banks
Barrow
Dawson
Forsyth
Franklin
Habersham
Hall
Hart
Jackson
LuEpkin
Madison
Habur.
Stephens
TOTCIS
Union
Tlhite
Table A.-57
Idle
land
h.2
2.3
U.8
Kunber and Acreage of Farms, 19UQ and Preliminary
for 19S57 In Northeast Georgia Area py Counties
Number of Fams
19U5
2U,U6l
1,232
1,502
702
1,731
2,267
1,5^8
2,809
2,i4lU
2,«Jt
899
1,879'
955
901
811
1,297
1,050
19UO
23,551
1,370
1,W8
61U
2,009
2,139
1,386
2,U05
2,308
2,223
810.
1,876
1,037
895
710.
1,325
92k
19U5
Farm Acreage
1,782,U55
108,135
9h,5kh
77,301
123,281
!Ji8,709
105,398
21U.285
1)49, 18U
191,302
79,073
15U.972
51,31:5
73,028
1»0,OU1
86,81*2
8U,515
19UO
1,736,893
118,035
9h,h9i
6U,3U
133,192
150,905
99,159
187,712
U»9,311
176,873j
75,375
152, hkO
56,981
73,503
37,616
9U,732
72,235
Source: U. S. Census, Press Release L-U5-6U.
—168—
Suu ....
Engineering
Experiment
Station . . .
Ctorgie
Tah
Indnttrial . .
. . Economic
Rewjrcb . .
The average farm in the
Northeast Georgia Area con
tained 75.9 acres in 1940. Of
this, only 23.6 acrss were
used for crops in 1939. Table
A-4a gives in detail the 1940
division into various uses,
both for the Aroa and for
Panel I and Panel II counties.
Between the 1940 census
and the 1945 census (some
preliminary figures for which
are available), the total
land in farms in the North
east Georgia Area increased
by 45,562 acres and the num
ber of farms by 910, resultiae
in a reduction in size of
lumber Farm
Df Farms Acreage
Change Change
4910
-138
t hh
+ 88
-228
+128
+162
+UOU
4-106
+191
+ 58
+ 3
- 82
+ 6
4 70
- 28
4126
4U5,562
- 9,901;
4 50
+12,987
- 9,911
- 2,196
4 6,239
+26,573
- 127
+1U,29
+ 3,698
+ 2,521;
- 5,636
- Ii75
+ 2,1£5
- 7,890
412,276

Table A-U
Farm Land by_ Use in Acres for the Northeast Georgia
Area, 1939, by Panels and Counties by
Subsistence Groups
£
i
C
-H
1
|
iis
r-( .0 a 3
PU «0 P4 -t-'
mvO H CO rH O\ r*-1A
COiH p-lTivO 0\rH O
CM H H r-l -3 f,
COCUCMNOOX^O^OON
OJOJC--CO OeOONO-=t
OsOH OaoOlAOJlr\
O 1A f1^ f1 * rH CM NO ON D—
_ _ , . ,\A O t*\ CM -J
P- ON H CM OMACO en NO NO r^ir\NO co
3 cou\N U\NO C
NO i-1 P—1A H CO 1A
HHHHHHCMH
f-H O\>OCO O O-CNJ
CMCMrHOJ(-(Cyc\JC\J
--
CMHONOf-NOCONOrHcn
O (Jv O i-l f*"» H U\
CMCOCO f\CVl ONOJ P-tANO
n-\ oj OJ OJ <
-
-S-=Jco (-1 Mao
ONONONP-COIAXAtACO P-
mrr\co P-NO CM rH Q-=r-=t
J-p-O rH CO O1AC5«-lUN
XAP— rH CO -^ CM O OH
fi -^ CM ON CO NO CO
CO
CNO NO c*\ H H
P-co O\cO OSCM
-3-O\vO
HIArH "
—169—
-
-=Tf^
O H ON
H-=TNO
NO OJ m
ON CM r—
NOXAH
O CMCO
NO ON r-
C^l CM O
P-tA CM
•d
&H
|«
1 =
5 nj
ti.»
C T3
-H T»
• W *^
^2i
^S •>
•a o-s
EH J3 ffl
.^ s
to ^-i
0) O •*
n
co cn T3
> ctl H
> J= -d
s: 1 .§£•
9
•a
\& 'I
on to
O t. rt
.38
o> o
&3 1"
i> p Q)
3SS
e s
l« .rj H
«J|
•> 0) 0)
3g«
Sll 1
0) rU t«
o o •
0 0}
• O T3 Jj
co c c 3
2
(0 -P
n
^fi-ja
»S§ c
Q) T3 r^ 'H
^ fl> O -P
II 6§
•V •*
0) *O
!M

the average farm to 72.8 acres. Table A-57 presents the county
detail of this 1940-1945 comparison. It will be noted that in
creases in number of farms occurred in all counties but four
(Banks, Forsyth, Kabua and Union), while nine counties had in
creases in the total land in farms, and seven had decreases.
Table A-l, in three parts, presents a standard series of
agricultural conparisons of the censuses of 1940, 1930, and 1920.
Table A-l
Item
Trends of Important Agricultural Factors for the Periods
I9l9",~l929, and~l939 for the Northeast Georgia
Area by Panels in Numbers and Per Cents
Rural population
Rural farm population
Total land, acres
Land in farms, acres
Number of farms
Average size of
farms, acres
Cotton, acres
Corn, acres
Wheat, acres
Oats, acres
Watermelons, acres
Sweet potatoes, acres
Tobacco, acres
Rays, acres
Snap beans, acres
Cabbage, acres
Tomatoes, acres
Total vegetables, acres
Sugarcane, acres
Peanuts, acres1
Peanuts, acres8
lorses and miles
Total cattle
Sows and gilts
Sheep
Ihickens
For the TOiole Area
1939
171,, 863
130,1,56
2,71i3,OliO
1,736,893
23,551
73-8
168,21,5
2li8,722
36,126
60,890
330
5,357
156
37,367
1,6SU
397
77
3,688
h
1,31,3
102
31,673
51,93k
3,211
1,563
627,102
Values for
1929
167,126
133,518
2,772,ii80
1,733,733
26,751
61i.8
306,916
227,200
11,279
30,835
351,
2,91,8
68
8,807
573
353
112
1,782
1
5io
75
35,292
1*5,791,
2,990
lt,007
51.0,356
1919
185,395
*
2,772,1,80
1,920,599
30,609
62.7
371*, 312
281,708
27,338
10,1*98
150
6,198
123
26,761
159
130
70
590
110
l*3lrf
#
1*1*,895
76,OliO
9.71J*
6,290
71*6,168
State ....
Experi
Station . . .
Grorgia
TVck
Indutrul . .
..Economic
Roeardi . .
Per Cent Tear
is of 19203
1939
91*. 32
97.71
98. 9U
90.1j3
76.9k
117.70
tOt.95
88.29
132.15
580.02
220.00
86.1,3
126.83
139.63
1,01*0.25
305-38
110.00
625-08
3-6ii
309-U5
136.00
70.55
68.30
33.06
2U.85
8U.Oii
Source: U. S. Census, Agriculture and Population for 191,0, 1930,
and 1920. The population, land and animal figures are for the Census
year; crop acreage figures are for the preceding crop year, i.e. 1939,
1-929, 1919.
•^Information not available.
#The U. S- Census, 1920, gives only one figure for peanuts.
'•Planted solid. *Tnterplanted.
*In cases nhere the 1920 figure was not available, the 1930 figure
ras used as a base.
—170—
1929
90.15
100.00
90.27
87.1jO
103.35
81.99
80.65
Ul. 26
293-72
236.00
1,7-56
55-28
32.91
360-38
271-514
160.00
302.03
0-91
117.51
78.61
60.22
30.78
63-70
72.1,2

The first section presents Area totals, and the second and third
sections give totals for counties in Panel I and Panel II. Ex
amination of these tables shows that the 1940 farm population
and the total rural population have decreased since 1920, but
represent an increase over 1930. The average size of farm in
1940 increased over both Z930 and 1920, while the total land in
farms in 1940 is less than in 1920 and about the same as in 1930,
Table A-l (continued)
Suit. . . .
Experiment
Station . . .
Georgia
Tidf
bufaitrul . .
. . Economic
Racarch . .
Item
1919, 1929, and 1939 for the Northeast Georgia
Area by Panels in Numbers and Per Cents
Rural population
Rural farm population
Total land, acres
Land in farms, acres
Number of farms
Average size of
farms, acres
Cotton, acres
Corrij acres
V!heat, acres
Oats, acres
Watermelons, acres
Sweet potatoes, acres
Tobacco, acres
Hays, acres
Snap beans, acres
Cabbage, acres
Tomatoes, acres
Total vegetables, acres
Sugarcane, acres
Peanuts, acres 1
Peanuts, acres2
Horses and mules
Total cattle
Sows and gilts
Sheep
Chickens
1939
1*9,355
141,851
609,280
529,IJ*5
7,651
69-2
78,901
85,258
19,107
29,061
133
1,801
8
13,667
110
2
8
695
2
1*30
51*
11,728
i5.ol.Ji
739
158
195,581*
For Panel I Counties
Values for
1929
ii9,837
1*3,867
611*, 1*00
Ii8l,09l*
9,221)
52.2
133,61*6
69,639
1*,121
11*, 217
112
1,032
**
2,612
1*0
10
12
2liO
—
1552
12,975
13,605
897
181
163,U*2
1919
58,355
*
611*, 1*00
513,853
10,588
1*8.5
159,568
85,736
8,950
1*,682
36
2,161
1*
8,1M 1136
59
59
15J*#
if
U*,93li
21.673
1,051*
72
231,559
Per Cent Year
is of 19293
1939
81*. 58
95-1*0
99-17
103.03
72.26
11*2.68
1*9.1*5
99.1*1*
213- Ii9
620.70
369.1*1*
83-31*
200.00
167.82
1,000.00
66.67-
133-33
1,177-97
3-39
279-22
2,700.00
78.53
69.1*1
70.11
219- 111*
811.1*6
1929
85.1*0
100.00
93.62
87.12
107.63
83-75
81.22
l*6.oli
303.65
311.11
1*7.76
32.07
363-61*
333-33
200.00
1*06.78
100.65
86.88
62.77
85.10
251-39
70.1,5
Sources U. 3. Census, Agriculture and Population for 191*0,
1930, arid 1920. The population, land and animal figures are for the
Census year; crop acreage figures are for the preceding crop year.
i- e. 1939, 1929, 1919.
•Information not available.
#The U. S. Census, 1920, gives only one figure for peanuts.
**Less than three farms reporting.
Planted solid. sjnterpianted.
•in cases where the 1920 figure was not available, the 1930
figure was used as a base.
—171—

There has been a general decrease in the acreage planted
with cotton. The 1919 total of 374,312 acres fell to 305,916 in
1929 and, further, to 168,245 acres in 1939. This has been bal
anced "oy an increase in yield per acre, by increased acreage in
other crops such as -wheat, oats, hay, and vegetables, and, since
1930, by an increase in the nunber of livestock, especially pigs I Indmtrul._
and hogs. The large decrease in livestock numbers between 1920 II • • Ec

The value of products sold, traded, or consumed in 1939 by
the 23,551 farms was $13,223,225, a per farm average of $561.
For the Area as a whole, 44.72 per cent of the farms were Sub
sistence farms, which produced an average of $404 per farm, of
which they consumed, on the average, $265. Nonsubsistence farms
on the average, consumed |175 of their total production.
Enterprise
Cotton
Corn
ffiisat
Co.nnercial vegetables 8
Peanuts 3
Peanuts4
Total Labor Needs
for Crops
Horses and mules 6
Cattle6
Sows and
Shsepe
Chickens (per hundred) 6
Total Labor Needs
for Livestock
Total Labor Needs
for All Enter
prises
Table A-la
Man Labor Needs for Principal Farm Enterprises
in the Northeast Georgia Area
~Igl9, 1929~and 193
Labor
Needs Per
Unit1
10-Hour
Days
13-7
3.1
1.1*
13.5
7.7
3.0
15.9
1.0
3.8
0.8
26.1
1939
Total
Labor
Needs, 10-
Units 1 Hour Days
168,2W
21(8,722
36,126
3,688
1,31*3
102
1(58,226
31,673
51,931*
3,211
1,563
6,271
2,30l*,957
771,033
50,576
1*9,788
10,3kl
306
3,187,006
503,601
51,931*
12,202
1,250
163,673
732,660
3,919,666
Sutr ....
Engineering
Experiment
Station . . .
Grorgia
Ttch
Indottru] . .
. . Economic
Reseircn . .
1929
Total
Labor
Needs, 10-
Units 1 Hour Days
371»,'312
281,708
27,338
590
1*31*#
681*, 382
1*1*, 895
76,01(0
9,711*
6,290
7,lt62
5,128,071*
873,295
38,273
7,965
3,3U2
6,050,91(9
713,331
76,01(0
36,913
5,032
19U.758
1,026,571*
7,077,523
Source: This table is based on Distribution of Man Labor for
Various Georgia Enterprises, a mimeographed report by Firor, King, Camp
bell, and Harper, College of Agriculture, University of Georgia, 191(0,
1The unit for crops is one acre; the unit for livestock is one
animal (except poultry for which it is 100 birds).
2Not including watermelons.
'Peanuts planted solid.
4 Peanuts interplanted. 1939 acreage is used as base, since no data
are available for 1919. Labor requirements estimated. Labor needs
will vary according to proportion "hogged off" (hogging off is the usual
purpose for interplanting peanuts).
6 Inventory numbers on Census enumeration dates. Labor needs for
livestock include only labor used directly with the livestock, i. e.,
"eeding, and do not include labor used in producing feed, or repairing
fences, livestock barns, etc.
U. S. Census, 1920, gives only one figure for peanuts._______
—173—

The development of. the broiler industry during the war pe
riod is the most outstanding'item in the agriculture of North
east Georgia, even though it affects only four counties and a
snail proportion of the farms in these counties.
Trends in Agricultural Labor Needs
Stju ....
EnginKriflg
Experiment
Sutioa . . .
Georgia
Tali
IndniRu! . .
. . Economic
Rocarcb . .
Man labor needs for the principal farm enterprises in the
Kortheast Georgia Area decreased from 7,077,523 in 1919 to 3,919,666 in
1939. The most significant labor need changes occurred for cotton and com
mercial vegetables. Labor needs for cotton declined by more than half,
while they increased over six times for coa-nercial vegetables production.
Shifts in the acreages of various crops resulted in decreased labor
needs for cotton and corn. The important enterprises requiring more labor
were coasereial vegetables, wheat, and peanuts.
Decreasing numbers of animals have resulted in lower labor needs for
horses and miles, cattle, sows and gilts, and sheep. Labor needs for
poultry, particularly broilers, have increased.
Table A-la gives details of labor requirement for the principal crops
and livestock for 1919 and 1939. The decreases for the listed items re
flect a probable increase in maintenance work, transfer from cotton to
vegetables and other nore profitable items, and a decrease in the total
farm population. Since 1939 there has been an increase in vegetable grow
ing in the northern counties which may ultimately affect the economic pat
tern.
In 1939, the agricultural labor force in the Northeast Georgia Area
was 33,221. The 1946 estimate of the agricultural labor force is set at
35,216, practically unchanged although some changes in composition are
indicated.
As already mentioned, there is considerable farm labor need for work
outside of that covered by the principal enterprises shown in Table A-la.
Tliis other labor need will include small farm enterprises such as orchards,
home gardens, green feed crops, soil building crops, and farm nafhtenauce
work such as building and machinery repair work, construction and main
tenance of farm fences, and work in the farm forest lands.
—174—

County Income Classification
Among the 23,551 farmers in the sixteen-county Northeast
Georgia Area who derive their livelihood from 1,736,893 acres of
land, some are prosperous! some are not.
There is a wide variety of reasons for these differences
in prosperity, most of which are associated with the character
and quality of the land or with the specific uses to which the land is be
ing put. The elementary variations are in size, gross income, gross expen
diture, and individual standards or levels of living. Always these varia
tions, due in part to natural resources, in part to factors beyond the con
trol of farmers, and in part to the skills and abilities of the farmers,
should be kept in mind.
Some farms in the Northeast Georgia Area—13,1*32 of them—are operated
by tenants. Others, possibly including some of the tenant-operated farms,
are "Subsistence farms." Some employ tractors, some do not. Some lack
adequate pastures, others have an excessive proportion of their total land
in woodland, yet derive little profit from it. Still others may have no
woodland. The average value of products sold, traded, and consumed in 1939
was $561 per farm, but one farm in six produced less than $250; seven farms
produced more than (10,000 each.
Over the Area as a whole, the farm population represented 65.93 per
cent of the total population in 191(0. The total value of products "sold,
traded, and consumed" by this farm population amounted to $13,223,225 in
1939. The land and buildings employed represented in that year a value
of $37,932,907 (See Table A-6). These things all point to the fact that
the problems of agriculture are important to everyone in the Area, not
aierely to the farmers and their families.
Economically, no two counties in Georgia are exactly the same. Nor
are they the product of exactly the same combination either of land and
the effect of the weather or of people and their actions. The farm econ
omy is exceedingly complex. Farms vary in size, in income, in soil, in
type of crops. Tilth this complex structure is it possible to find a
common denominator which will classify the farms in a county into groups
in such a way as to reveal their capacity for prosperity Can this be
done for the Northeast Georgia Area What groups of farms in the North
east Georgia Area add to the prosperity of the whole Area What groups
fail to do so What kind of farms in the Northeast Georgia Area have
serious problems Admittedly, it is not an easy task to answer these
questions, but if it can be accomplished, even, in part, it is important
to make the attempt.
The farmer is a definite part of the whole community—his prosperity
affects the rest of the community in the same way that the prosperity of
other groups affects farm prosperity. It is important, therefore, to de
termine whet parts of the farm group are more prosperous in relation to
the land they employ and thereby better able to participate adequately
in the life of the community and its economy. It is also important to
determine what parts of the farm group are confronted with problems which
prevent this adequate participation in the community of which they are a
part. Such problems require definition so that not only the farmers but
ths mole community can work for their solution. The point of beginning
is necessarily a consideration of all the farms in Georgia and the
—175— .

development of a plan of classification which can be applied
uniformly to all counties in the state. This will provide a
pattern with which the Kortheast Georgia Area can be compared.
The discussion of the pattern found over Georgia should
be brief and general. For this reason the detailed county
tables and a considerable part of the technical statistical
discussion are being omitted. However, county agents and
Start ....
Engineering
Experiment
Station . . .
Gtoegia
Tick
Industrial . .
. . Economic
Research .
others interested in the theoretical problems are invited to examine the
full details available in the files of the Industrial Economic Research
Department and to discuss them vrith staff members.
The statistical device used to deterndne the Georgia pattern was
based on two sets of data available in the census which distribute the
number of farms en the basis of: (a) the number of farms at different
levels of total productivity (income), and (b) number of farms at varying
sizes. The ratio between these two is used as a basis of classification.
This incone-size ratio and the per cent figures on which it is based are
being studied as a generally useful statistical measure of the composite
economic effect of the multiple factors affecting land and the equally
multiple factors applying to people and their actions.
The data ir. each of the two base series have been combined into five
groups. At each level numbers of farms in the income and size-of-farm
segments were made as nearly equal as was practical within the limitations
of the data.
Table A-2 Table A-2 gives
Level
High
Highi^.cdle
JlLddle
LowiLLddle
Low
Number and Per Cent of Farms in Georgia
by Income and Siz~Segments, 1939
Unc: assified
Tot; 1
Income
Range
Over
$2,500
$1,500
$2,h99
$1,000
$l,li99
$ 600
$ 999
Under
$ 600
Fare Income
Distribution
Number
Farms
6,727
10,595
21,1.38
51,599
125,052
622
216,033
Per
Cent
3.11
U.90
9.92
23.89
57.8
0.29
100.00
Per
Cent
3. 80
5.51.
10.77
26.51
53.38
100.00
Source: Calculated, from Table A-3b.
—176 —
Size-of-Farm
Distribution
Number
Farms
8,216
11,967
23 ,262
57,276
115,312
216,033
Size
Range
Acres
Over
380
220-
379
1UO-
219
70-
139
Under
70
in detail the de
scriptions of the
five income and
the five size-offarm
segments and
presents for
Georgia the num
ber of farms and
the per cent of
the Georgia total
represented by
each segment in
each group.
Table A-2
also shows a third
figure derived by
dividing (for each
level) the income
per cent (Line A
in table) by the
size-of-fam per
cent (Line B in
table). This fig
ure is called the
Income-Size Ratio
and is shown in
Table A-2a on
Line E. ,
The tern
"farm income" as

used i-i this discussion represents the "value of products sold,
traded, and consumed" as shown for 1939 by the census, flhile
this is not, strictly speaking, an income figure, it is the
closest figure available 'on a county basis with sufficient de
tail for statistical manipulation^ classification, and analysis.
The term "income" then may be considered as being used for the
sake of brevity in reference.
Sure ....
Engineering
Experiment
Station . . .
Georgia
T«c»
Industrial . .
. . Economic
Research . .
In the classification of counties on the basis of these three series
of figures, the procedures described in the following paragraphs have been
employed.
Panel Division; The counties of the state were first divided into
two groups on the
Table A-2a
basis of whether or
not the income-size
Income-Size Ratios and Per Cents of All Farms in ratio at the Middle
Five Income Segments and Five Size-of-Farm level was unity or
Segments for Georgia by PanelsTor 195
greater, or less
than unity. The 61
High
Low
•a counties with a
High: Middle sltddle: Middle: Low:
o> Middle income-size
-H
Over 31500- $1000- $600- Under CM ratio of unity or
•H
1
$21(99; «2li99; S1U99; $999; $600 M greater have been
CO
Over 220- lliO- 70- Under i-t a called Panel I
380 379 219 139 70
Counties, the 98
Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres 1 counties with Mid
dle income-size
A 3.11 U.90 9.92 23.39 57*89 0.29 ratios of less than
B 3.60 5.5U 10.77 26.51 53.38 unity have been des
R 0.32 0.88 0.92 0.90 1.08 ignated as Panel II
Counties.
Suonary
Georgia
Panel I
Panel n
A
B
R
A
B
R
U.22
3.99
1.06
2.29
3.67
0.63
7.U6
5.58
1.3U
3.01
5.51
0.55
lii.W
9.35
1.35
6.5U
11.32
0.55
28.27
2S.'j3
1.11
20.6k
27.31
0.76
W.23
55.65
0.81
67.26
51.69
1.30
0.33
0.26
Source: Calculated from Table A-3b.
1The values s'uovm on each of the three lines for
each area are: A - Per Cents for Income Segments;
B - Per Cents for Size-of-Farm Segments; H - Income-
Si7.e Ratio. The income-size ratio (R) is obtained by
dividing the income per cent (A) by the Size-of-Farm
per cent (B).
It was the gen
eral thought when
t'-iis division was
made that Panel I
Counties would prove
to be counties in
which intensive 1
farming was predomi
nant. Fnen all the
counties in the
state of Georgia had
been so classified,
it was discovered
that all but seven
Panel I Counties were
located in South Georgia and all but sixteen Panel II Counties in North
and Middle Georgia. It also appears to be generally true that intensive
farming predominates in the Panel I Counties, but it is not quite so cer
tain that extensive farming predominates in the Panel II Counties. Appar
ently the Panel II Counties should be extensive farming counties, but are
iBecause the data being considered deal with the "whole farm" and
"all farm products" the terms inteng _e_ and extensive are used to indicate
a relatively high income per acre or a relatively low income per acre for
the wiiole farm.
—177—

not because of excessively high percentages in both the Low
incone segaent and the Low size-of-farm segaent.
The circumstance that the number of subsistence farms
often is more than half the number of fahns of less than 70
acres in size probably contributes to this, but data are lacking,
to detemine what proportion of all subsistence farms fall in
to the Low size-of-farm segment, or into the Low income seg
ment.
Groups A, B, and C: A second method of classification suggested by
the large Low level percentages in many Panel II counties was a broad
classification on the basis of the size of the Low income segment. This
classification placed the 52 counties in which the Low InccnE segment vras
less than 50 per cent of all farms in the county in Group A; the 63 coun
ties in which the Low income segment was above 50 per cent and not over
70 per cent in Group B; and the UU counties in which the Low income segaent
was over 70 per cent in Group C. Group A counties proved to be predoainantly
in South Georgia, while Group C counties were very largely
located in North Georgia.
Panel-Group Relationships; The distribution of the three groups A,
B, and C over Panels I and II is indicative of the general tendency for
agreement between the bra classifications, even though they also tend to
overlap, rather than represent an end to end ordering. In Panel'1, Ijl of
the 52 counties in Croup A occur, 16 of the 63 Group B counties, and only
U of the kli Group C counties. This indicates a close affinity between
Panel I and Group A since two-thirds of all Panel I counties are Group A,
and four-fifths of all Group A counties are Panel I.
In the same way Panel II seems to be associated with both Group C and
Group B. Slightly over nine-tenths of all Group C counties are in Panel
H; four-ninths of the counties in Panel II are Group C counties. So far
as Georgia is concerned, a similar though less intense relationship exists
between Panel II and Group B. About three-fourths of all Group B counties
are in Panel II and almost half of the counties in Panel II are Group B
counties. It appears probable, however, that this reflects distortions
resulting from unsolved problems of farm manage-
Panel Panel ment, since it would ordinarily be expected
Group I II Total that Group B should provide more nearly equal
proportions of each of the two panels. The
A III 11 52 distribution of counties between panels and
B 16 U7 63 groups is listed to the left.
0 k kO bk
Total 61 98 159 The following general statements have been
developed from the examination of individual
counties as reflecting the meaning of the Panel division.
1. All Panel I counties produce more income per average acre in
farms than do Panel II counties.
2. The average per fara income is lower in Panel II counties than
in Panel I counties.
3. Host extensive farming should be found in High or High-Kiddle
size-of-farm segments. Extensive farming may appear in either Panel I or
Panel II.
k. Over Georgia as a whole, Panel II counties appear to be counties
in which extensive farming is practiced, but in which most farius are in
tensive,
—178—

5. In both panels, income-size ratios for High, High-
Middle, Middle, or Low-Middle segments which are greater than
the average are indicative of farm prosperity. In the same way,
a Low-Middle ratio which is less than a Low-Middle ratio for
the same Georgia panel will usually indicate a greater than
average farm prosperity if the shift of Incomes is toward the
Kiddle level.
6. For both panels, ratios for all segments which vary only slight
ly (not over 0.10) from unity (1.00) indicate a reasonable balance between
the use of land and the capacity of farm people, but so far no measure of
prosperity for this case has been clearly deduced for Panel I. The as
sumption that some degree of "greater than average prosperity" exists,
however, is probable, even though, for Panel I, a complete logical proof
is absent. For a Panel II county this state of balance would indicate
that the county was definitely above Panel H standards and was probably
in transition between the two panels.
If it were possible to compile a complete list of" «n the factors—
geologic, geographic, climatic, economic, sociological, and even, political,
which in varying degrees contribute to the income segment per cents and
size-of-farm segment per cents and the resulting five income-size ratios,
one would have a list whose total length might easily range beyond five
hundred describable items. It is regarded as reasonable, however, that
most of these factors will tend to follow the pattern indicated. Good
farm managers, for example, will either have good land or improve the poor
land with which they start.
One result of such a multiple complex is that from end to end of the
list of 1$9 counties in Georgia, it is difficult to find a sufficient num
ber of uniform and mutually exclusive classifying factors by which the
list can be broken into groups and the individual counties within those
groups ordered. It appears probable that neither the two panels nor the
A, B, and C groups fit together in an end-to-end sequence, but as is illus
trated in Chart A-51, the top county of Group B stands at a point somewhat
above the middle of Group i, while Group C takes a position with its top
county somewhat lower than the top county in Group B. it present, a sat
isfactory statistical device for determining this arrangement has not been
developed.
Basic Principle; If every other factor were equal, the income produced
from one acre of land would be the same as from any other acre in
the state. If this were true, then, of course, the two columns of per
cents in Table A-2 would be exactly alike, the two columns of number of
farms would show exactly the same figures for both income and size-offarm
opposite each level, and the farms shown under income and size-offarm
for each level would actually be the same identical farms.
Variations Significantt All things are seldom equal. One farm with
less than 70 acres will appear in the size-of-farm part of the table as
Low, but from an income viewpoint, if the farm operator harvests twice as
much tobacco as the average Low size farm or milks four cows instead of
none, this same farm may be in the Middle segment with an income of almost
$1,500. Similarly, not all land has the same- capacity to produce, while
the weather and other hazards limit one farm and aid another and the skill
of individual farmers varies.
The variation between the income and the size-of-farm per cents pro
vides a means of measuring the advantages and disadvantages of each in
come-size seement, or level. These measurements reflect differences be-
—179--

tween the size-of-income segments within a county (or compared
with other areas) and Bake possible comparisons of the ratio
of incone-tc—size for an individual county with the ratio for
the sane segment for an area or its panels, or for Georgia or
the Georgia panels.
First Eight
Counties
ir. Group A
Sub-group a
Table A-55
Minimum Levels Which Will Absorb All Tenant
Fares for First, and Last~Eight Counties
in Table A-5I7 Georgia, 1959"
1. Cook
2. Atkinson
3. Tirt
k* Irwin
5- Turner
6. Pierce
7. Dooly
8. Crisp
Last Eight
Counties
in Group C
Sub-group c
33. Pickens
3u. Heard
35. Gilraer
36. Hancock
37. Talbot
33. Troup
39. Dawson
UO. Chattahoochee
Highest Segment in Which
Soae Tenant Farm
Must Occur
Size of
Farm
Low-Middle
Low
Low-Middle
Low-Kiddle
Low-Kiddle
Low
Law-Middle
Low-Kiddle
Low-Middle
Low-Kiddle
Lor
Low-Kiddle
Low-Kiddle
Low-Middle
Low-Middle
Kiddle
Farm
Income
Kiddle
Middle
Kiddle
Middle
Middle
Low-Middle
Middle
Kiddle
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
LOT
Low
Low
Per
Cent
Ten
ants
60.2
51.5
66.3
72.3
75.0
50.5
69.2
71.8
50.3
60.1
37.3
73.9
62.0
56.0
5$.h
61.7
Per Cent of
Farms in Low
and Low-
Middle Seg
ments
Size
of
Farm
82.UU
73.72
77.68
75.29
83 .OU
77.82
7U.11
7U.87
73. U8
76.28
71.78
70.28
7S.3U
71.98
75.57
hk.2h
•
Farm
In
comes
Ii9.32
U9.85
W.85
57.82
61.70
6h.Lb
55.29
63.31
95.00
96.91
95.18
93.03
89.65
90.69
97.39
90.60
State ....
Engineering
Experiment
Scition . . .
Georgia
Tec*
InduftrijI . .
. . Economic
Research . .
Tenant Farms
Analysis of
Groups A., B, and
C2 indicates the
following conclu
sions with re
spect to tenant
farms in Georgia:
1. There is
only a very gen
eral relation
ship between the
relative posi
tion of a county
and the per cent
of tenant farms,
even though the
counties with
tenancy rates be
low kO per cent
occur more fre
quently in Table
C and Panel II.
2. In the
most prosperous
counties, the
tenant fams are
nore prosperous
than the aver
age Georgia farm.
3. In the
least prosperous
counties, the
tenant farms are
less prosperous
than the average
Georgia farm.
h- In most counties, however, the indication is that tenant farms
vary froa the state average only to about the extent that farms in the
county vary.
No data are available by which the number of tenant farms can be dis
tributed by either size-of-farm or farm income segments. If, however, one
assumes that all of the tenant farms are concentrated at the lowest level
Table A-51 on which this analysis is based is not included in this
report, but is available for inspection at the State Engineering Experiaen,'
Station. Georgia School of Technology.
—180—

Table A-3
Per Cent of Farms in Income and Size-of-Farm Segment
with Income-Size Ratios for Northeast Georgia
Area Total Number of Farms and Per Cent
of Tenant Farms by_ Counties
Line Key:
A - Income Segment Per Cent1
B - Size-of-Farm Segment Per Cent
R - Income-Size Ratio
Summary
and
Counties
Area
Panel I
Panel II
0>
c
3
A
B
R
A
B
R
A
B
R
High:
Over
$2500;
Over
380
Acres
0.98
0.81
1.21
1.01
0.52
1.91*
0.6
0.96
l.CO
Panel I Counties
Barrow A 1-37
B 0.7
R 5.07
Hart
ABRABR 1.13
0.39
2-90
Forsyth
O.li5
0.35
1.29
Madison A 1.17
BR 1.07
1.09
Panel II Counties
Franklin A 0.61
B 0.38
R 1.61
Rabun A 1.16
" B 1.06
R 1.09
High
Middle:
$1500-
$21*99;
220-
379
Acres
1.93
2.59
0.75
2.76
1.58
1.75
1.53
3-07
0.50
2.88
1.72
1.67
3.38
1.26
2.68
3-14
l.W*
2.18
1-149
2.02
0.71*
1.82
1.87
0.97
2.60
2.51
1.01.
Levels
Middle:
$1000-
$11*99;
11(0-
219
Acres
5.87
7.75
0.76
9-15
6.16
1.1*9
1(.30
8.52
o.5o
11.25
5.90
1.91
10.18
5.59
1.82
6.92
5.03
1.38
8.61,
8.26
1.05
6.17
7.C1
0.88
5.21
6.91*
0.75
Low
Middle.
$600-
$999;
70-
139
Acres
22.3U
28.21*
0.79
28.28
28.78
0.98
19.1.8
27.97
0.70
'32.51
27-09 -
1.20
30.1*6
26.1*7
1.15
23.29
28.37
0.82
27.67
33-37
0.83
28.80
31-1*6 •
0.92
17.71*
13-79
1.29
Low:
Under
$600;
Under
70
Acres
68.69
60.61
1.13
58.62
62.56
0.93
73.51*
59.1.8
1.21.
51.65
65.02
0.79
51*. 81
66.29
0.83
66.10
61..81
1.02
60.71
55.28
1.10
62.60
59.28
1.06
73.19
75.70
0.97
Number
Farms
23,551
7,651
15,900
1,1*58
2,308
2,009
1,87*
2,139
1,037
Per
Cent
Tenan
Farms
57.0
67.3
S2.1
65.1
71.3
62.1
69.6
6U.5
33.2
Source: Calculated from Table A-3b.
Small numbers of farms were shown by census as "unclassified"
for income. For this reason, the per cents on tine A will lack from
0.00 to 0.76 of adding to 100 per cent.
--1S1—
State ....
Engineering
Experiment
Station . . .
Georgia
Tec*
Industrial . .
. . Economic
Research
Sum
High,
High
;Middle,
Kiddle
8.78
11.15
0-79
12.92
8.26
1.56
6.79
12.55
0.5k
15.70
7.89
1.99
1U.69
7.21*
2.03
10.51
6.82
1.51*
11.30
11.35
0.99
9.60
9-26
0.93
8.97
10.51
0.65

in each set of segments, it is possible to determine the seg
ments into which the tenant with the largest farm and the ten
ant with the highest farm income will fall.
For the eight counties In the top sub-group of Group A all
tenant farms can be absorbed by the Low and Low-Middle siae-offarn
segments in all but two counties. For the two exceptions,
the per cent of faras in the Low size-of-farm segment is greater
State ....
Engineering
Experiment
Sutitra . . .
Georgia
redi
Indaetiu] . .
. . Economic
RtfciTcb . .
than the per cent of tenants. For the income segments, however, in every
case but one, the tenant per cents were greater than the sum of the Low-
Middle and .Low income per cents, so that some tenant farms of necessity
must have had farms incomes at the Middle level.
In contrast, the last eight counties in Group C show that, while in
every case but two the per cent of tenant farms was less than the sum of
the Loir-Kiddle and Low size-of-farm per cent, in every case the per cent
Summary
and
Counties
c c
3
High
Over
$2500;
Over
380
Acres
Table A-3 - Continued
High
Middle :
$1500-
$2k99;
220-
379
Acres
Panel T£ Cpunties - Continued
Jackson 1 1.62
BRABE 1.39
1.17
White
0.21
0.87
0.2k
Hall
A 1.62
BRAB 0.71
2.28
Habersham
1.88
l.kk
E 1.31
Luarpkin 1 0.36
BRABRABRABRABRABR 1.55
0.23
Stephens
0.90
1.23
0.73
Banks
0.58
0.66
0.88
Union
0.30
0.63
0.36
Towns
0.27
O.Ik
1-93
Dawson —
1.96
—
2.U7
3.15
0.78
0.87
k-33
0.20
2.0k
3.28
0.62
l.kk
3.10
O.k6
1.19
k-87
0.2k
l.i.5
2.1*6
0.59
o.Si
3.06
0.17
0.83
2.kl
0.3k
0.27
0.9k
0.29
0.33
7.k9
0.0k
—182—
Middle:
$1000-
$lk99;
IkO-
219
Acres
5.53
7.92
0.70
5-95
8.66
0.6
5-k9
9-27
0.59
2.81
6.35
O.kk
3.92
10.9k
0.36
2.68
7-37
0.36
2.92
11.2k
0.26
2.k2
9-7k
0.25
0.81
k.32
0.19
2.12
lk.98
O.Ik
Low
Middle:
$600-
$999;
70- "
139
Acres
2k.56
28.39
0.87
23-38
22.83
1.02
21.33
28-kO
0.75
13-93
22.01
0.63
16.29
33-06
O.k9
13-kl
3l.8k
O.k2
19-05
38.76
O.k9
15-09
26.3k
0.57
5-kO
20.78
0.26
11.56
33-39
0.35
Low
Under
$600;
Dnder
70
Acres Number
Farms
65.59
59-15
1.11
69-59
63-31
1.10
69-27
58.3k
1-19
79-51
67.10
1.18
78.12
k9-58
1.58
8l.k5
57-10
l-k3
76. 9k
k6.28
1.66
80.60
60.68
1.33
93-25
73-82
1.26
85.83
k2.l8
2.03
2,223
92k
2,k05
1,386
8kl
895
1,370
1,325
7kl
611;
Sun
Per .High,
Cent High
Tenant Middle,
Farms Middle
66.1
36-7
56.2
k5-2
k5.22
5k-5
6k-2
32-9
3k. 3
55-k
9.62
12.k6
0.77
7.03
13.86
0.51
9.15
13.26
0.69
6.13
10.89
0.56
5.k7
17-36
0.31
5.C3
11.06
o.k5
k.Ol
lk.96
0.27
3.55
12.98
0.27
1.35
5.kO
0.25
2.k5
2k. h3
0.10

Surmsary
and
Counties
Table A-3b
Number of Farms for 1939 in the Northeast Georgia Area
Distributed~ly the Flve"lncome and Size-of-Farm
Segments by Panels and Counties Tilth
Comparisons Tilth Georgia
(Farms in the income groups are shown in Line A
Those in the size groups are shown in Line B.)
Area Total. .... .A
B
Panel I ...... .A
B
Panel II. ..... .A
B
Panel I Counties
Barr-ow. ...... .A
B
Hart. ....... .A
B
Panel II Counties
3
Panel I ...... .A
B
Panel II. ..... .A
B
B
B
B
3
B
Highs
Over
$2500;
Over
330
Acres
230»
192
77*
ho
153*
152
20*
14
26
9
9*
7
22*
20
13*
• 8
12*
11
36*
31
6,727*
8,216
3, 3814*
3,668
2,81(3*
li,51*8
High
Middle-.
$1500-
$2l»99j
220-
379
Acres
l»51i*
609
211
121
2l»3*
Ii88
k2
25
78
29
63
29
28
38
39
ItO
27
26
55
70
10,595
11,967
6,862
5,132
3,733*
6,335
Middle:
$1000-
$11*99 ;
lltO-
219
Acres
1,333
1,825
700
1471
683
1.35J*
I61i
86
235
129
139
101
162
155
132
150
5k
72
123
176
21,1438
23,262
13,320
8,598
8,113
11,6614
Low
jaddle:
$600-
$999;
70-
139
Acres
5,261
6,650
2,16U
2,202
3,097
li,Wj8
Itfli
395
703
611
1468
570
519
626
616
673
1814
Hi3
5U6
631
51,599
57,276
25,988
23,383
25,611
33,393
Low:
Under
$599;
Under
70
Acres
16,178
111, 275
1*,U85
It,3l7
11,693
9,1458
753
9W
1,265
1,530
1,323
1,302
1,139
1,037
1,339
1,268
759
735
1,158
•1,315
125,052
115,312
U.,533
51,159
83.U69
61i,l53
State ....
Eo gin tiring
Experiment
Station . . .
Gforoia
TtA
Industrial . .
. . Economic
Research . .
Total
Number
of
Farms
23,551
7,651
15,900
l,«8
2,308
2,009
1,376
2,139
1,037
2,223
216,033
91,9140
12)4,093
Sources U. S. Census, Agriculture, Georgia, 19UO, First Series, Table
1 and Third Series, Table. 18.
*In most cases where figures were omitted by the census because "less
than three farms reported," it has been possible to determine whether the
missing figure for a county was 1 or 2. Where this could not be done, 1
was added to more nearly balance the table.
'•Small numbers of farms were shown by census as "unclassified" for
income. For this reason, the figures on Line A will lack from 0 to 10
of adding to the total number of farms in the county.
—183—

of tanas in the Law income segment was greater than the per cent
of tenant farms, so that all the tenants on fauns in the Low-
Kiddle size-of-farn segment (and those in one county where some
tenant fauns must have been in the Middle slze-of-fam segment)
could have produced incooes at the Low level.
Table A-55 presents data from Groups A and C on which the
foregoing coitnent is based.
Northeast Georgia Area
SUM . ...
Experiment
Stzrion . . .
Groroia
Tec*
lAdutriul . .
. . Economic
Rocarch . .
The evaluation of the farm income pattern for Northeast Georgia is com
plicated by an unusual condition resulting from the popularity of the North
Georgia hills as a place of residence. For the Area as a whole, ltl*.72 per
cent of all farms are classified as Subsistence fams* In Habun, Wiite,
Lunpldn, Stephens, Union, and Towns counties, more than three-fourths of
the farms are Subsistence farms, and Habersham and Dawsor. have Subsistence
farm percentages just below this figure.
Some of these Subsistence farms are occupied by tenants, as is in
dicated by the fact that the per cent of tenant-operated farms was greater
than the per cent of an non-subsistence farms.
while it is not possible to segregate the Subsistence or the tenant
groups for other figures in the 1939 census, it appears probable that for
the high-subsistence counties: (1) most, but not all, of the Subsistence
s See pages 212 to 217 for more detailed discussion of Subsistence
farms.
Counties
Unite. ....... A
B
Hall ........ A
B
B
Banks. ....... A
B
B
B
B
B
B
Table
High:
Over
*2500;
Over
380
Acres
2*
8
"3Q*.
17
26*
20
3*
13
Oj.
11
6*
9
It*
11
2*
1
12
—184—
A-3b - C/ontinued
High
Middle:
$1500-
*2l»99;
220-
379
Acres
ho
1*9
79
20
1*3
10
1*1
13
22
7
1*2
11
32
2*
7
2*
I»6
Itiddle:
$1000-
*H*99;
11*0-
219
Acres
55
80
132
223
39
88
33 92
21*
66
ho
151*
32
129
6
32
13
92
Low
Kiddle:
$600-
*999s
70-
139
Acres
n-t£
211
513
683
193
305
137
278
120
285
nf-\
531
31*9
1*0
151*
71
205
Low:
Under
*599;
Under
70
Acres
61*3
585
1,666
1,1

Item
Table A-3c Snt. . . . .
Ejifiaccriaf
Comparison of Income-Size Ratios, Income Segment Per InEIT*"1
Cents and Slze-of-Farm Segment Per Cents for Gnxfit
Northeast Georgia Area by Panels with , . Tl^1,
Those for Georgia Segments . . Ecomonk
High:
Over
$2500;
Over
380
Acres
High
Middle:
$1500-
$21*99;
220-
379
Acres
Middle:
$1000-
$11*99}
11*0-
219
Acres
Lotr
Middle:
$600-
$999;
70-
139
Acres
Low:
Under
$599
Under
70
Acres
—
Unclas
sified
Distribution of Farms by Income Segments
Panel I
Georgia
Northeast Georgia
Difference
Panel II
Georgia
Northeast Georgia
Difference
1*.22
1.01
-3.23*
2.29
O.S6
-1.33*
7.1*6
2.76
-U.70*
3.01
1.53
-1-1*8*
U*.l*9
9.15
-5.3KC
6.51*
1*-30
-2-21*
28.27
28.28
+0.01*
20.61;
19.1*8
-1.16*
1*5.23
58.62
+13-39*
67.26
73-51.
+6.28*
0.33
0.18
-0.15
0.26
0.1
-0.07
Distribution of Farms by Size-of-Farm Segments
Panel I
Georgia
Northeast Georgia
Different
Panel II
Georgia
Northeast Georgia
Difference
3-99
0.52
-3-1*7*
3.67
0.96
-2.71*
5-58
1.58
-l*.oo*
5.51
3.07
-2.1*1**
9.35
6.16
-3.19*
11.82
8.52
-3.30*
25.1*3
28.73
+3-35*
27.31
27.97
+0.66*
55.65
62.96
+7-31*
51.69
59. U8
*7-79*
Panel I
Georgia
Northeast Georgia
Difference
Income-Size Ratios
Panel II
Georgia
Northeast Georgia.
Difference
1.06
1.91*
+Q.38*
0.63
l.oo
tO-37*
1.31*
1.75
to.l*i*
0.55
o.5o
-o.os*
1-55
1.1*9
-O.O^f
0.55
o.So
-0.05*
1.11
0.93
-0.13*
0.76
0.70
-0.06*
0.81
0.93
+0.12*
1.30
1.21*
-0.06*
*This difference is indicative of a tendency toward a more profit
able situation.
*This difference is indicative of a tendency toward a less profit
able situation.
~185--

farms are actually in the Low and Low-middle levels; and (2)
tost of the non-subsistence farms are in"the High, High-middle,
and Kiddle levels for size-of-farm, and, for the income classi
fication, some will be in Low-middle level.
State ....
Expfrimtat
Station . . .
Obviously, the amount of land suitable for purely comnercial
fanning is limited by the roughness of terrain in most of
these counties and by the presence of mountains, the Chatta-
Inlutiul . .
Economic
hoochee national Forest, and the numerous power reservoirs. Some of these
counties are entirely off the railroad, and it is only recently that there
were ar.y paved roads other than through highways.
Four of the seven Panel I counties north of the fall line are in the
Northeast Georgia Area. Three of these four counties are south and east
of the Chattahoochee 7alley. The fourth (Forsyth) represented the begin
nings of the broilfir industry in the Area, in 1939- In general, it ap
pears that trends in the first, three, Barrow, Hart, and Madison, are
indicative of the possibilities of intensive farming in the entire section
south of the Chattahoochee, including Hall, Jackson, Madison, Franklin,
Banks, and Stephens.
All four of the Panel I counties in 1939 fell in Group B, described
on fags 178. Three of the twelve Panel II counties, Franklin, Jackson,
and iKhite, also were in Group B. These three are among the top four
counties in Panel II. All the remaining Panel II counties were in Group
C. Ko Group A counties occurred in the Northeast Georgia Area.
On the basis of the comparisons shown in Table A-3c between the in
come segment, size-of-farm segment per cents, and the income-size ratios
for the Northeast Georgia Area and for Georgia, all but three df the
thirty comparisons are indicative of some unfavorable situation. With
out question this is a result of the high Subsistence farm ratio and is
not to te regarded as applying unifomly to all counties.
The following paragraphs discuss the 1939 situation in each of the
sixteen counties in Northeast Georgia*
Panel I Counties
Barrow County; Barrow, one of the eight smallest counties in
Georgia, was apparently the number one county in the Northeast Georgia
Area in 1939 fron the viewpoint of per-fana income. All of the five in
come-size ratios (Table A-3) were above 1.00, except the Low incomesize
ratio, which was less than 1.00. This indicates that, at every
size-of-fare level, farms were producing incomes at rates well above ex
pectation, and hence for all levels was favorable.
The combined effect of the five ratios indicates that there is a
definite trend for farms in the smaller size segments to product incoines
expected at higher size segments.
On the basis of the size-of-income segments in the Northeast
Georgia Area, Barrow county ranked fourth at the High level, third at
the Kigh-Tiddle and first at the Kiddle level. The income-size ratio
rar-kings for Barrow county in 1939 were: High, first; High-Btiddle, third;
ard 12.ddle, first. While the High segments were not large (1.37 per
cent of all farms in Barrow county had income above $2,500, and 0.27
per cent of all farms had more than 380 acres of land}, most of the farms
—136—

producing incomes at the High level were obviously classified
in a smaller size-of-farra segment, a very favorable factor. -"" • • • •
This probably reflects a prosperous condition for many of the
65.1 per cent of all farms operated by tenants.
Barrow county falls in Group B (with Low income segments
between 50 and 70 per cent of all farms in Georgia) and ranks
fourteenth among the Panel I counties in Group B., In Barrow
EafinMriflf
Experiment
Station . . .
Georgia
Tnh
Industrial . .
. . Economic
Rcseiich . .
county, 51.65 per cent of all farm incomes were under $600. The per cent
of all farms operated by tenants (Table A-12) is 65.1. This per cent is
almost identical with the Low size-of-farm segment per cent (65.03 per
cent of all farms with less than 70 acres of land) but exceeds by 13-li5
per cent the 51.65 per cent of all farms having incomes of $600 or less.
This very definitely means that somewhat more than one out of four tenant
farmers in Barrow county must have had a 1939 income above $600.
The per cent of farms in the subsistence group was 2U-21—less than
the Georgia figure of 31.03 per cent, and well below the Area average of
ljlj.72. Moreover, subsistence fanning is in general more successful in
Barrow county than in other counties in the Area. The average farm income
from Subsistence farms in the Area is $ljOl). In Barrow county the average
is $ii59 (See Table A-lit).
Hart County; From the viewpoint of income for the average farm in
each of the five income-size levels, Hart county seems to rank next to
Barrow county in the Northeast Georgia Area. The High, High-middle,
I'iddle.and Low-middle income-size ratios (Table A-3) were all above 1.00,
while the Low income-size ratio was less than 1.00. This indicates that
at every size-of-farm level some faros were producing incomes at rates
v;ell above expectation. The combined effect of the five ratios indicates
that there is a definite trend for farms in the smaller size segments to
produce incomes expected at higher size-of-farm segments.
On the basis of the size-of-income segments, Hart, county ranked sixth
ir. the Northeast Georgia Area at the High level, first at the High-middle,
and second at the Kiddle level. In 1939, the High income-size ratio for
Hart county ranked second in the Northeast Georgia Area, the High-niddle
ratio ranked first in the Area, and the Middle ratio ranked second.
While the High segments were not large (1.13 per cent of all farms
in Hart county had incomes above $2,500, and 0.39 per cent of all farms
had nore than 380 acres of land), the income-size ratio of 2.90 seems to
indicate that large farms were more desirable than small farms in Hart
county in 1939, although, obviously, most of the farms producing incomes
at the High-middle level were classified in lower size-of-farm levels.
Hart county also falls in Group B (Low income segments between 50 and
70 per cent of all farms), ranking sixth among the Panel I counties in
Georgia with a Low income per cent of 514-81. The per cent of a!3 farms
operated by tenants (Table A-12) is 71-3. This tenancy per cent is close
to the Low-size-of-farm segment per cent (farms with less than 70 acres
of land) but exceeds by 16.1i9 per cent the 5U.81 per cent of all farms in
the county having incomes cf $600 or less. This points to the fact that
about three out of every ten tenant farmers in Hart county must have had
incomes at least above $600 in 1939.
There were 2,308 farms in Hart county in 1939, ranking the county
seventeenth among the 159 counties in Georgia. Table A-3 shows an
—187—

income-size ratio for 1939 of 1.82 for Hart county at the Middle
level, ranking the county sixteenth in Georgia with respect to
this ratio. The same table shows an income-size ratio of 0.83
for Hart county at the Low level. It is seen from Table A-3
that, while 66.29 per cent of all farms in the county had less
than 70 acres of land, only 5U.81 per cent of them produced in
comes which were under $600. Thus, 12.1;8 per cent were able to
produce incomes at higher levels. Farms at the Middle size
Suit ....
EififlccriBf
Expcriaunt
Station . . .
Tidt
.
. . Eonoaic
Roczrch . .
level appear to have been the most prosperous in Hart county in 1939. Only
U-33 per cent of »n farms in 1939 were Subsistence farms, and the average
income of these was |Ubl, above the Area average of
Forsyth County* Forsyth county in 1939 presented a slightly mixed
picture of income and farm size relationships, a condition which perhaps
reflects the beginnings of the broiler industry. The High, High-middle,
and Middle segments mi had income-size ratios above 1.00, but the three
segments represented only a total of 10.51 per cent of the number of farm
incomes and 6.82 per cent of the number of farms in the size-of-farm group.
Table A-3 shows an income-size ratio based on 1939 data of 1.38 for
Forsyth county at the Middle level, ranking the county thirty-eighth in
Georgia with respect to this ratio. The same table shows an income-size
ratio of 0.82 for the Low-middle level and of 1.02 for the Low level, in
dicating that some condition unfavorable to farm prosperity existed in
Forsyth county in 1939. It is seen from Table A-3 that, while 66.10 per
cent of the farms in the county produced incomes which were under $600,
only 6k. 61 per cent of them were classified at the Low size-of-farm level
(less than 70 acres of land). It is evident that farms of Low-middle
size were the ones which produced incomes at other levels. Farms of
Middle size were probably the most prosperous ones in the county in 1939-
There were 2,009 farms in Forsyth county in 1939, ranking the county
twenty-eighth among the 159 counties in Georgia. Subsistence farms were
28.67 per cent. While Forsyth county ranks third in the Panel I counties
in the Area, Subsistence farming is on a relatively low scale as is indi
cated by the fact that the average income of $k02 from Subsistence farms
is below the Area average of IhQh- Forsyth county fell in twelfth place
for Panel I, Group B, for the state.
Madison County; The picture of farm prosperity in Madison county in
1939 was only average. There was a slightly favorable excess of farms with
incomes at the High level over farms in the High size-of-farm segment and a
similar excess at the Middle level. However, the sum of the per cents of
the Eigh, High-middle, and Middle segments for farm income (11.30 per cent)
and for size-of-farm. (11.35 per cent) practically balance. At the Lowmiddle
and Low levels, U-30 per cent of the farms of Low-middle size had
incomes at the Low level.
Table A-3 shows an income-size ratio, based on 1939 data, of 1.05 for
Madison county at the Middle level, ranking the county sixty-first in
Georgia with respect to this ratio. The sane table shows an income-size
ratio of 1.10 for the county at the Low level, indicating that some con
dition unfavorable to farm prosperity existed in Madison county in 1939.
It is seen from Table A-3 that 55.28 per cent of all the farms in the
county had less than 70 acres of land, whereas 60.71 per cent of them
produced incomes which were under $600. This means that 5-lt3 per cent of
all the farms in the county which were classified at size-of-farm levels
higher than the Low level failed to produce incomes at the expected
levels. Examination of the figures for the High, High-middle, and Middle
—183—

levels indicated that farms at the High-middle and Low-middle
size levels were the ones which failed in 1939 to produce in
comes comparable to their size. There were 1,876 farms in
Madison county in 1939, ranking the county thirty-sixth among
the 159 counties in Georgia.
The Subsistence farm per cent was 27.67, below the figure
for Georgia. The average income of Subsistence farms in Madison
county ($507) is the highest in the Area. Madison county in 1939 was
eighth in Georgia for Panel I, Group B.
Panel II Counties
Franklin County; Franklin county, as a Panel II county, should have
had higher per cents in the High, High-middle, and Kiddle size-of-farm seg
ments than occur in Panel I. This, however, is not the case. Like the
other Panel II counties in Northeast Georgia, Franklin county has less than
ten per cent of its farms in the three top segments, either on the basis
of the size-of-farm or the size-of-income distribution. Increases in the
sizes of farms which in 1939 were either Low-middle or Low, to bring them
into the High-middle and Middle levels, appear desirable. Such increases
in the size of farms would provide the basis for establishing pastures
and growing feed crops necessary for profitable livestock operations.
Table A-3 shows an income-size ratio of 1.06 for Franklin county at
the Low level; 59.28 per cent of all the farms in Franklin county had less
than 70 acres of land and 62.60 per cent cf them produced incomes under
$600. Examination of the figures indicates that some farms at the Highmiddle,
Middle, and Low-middle levels failed to produce incomes at the
expected rate in 1939. It is probable that most of the farms at the Mid
dle and Low-niddle size levels produced incomes of Low level (under $600)
and that many of the farms of Middle size which did not produce incomes
at the Middle level were able to produce incomes at the High level. Since
the shift of incomes was definitely toward the Low level, it appears that
some factor in 1939 affected agriculture adversely in Franklin county.
There were 2,139 farms in Franklin county in 1939, ranking the county
twenty-third among the 159 counties in Georgia.
The Subsistence farm per cent was 20.29, below the Georgia figure of
31.03 for 1939, and well below the Area average of Ui.72 per cent. Frank
lin county ranks third in the Area with $U5l in average value of products
on Subsistence farms. Franklin county ranked forty-first in Panel H,
Group B for Georgia.
Rabun County; Rabun county is one of fouri Northeast Georgia
counties in which" the per cent of Subsistence farms exceeds the per cent
for Low income farms shown in Table A-3. For Rabun county, this Sub
sistence farm per cent was 88.91, while only 73-19 per cent was shown
for low incomes in 1939. The amount of usable land is somewhat limited
and the scenery is attractive to those who might wish to retire and
"live on a farm."
The status of the remaining 11.09 per cent of "all farms which may be
regarded as "commercial 11 , i.e.,operated with the objective of profit, is
indicated by the income-size ratios for the High, High-middle, Middle,
*The four counties are Rabun, Towns, Dnion, and Khite. For the
state a fifth county, Gilmer, has more Subsistence than Low-income farms.
—189—

and partly by the Low-middle levels. The income-size ratios of
1.09 for the High level and of l.OU for the High-middle level
are indicative of favorable conditions for a few large operators,
probably using slightly less land than usual, while the incomesize
ratio of 0.75 for the Kiddle level and of 1.29 for the Lowciddle
level reflects some condition on Middle and Low-middle
size farms (perhaps lack of markets) which adversely affects
There were 1,037 farms in Rabun county in 1939, ranking the county
ninety-fourth among the 159 counties in Georgia. Rabun county ranked
sixth in Georgia for Panel n, Group C counties in which the Low segment
income per cents were above 70 per cent. In 1939, one-third of all the
fanes in Rabun county were tenant farms. Since 88. 91 per cent of all
fares are Subsistence fares, a ninimum of 22.11 per cent (or two-thirds
of the 33.1 per cent classified as tenants) are also Subsistence farms.
Hence i". is reasonable to suppose that nest of the tenant and Subsistence
fares ir. Rabun county produced incomes at the Low level. Rabun county
ranked fourth in average value of products on Subsistence farras, with
|id(2. It ranked sixth .in Panel II, Group C counties for Georgia.
Jackson County: The 65-59 per cent of all farm incones in Jackson
county in 1939 under $600 puts this county in Group B. All income-size
ratios are below unity except for the High and Low segments; this does
not indicate a healthy farm economy- The figures in Table A-3 seem to
indicate that about one out of every ten farm incomes of less than $600
(Low segment) were produced on farms for the High-middle, Biddle, and
Low-aiddie size-of-farc segments. Tenants operate 66.1 per cent of all
farms, a figure which is slightly larger than the 65-59 per cent of all
farss with incones below $600; this indicates that some tenants must
have incomes above $600.
There were 2,223 farns in Jackson county in 1939, ranking the county
twenty-first among the 159 counties in Georgia. The per cent of all farms
in the subsistence group in 1939 was 27.98; and the average income of
Subsistence farms in the county ($1»35) is well above the Area average of
$uOlj. Jackson county ranked fifteenth in Panel II, Group B counties for
Georgia.
White County: The data in Table A-3 reflect a series of peculiar
ities for Dhite county. Only 7.03 per cent of all farms are in the
three top levels on the basis of income and only 13.86 per cent on the
basis of size-of-fara. This results in very small incoine-size ratios
for the High, High-middle, and Middle levels. The large per cent, 77.16
of all farms in the Subsistence group is a major factor in this, since
not all of them can fall in either the Low income or size-of-farm levels.
It seems probable that some Subsistence farms with incomes in Low-middle
level ($600 to $999) are of Kiddle or High-middle size. The average
value of products on Subsistence farms in TJhite county was $k21. The
Low-ciddle segment appears to have been the one in 1939 in which a norieal
income situation was most likely. Tenants operated only 36.7 per
cent of all farns, hence it is possible that practically all tenants
produced incomes under $600 since the Low income segment per cent is
aljcost twice the per cent of tenants. This, however, may not be so un
less nearly all tenants were also on Subsistence farms. There were 92k
fares in White county in 1939, ranking the county 113th among the 159
counties in Georgia. White county ranked forty-second in Panel II,
Group B counties for Georgia.
--190--

Hall County; The Income-size ratios and segment per cents
for Hall county present a very mixed picture. The only favor
able income-size ratio, 2.28, is that for the High level, which
very probably reflects the operations of dairies serving Gainesville.
The High segment per cents, however, were small in 1939,
as were the High-niddle and Kiddle segments, reflecting the
69.27 per cent of all farms which had 1939 incomes of less than
$600 (Low level).
State ....
Engineering
Experiment
Sution . . .
Cnrgia
Tfth
Industrial . .
. . Economic
Research . .
There were 2,li05 farms in Hall county in 1939, ranking the county thir
teenth among the 159-counties in Georgia. Table A-3, based on 1939 data,
shows an income-size ratio of 0.59 for Hall county at the Middle level,
ranking the county lOlith in Georgia with respect to this ratio. The sane
table shows an income-size ratio, based on 1939 data, of 1.19 for Hall
county at the Low level, indicating that some condition unfavorable to
farm prosperity existed in Hall county in 1939- It may be seen from Table
A-3 that 58.3J» per cent of all farms in the county had less than 70 acres
of land but that 69.27 per cent of them produced incomes under $600. It
is also evident, from examination of the corresponding figures for higher
levels, that some farms classified at the High-middle, Middle, and Lowidddle
levels failed to produce incomes at the expected levels. There
was a slightly higher percentage of farms classified at the High income
level than at the High size-of-farm level. The difference is 0.91 per
cent of all farms in the county. Apparently some farms of High-middle,
Kiddle, and possibly even of Low-middle size were able to produce in
comes at the High level.
The tenancy per cent of 56.2 produces a complication when considered
with the Subsistence per cent of bO.W, since both will not fit into the
Low income per cent of 69.27. Many people living on Subsistence farms
are obviously industrial workers and others employed in Gainesvil]e, but
it is apparent that some farms are in both the Subsistence and the Tenant
groups, that some tenant farms and some Subsistence farms have incomes
which are above $600, and that some of each group are very likely above
70 acres in size.
The average value of products on Subsistence farns is $389, below the
Area average. Hall county ranked sixteenth in Panel II, Group B counties
for Georgia.
Habersham County; The 79-51 per cent of Habersham county farms
which in 1939 had incomes of less than $600 puts the county in Group C,
with a Panel II rank in the group of seventh for the state. On the Kid
dle income-size ratio, Habersham county ranks 127th, with O.Wi. The
1.88 per cent of all farm incomes (Table A-3) with l.Wi per cent in the
size-of-farm segment produced a High level income-size ratio of 1.31.
All other income-size ratios were unfavorable and indicative of some farm
problem. , It is very probable that the rugged character of the land re
sults in the inclusion of much actually unusable land in the reported
size-of-farm. The Subsistence farm group was 72.58 per cent of all farms.
The per cent of farms operated by tenants in 1939 was lt£.2, so that all
tenant incomes could have been included in the 79.51 per cent of farms
with incomes under $600 (Low), but again, if this were the case, they
would probably have been mostly on a subsistence basis. More probably,
the tenants were scattered over all levels.
It may be seen from Table A-3 that, while 79.51 per cent of all the
farms in Habersham county produced incomes under $600, only 67.10 per cent
--191--

of them had less than 70 acres of land. It is obvious from a
comparison of the corresponding figures for the higher levels
that some of the farms at the High-middle, Kiddle, and Lowmiddle
size levels failed to produce incomes at the expected
levels. Apparently, some of the farms at these levels were able
to produce incomes at the High level, while the greater part of
them produced incomes at the Low level. The average income from
Subsistence farms in Habersham county was only $381i.
There were 1,386 farms in Habersham county in 1939j ranking the county
sixty-first among the 159 counties in Georgia. Habersham county ranked
ninth it Panel H, Group C counties in Georgia.
Lumpkin County; Lumpkin county is another in which a large proportion,
72.58 per cent, of all farms are Subsistence farms, and the average value
of products on Subsistence farms was only $383. These facts and the i»5-22
per cent of farms operated by tenants are factors in the low per cents in
the three top levels, which contain only 5-1*7 per cent of all farm incomes
and 17.36 per cent of all farms classified on the basis of size.
All of the income-size ratios are below unity except in the Low level,
a clear indication that farming opportunities are somewhat limited. Only
individuals with a well-thought-out plan are likely to achieve success.
Lumpkin county ranked thirtieth in Panel II, Group C counties for Georgia.
In 1939, there were only 8iil farms in Lumpkin county. One limiting
factor in increased farming is the mountainous character of the land and
the large proportion of land in forests, most of which are in the Chattahoochee
National Forest.
Stephens County; Just over half (53-63 per cent) of the farmers in
Stephens county were subsistence" farmers. Tenant fanners were an almost
equal group, 51*-5 per cent. It seems more probable that in this case both
subsistence and tenant groups are very largely in the Low income level,
which includes 81.1(5 per cent of all farms, and are divided between the
Low (57.10 per cent) and Low-middle size-of-farm levels. A noticeable
proportion of tenants are probably also in the subsistence group. This is
not statistically demonstrable except to the extent that a nriTHimim of 8.13
per cent of farms must be in both groups. This appears to suggest that in
1939 some problem affected the prosperity of the tenant group. The aver
age value of products on Subsistence farms is only (383- Stephens county
ranked twenty-third among Panel H, Group C counties for Georgia.
Banks County; The general situation in Banks county appears similar
tc that in Stephens, although a little more unfavorable. Tenants operated
6U.2 per cent of the farms. The census classified 58.54 per cent as Sub
sistence farms. The probability appears that there is a very considerable
overlap between these two groups and that most of both are included in the
71.9U per cent of »n farms with incomes in the Low level. Of necessity,
both the tenant group and the subsistence group must include most of the
farms in two size-of-farm levels, the Low size group of 1*6.28 per cent and
the Low-niddle size group of 38-76 per cent which total 85-0'* per cent.
All o" this is highly indicative that, in 1939, some serious problem af
fected the tenant group.
All the income-size ratios are below 0.50 except the High and Low
levels. Neither the High level ratio of 0.88, nor the Low level value of
1.66 can be regarded as reflecting favorable farming conditions. Banks
--192--

county ranked twenty-fourth among Panel H, Group C counties for
Georgia.
Union County; There were 1,325 farms in Union county in
1939-oT~this total, 92.30 were Subsistence and only 32. per
cent were tenants. This definitely suggests that most of the
farms are not really farms in the true sense, but represent
only the subsistence idea. This is perhaps natural, since Union
county, while one of the older counties, has been relatively more isolated
since railroads have been built in other parts of the area. This former
necessity for self-sufficiency is reflected in the fact that, in Georgia,
only in Union and three adjoining counties does the per cent of Subsistence
farms exceed the per cent for the Low income level.
The economic condition of the 7.70 per cent of all farms which are nonsubsistence
is then generally indicated by the income-size ratios for the
thrse top levels—all of which for 1939 were extremely low and, as a re
sult, indicative of possible difficulties. The average income from Sub
sistence farms in Union county ($li!2) is above the area average of $ltOli.
Union county ranked twenty-eighth among Panel II, Group C counties for
Georgia.
Towns County; Towns county is another of the four counties in North
east Georgia in which the Subsistence farms (95.82 per cent of all farms)
exceed the Low income farms (93.5 per cent). Only 3U.3 per cent of the
7ljl farms in the county are tenant farms. Host of these, however, must
obviously be Subsistence farms. The overlap between the tenant farms and
the Subsistence farms in 1939 must have been at least 30.12 per cent of
all farms.
The small number of farms included in the 7*18 per cent which are
non-subsistence are apparently included in the High, High-middle, Middle,
and about half of the Low-middle levels. The segment per cents for the
top three and the income-size ratios for all four describe their economic
position in 1939. Only the High level income-size ratio of 1.93 gives an
indication that favorable conditions existed. Apparently, some of the
farms in the two top size-of-farm levels (High and High-middle) have in
comes smaller than should have been expected. This interpretation, how
ever, is limited by the small number of farms in the non-subsistence
classification. The average income from Subsistence farms in Towns county
($286) is the lowest in the Area. Towns county ranked twentieth among
Panel H, Group C counties for Georgia.
Pawson County; While the Subsistence farm group in Batrson county in
1939 was 73.62 per cent of all farms, the Low income group (Table A-3) was
larger, 85.83 per cent. The tenant farm per cent was 55.1* per cent. Ho
farm incomes above $2,U99 were shown in Table A-3. All the income-size
ratios were extremely low except for the Low level, which was high so that
all represented unfavorable conditions. Dawson county has an average value
of $3Ui of products on Subsistence farms, next to the lowest in the Area.
Dawsou county ranked thirty-ninth in Panel n, Group C, for Georgia.
—193—

Agricultural Characteristics
Tne farm income discussion in the preceding section on
County Income Classification was based primarily on the relation
ships between incor.e-size groups and size-of-farra groups. In
this section, devoted to the Agricultural Characteristics of the
Kortheast Georgia Area, incone is approached in the nore conven
tional framework of simple averages, crops, type of farm, and
srrdlar criteria.
Sutc ....
Engineering
Experiment
Surioa . . .
GrorOM
Tteh
IndoBtrul . .
. . Economic
Research . .
r^ Ir.ceae; The total value of all farm products sold, traded, and
consumed in Ilortheast Georgia for 1939 was $13,223,225. The average farm
income of the 23,551 farms for the same year was $561 (see Table A-15),
$207 less than the 8768 average for all farms in Georgia. The relatively
low income of farns in the Northeast Georgia Area is due in large part to
the predominance of Subsistence farns. A comparison of Tables A-6l and
A-15 indicates that in counties where the number of Subsistence farms was
highest, farn incoces tended to be lowest. A Subsistence farm is defined
as one on which fare products used by the fans household are more than half
the total fara income, and ordinarily have little effect on the pattern of
an area. However, in Northeast Georgia, since Subsistence faros comprise
Wi.72 per cent of the nuaber of farns in the Area, they become an important
factor in interpreting the farm picture. The Subsistence farms with an
average ir.con-.e of $UOli contribute only 32.2 per cent of the total farm inccce
(Table A-Sa). For seven counties, 70 per cent or more of all 'farms
are Subsistence farns.
Kost of the fane income of the Area
Table A-8a
Per Cent of Faros by Types for Number
and Inccna with i.'uaber-Incone Ratios
for northeast Georgia Area
Type of Fara
Dairy
Horticultural
Specialty
Forest Products
Livestock1
Poultry
Fruits and Nuts
Vegetables
Field Crops
Subsistence
Not Classified
Total
Per Cent
of Area Total
Number
»f
Farms
O.ljD
0.03
0.31
0.37
1.29
0.32
O.T5
51.59
Ui.72
0.61
100.00
Farm
Income
2.11
O.Oij
O.US
0.58
3.63
2.72
0.61
57.13
32.20
0.53
100.00
Ratio
Col.2
to
Col.l
Source: Percentages calculated
froa Table A-10.
1 Includes "Other Livestock."
--194--
5.28
1.33
1.U5
1.57
2.81
8.50
1.69
1.11
0.72
0.37
is fron field crops, although the
51.59 per cent of all farms clas
sified as field crop farns is be
low the state figure of 88.3 per
cent. Field crop farms produced
57-13 per cent of the total farm
income. Field crops are also the
chief source of cash income on
the Subsistence farms in the Area.
Table A-10 shows the incomes
by types of farms in the Area in
1939. Those with the largest av
erage income were: (1) fruit and
nut farms, with an average income
of $U,795; (2) dairy farns,
$2,965; and (3) poultry farms,
$1,535. The types which pro
vided the largest income totals
for 1939 were: (1) field crop
farms, 87,55M73; (2) Sub
sistence farms, SU,257,U50; and
(3) poultry farms, $U80,138.
However, the poultry farm
group, which in 1939 ranked third
in both average and total income,
is now the most important farm
income source in the Area, be
cause of its expansion during the
war to a point where the annual
value of it product is equal to

the 1939 value of an farm products in. the Area. The broiler
industry in Northeast Georgia, the beginnings of which can be
Table A-10
seen in the poultry
figures for 1939,
Total and Average Value of Products Sold, has become the sec
Traded and Consumed by Farms in
ond largest of the
the Northeast Georgia Area
four sections in
the United States
Type
of
Farm
All Farms in Area:
Dairy
Horticultural
Forest products
Livestock1
Poultry
Fruits and nuts
Vegetables
Field crops
Subsistence
Not classified2
Total
Suit ....
Engineering
Experiment
Station . . .
Tich
Industrial . .
. . Economic
Research . .
-*- ————— —— ———— "- «rM^>] Bimnlv t.ho Kill IT nf t.Vio
Num
ber
of
Farms
9k '8
73
88
303
75
8k
12,151
10,531
•Mil,
23,551
Amount
All Farms in Panel I Counties
Dairy
Horticultural
Forest products
Livestock1
Poultry
Fruits and nuts
Vegetables
Field crops
Subsistence
Not classified 2
Total
16
2
8
15
15U
1It
5,873
1,5U8
30
7,651
All Farms in Panel II Counties
Dairy
Horticultural
Forest products
Livestock 1
Poultry
Fruits and nuts
Vegetables
Field crops
Subsistence
Not classified 8
Total
78
6
65
73
1U9
7k
80
6,273
8,983
nh
15,900
Total Value
of Products
$ 278,689
5,703
58,993
77,107
359^616
8l,W7
7,551i,178
1;,257,U50
69,911*
$13,223,225
ft 36,608
*
75,501
226,939
*
781
3,897,363
700,Wl
19,137
ft il,39U,352
$ 359,616
5,703
53,501
69,606
253,199
359,616
80,656
3,656,815
3,556,969
50,727
ft 8,328,873
(Cbntinued on page 196)
—195—
Per
Farm
$5>,

cream, condensed or evaporated milk, and powdered milk products.
Table A-8 gives the per cent of the number of farms and of
Incomes by types, irlth the number-income ratio. This ratio in
dicates to what extent each type of farm contributes to the farm
income of the Area. In 1939, fruit and nut farms contributed
Table A-10 - Continued 8.50 times their
nronortionate
Type
of
Farm
Value of Products by Type of Farms
All Fauns in
Counties Over 70
Subsistence Farms
Dairy
Horticultural
Forest Products
livestock1
Poultry
Fruits and nuts
Vegetables
Field crops
Subsistence
Not classified8
Total
All Farms in
Counties Under 70f
Subsistence Farms
Dairy
Ho rticultural
Forest Products
livestock
Poultry
Fruits and nuts
Vegetables
Field crops
Subsistence
Not classified8
Total
Number
of
Farms Amount
21
1
50
3U
5o
5o
75
868
5,661
58
6,868
73
7
23
5k
253
259
11,283
U,870
86
16,683
457,393 *
32,5U3
31,062
Ii7,527
255,00k
77,376
520,195
2,200,109
28,1,3°
221,296
5,703
26,1,50
1,6,01,5
U32.611
101,, 612
lj.,061
7,033,983
2,057,010.
Ui.WS
9,973,277
Per
Farm
|2»733
65*
9Ui
951
5,100
1,032
599
389
1*90
U73
3,031
815
1,150
853
1,710
U,181«
1*51
623
U22
U82
598
Source: 0. S. Census, Agriculture,
Georgia, 19ltO, Third Series, Table 19. Col,
3 is calculated by dividing Col. 1 into Col.
2.
irtThere only three farms reported, data
are not included.
1And "Other livestock.*
22he Bot Classified item includes
under number of farms those farms with no
value of products reported. The values in
Cols. 2 and 3 represent the county figures
omitted by the Census where less than three
farms reported in a particular type and is
shown only to balance the table._________
—196—
Sttl* ....
EafOMtriaf
Expcrimtnt
Station . . .
Grarpi*
T«h
Indamul . .
. . Economk
Roeirtb . .
share of the income; dairy
products, 5-28 tines; and
poultry, 2.81 times. The
fact that the types of farms
bringing the largest incomes
are relatively few in number
indicates conditions which
tend to keep farmers out of
these higher income-produc
ing types of farming. Among
these conditions are:
1. Market limitations,
which may discourage the en
trance of new producers into
the higher-income-producing
farm types.
2. Kisk, usuallygreater
in the more profit
able types of farming and
often discouraging to new
producers.
3. Management require
ments and the need for more
constant labor and super
vision.
It- Capital limitations,
frequently difficult or im
possible to overcome.
If «1.J farms are con
sidered, there are relatively
few large incomes in the
Area1. If it were possible
to eliminate completely the
Subsistence farms, it is ap
parent that, in the seven
counties with very large Sub
sistence *"ara groups, the
proportion of large Incomes
in the remaining non-subsist
ence farms would be greater
than normal, even though no
basis exists for assuming
that the number of non-sub
sistence farms can be greatly
increased.
IfaBle A-3, pages 181
and 182.

Subsistence Income; Distinct from the Subsistence farm as
a type is "subsistence farming" or the "live-at-home" plan as
practiced by non-subsistence farms. For all farms, both Sub Expeitatnt
sistence and non-subsistepne, the subsistence income, or the Station . . .
Cmrfia
value of products consumed by the f'arn household, is a measure TKh
of the extent to which the farra family follows the "live-at- IndBJtrial . .
. . Economic
home" philosophy. Table A-63 gives the value of products con- Reieaitb . .
suiied in the Northeast Georgia Area in 1939 by levels of con
sumption, arranged in descending order of the per cent of Subsistence Tarns.
There are seven counties in the Area in which over 70 per cent of the farms
are Subsistence farms. These counties in general have higher values of
products consumed at all total income levels than do those with more normal
subsistence per cents. This may indicate that in the Northeast Georgia Area,
especially in the northern counties where Subsistence fara averages are
highest, subsistence faming is a wholesome way of living, rather than a low
standard of farming. The census estimates of crop values enter into this
subsistence value on the same basis as for »n other crops—the average
market value—and nothing is added for the value of farm processing. In
other words, farm consumption averages would be much higher if products
consumed were appraised on the basis of the value paid for similar products
by an industrial family.
Even in high income levels, where few Subsistence farns are likely to
be found and where the farms in counties of high Subsistence farm rates
are likely to be non-subsistence faros, farm consumption is still at a
high level. For example,in Rabun county (see Table A-63) the 26 farms in
the $1500 to $2tt99 level, which are not reasonably Subsistence farms, have
the highest value of consumed products at that level. The example of the
neighboring Subsistence farms may explain the fact that subsistence was at
a high level' even on non-subsistence farms in counties where Subsistence
fan averages were higher, or it may be the greater isolation, which prob
ably also accounts for the high proportion of Subsistence fams. On the
average, all Northeast Georgia farm households in 1939 consumed 38.17 per
cent of all they produced, |5,0i;7,956 (Table A-15). Among the types of
farms, on an Area basis, fruit and nut farms had the highest average
value of products consumed, $272. Subsistence farms were second with a
consumed value of J265. The lowest value shown in Table A-8 was |173 for
field crop farms.
The difference between the high and low values consumed in different
counties in the* Area are much less than usual, since In many Georgia
counties,farms in the Specialty group frequently have consumption totals
which are well below a hundred dollars.
Types of Farming
All the farms in the Northeast Georgia Area are divided into three
groups in Table A-8. These are:
Croup I-
Group I: General purpose farms
Group II: Specialty farms
Group HI: Subsistence farms
General Purpose Farms
General purpose farms are those which have field crops as the prin
cipal source of Income. In general, field crop farming can be engaged in
lith a minimum of capital and risk, and the working year is relatively short.
—197—

Succar7
and
Counties
Table A-56
Yields and Nuriber of Trees for Selected Fruits
and Berries for Northeast Georgia Area
in 1939 by Counties
Banks. ....
Barrow ....
Bawson ....
Forsyth ....
Franklin. . . .
Habershac . . .
Hall. .....
Hart. .....
Jackson ....
Lumpkin ....
Madison ....
Stephens. ...
Union. .. ...
White. ....
Smeary
and
Counties
Area Total. ...
Barrow ....
Bawson ....
Forsyth ....
Franklin. ...
Habersban ...
Kail .....
Hart. .....
Jackson ....
LiLipkin ....
Madison ....
White. ....
Farms
Report
ing
.11,228
805
1)71
222
1,091
870
603
1,213
919
771»
1496
771
701)
Ii36
W6
789
588
Farms
Report
ing
2,151.
91
102
36
331
162
89
29U
222
126
su
150
96
88
118
89
106
Apples
Bushels
10i6,li20
I6,9li0
5,888
8,685
20,66
12,139
130,703
2l),375
15,023
9,396
11,033
9,93lt
100,ti7li
11,016
20,922
2lj,05l
25,169
Cherries
Pounds
110,905
2,967
U,336
2,921
11,021
3,771)
7,762
16,202
10,1:65
3,300
2,1471!
1),273
3,587
6,725
13,873
9,101
7,811
Yield, 1939
Bearing
Trees
298,608
.13,952
14,672
14,925
12,382
i2,5ia
95,032
23,163
9,089
6, 3714
7,820
6,l481i
38,690
9,291
13,252
18,560
22,381
Bearing
Trees
11,203
U25
605
192
1,616
815
501)
1,607
902
529
229
550
379
565
956
76U-
565
Farms
Report
ing
10,261;
811
570
185
1,090
978
U85
1,207
l,Cii7
901
1467
962
199
Il22
131
276
533
Farms
Report
ing
3,537
311
1140
21
379
291
205
• 10)6
' 269
280
11U
227
2104
1U1
76
233
160
Peaches
Bushels
1)82,052
36,195
10,1314
6,01)8
27,1)90
19,2li7
177,616
2l4,U;5
23,319
93,126
10,508
20,li62
1,698
10,026
1,305
3,622
16,811
Grapes
Pounds.
1)23,288
33,059
18.59U
1,351)
20,933
23,0142
37,037
145,659
140,066
28,583
17,958
20,356
142,693
11,319
10,857
104,076
27,702
Smt ....
Engineering
Experiment
Station . . .
Gtargia
T«*
Industrial . .
. . Economic
Research . .
Bearing
Trees
U25,09S
26,820
10,819
3,795
18,979
18,61)1
135,2214
25,li05
•16,10)5
116, 108
9,1)65
15,653
2,013
7,771;
1,971
6,122
9,551
Bearing
Vines
Source: U. S. Census, Agriculture, 191)0, Second Series, Table 111.
—198—
2l(,597
l,80li
3,209
89
1,L55
l,i>60
1,526
2,162
1,1)17
1,67k
SOh
810
3,010
I,0li6
263
1,71)5
2,1)23

Summary
and
Counties
Area Total. . . .
Barrow ....
Dawson ....
Forsyth ....
Franklin. ...
Habersham ...
Ii_-jn
Hart .....
Jackson ....
Lumpkin ....
Uadison ....
Stephens. ...
White. ....
Table A-56 - Continued If Sutc ....
Engineering
Experiment
Held, 1939 | Station . . .
Georgia
Tid,
Figs
Strawberries [ndastrul . .
. . Economic
Research . .
Farms
Farms
!L
Report
Bearing Report
ing Pounds Trees ing Quarts Acres
2,11*7
21*9
150
117
296
5o
217
287
357
1*
308
91
1
20
171*, 665
Hi, 116
11,615
1*,926
20,563
3,31*1,
16,61,0
30,778
33,839
77
33,339
i*,100
*
1,328
5,332
560
383
31*1
61*3
130
726
697
925
1*
675
210
*
38
Number of Trees
580
33
21
6
88
99
7
72
21
91
61
9
33
1*
16
17
51*,1*37
2,885
2,29
162
6,390
8,010
553
7,332
1,689
15,261
1*30
3,301,
907
2,0li7
688
876
1,611
112
7
5
i
23
15
1
16
18
*
9 1
1*
1
3
5
Summary
and
Counties
Area Total. ...
Banks. ....
Barrow ....
Dawson ....
Foroyth ....
Franklin. . . .
Habersham ...
Hall .....
Hart . . . .' .
Jackson ....
Lumpkin ....
Uadison ....
Stephens. ...
White. ....
Farms
Report
ing
13,838
920
716
262
1,319
1,159
700
1,530
1,206
920
51*9
1,093
798
513
51*6
966
61*1
Apples
Not
Bearing
Trees
63,578
2,101
2,109
2,11*6
5,01*3
l*,07l*
7,338
5,1*06
3,308
1,773
2,815
3,289
8,1*1,5
2,167
2,660
9,631
1,273
Bearing
Trees
298,608
13,952
U.672
1*,925
12,382
12,51*1
95,032
23,163
9,089
6,371*
7,820
6,1,81*
38,690
9,291
13,252
18,560
22,381
^-Information withheld to avoid disclosure.
Farms
Report
ing
12,881*
93li
810,
219
1,328
1,239
571
1,521*
1,332
1,061,
502
1,21,5
308
512
231
1*53
578
Peaches
Not
Bearing
Trees
99,10*1*
12,1*8C
l*,237
3,255
6,673
5,523
17,51*2
11,205
5,876
20,682
1,211*
1*,578
861*
2,589
568
1,1,56
702
Bearing
Trees
1*25,095
26,820
10,819
3, -795
18,979
18,61,1
135,221*
25,1*05
16,1*1*5
116,1*18
9,1,65
15,653
2,013
7,771*
1,971
6,122
9,551
—199—

Summary
and
Counties
Table A-56 - Continued
Kumber of Trees - Continued
Farms
Report
ing
Cherries
Not
Bearing
Trees
Bearing
Trees
Farms
Report
ing
Grapes
Bearing
Vines
State . , . .
Enffflcefiaf
Experiment
Station . . .
Grorffta
Txh
Indutrial'. .
..EtOWBic
Rotarcb . .
Bearing
Vines
Area Total. ...
Barrow ....
Cawson ....
Forsyth ....
Franklin. ...
Habersham . . .
IT--I -[
Hart .....
Jackson ....
Lumpkin ....
lladison ....
Stephens. . . .
Unite. ....
l»,36l
197
21,7
70
599
375
188
601,
h28
251
83
337
18U
185
202
232
179
28,882
2,81,9
10,179
1,679
1,881,
1,668
983
5,265
578
958
130
1,67
256
361
797
591
237
11,203
1,25
605
192
1,616
815
501,
1,607
902
529
229
550
379
565
956
761,
565
li,962
1,00
261,
33
572
te6
267
625
381,
360
135
333
302
207
106
323
225
57,919
2,953
22,222
15,077
2,763
1,201,
289
3,022
359
1,225
532
388
1,226
1,17
U,718
756
768
21,, 597
1,801,
3,209
89
1,155
I,li60
1,526
2,162
1,10.7
1,67U
501,
810
3,010
1,01,6
263
1,71,5
2,1^3
Figs
Strawberries
Sumnary
and
Counties
Area Total. . . .
Barrow ....
Dawson ....
Forsyth ....
Franklin. ...
Habersham . . .
Hall .....
Hart .....
Jackson ....
Lumpkin ....
Madison ....
Stephens. ...
white. ....
Farms
Report
ing
3,016
312
289
2
203
395
75
3U3
390
U35
7
1*20
h
115
1
25
Not
Bearing
Trees
1,725'
211,
311,
*
72
18U
50
329
125
181
20
177
26
23
10
Bearing
Trees
5,332
560
383
3ia
61,3
130
726
697
925
1»
675
210
*
38
Farms
Report
ing
580
33
21
6
88
98
7
72
21
91
61
9
33
1,
16
17
Acres
112
7
5
1
23
15
1
16
3
18
«
9
1
U
1
3
*Tnformation withheld to avoid disclosure.
—200—

Consequently, it is attractive to many farmers, even though the
chances of large gain are small. Field crop farms represented
51-59 per cent of the total number of farms in the Northeast
Georgia Area and contributed 57.13 per cent of the farm income.
The average farm value of field crop farms was $622, ranking next
to last of the nine classifications given in Table A-10.
State ....
Enfincfriilf
Exptriaat
St*tkm . . .
Grorffta
Tick
Ifldaftrul . .
. . Economic
Rararcb . .
Field crop farmers who find this type of farming most at
tractive may increase their income by working into their programs, on a
small scale if little risk is desired, some type of specialty farming, such
as beef cattle, poultry, sheep, vegetables, or fruit. The larger the enter-
Table A-59
Counties
Over 7C/f
Subsistence
Farms
Towns
Union
Rabun
flhite
Lumpkin
Daws on
Habersham
Total
Under 70*
Subsistence
Banks
Stephens
Hall
Forsyth
Jackson
Kadison
Barrow
Franklin
Hart
Total
Area Total
Panel I
Panel H
Georgia
United States
Poultry and Poultry Products Sold in the Northeast
Georgia Area in 1939 bgfype of Farms
Panels and Counties by istence Groups
Poultry Farms
Dollar
Value
* 737
12,57k
6,350
2,039
633
5,758
28,091
6,168
20,1*13
77,61*3
117,831*
26,952
16,067
17,873
19,267
302,222
330,313
153,168
177,11*5
2,016,105
259,760,700
Per
Cen1
0.33
2.17
1.39
0.55
0.29
0.71
0.36
0.91*
It. 92
5.61
10.13
1.96
1.61
1.U3
1.23
3.03
2,5o
3.13
2.13
1.21
3.32
Field Crop Farms
Dollar
Value
$ 710
1,01*1*
1,858
5,51*9
3,1*13
1,613
5,159
19,31*6
5,881
5,821*
21*, 199
36,338
22,1*18
17,530
H*,82l*
23,722
31*, 366
185,102
20l*,l*l*8
103,058
101,390
1,81*1«,1,75
98,563,075
Per
Cent1
0.32
0.18
0.32
1.21
0.92
0.71*
0.63
0.60
0.90
1.1*0
1.75
3.13
1.63
1.50
1.1*9
1.90
2.19
1.36
1.55
2.11
1.22
1.11
1.26
Other Farms
Dollar
Value2
* 23,21*6
1*3,367
11,521*
11,031*
13,723
6,1.37
18,370
128,201
9,658
7,063
20,390
U*,t*12
10,1*1*8
8,526
1*,799
6,712
1,690
83,898
212,099
29,627
182,1*72
1,277,528
197,087,923
Source: U. S. Census, Agriculture, Georgia, 191*0, Third Series,
Tables 19 and 17.
1 The per cent figures a re per cent of total value of products sold,
traded, and consumed in the Area, Panel, County, or by Subsistence Group
2 Col. 5 is calculated b y subtracting Col. 1 and Col. 3 from the
totals in Table 17.
—201—
Per
Centf
10.35
7.1*9
1.98
2.1*1
3.69
2.91.
2.31
3-91*
1.1*8
1.70
1.2*7
1.21*
0.76
0.73
0.1*8
0.51*
0.12
0.81*
1.60
0.61
2.19
0.77
2.52

prise the greater are the risks involved. Before such an enter
prise is undertaken, even on a small scale, it would be well to
seek advice from county or state agricultural agencies.
Group Hi Specialty Farms
State ....
Engineering
Experiment
Station . . .
Georgia
TKh
Indanrul . .
. . Economic
Rauttb .
Specialty farms are those specializing In horticultural
products, dairy products, fruits and nuts, livestock, forest
products, poultry, or vegetables. The favorable number-income ratios of
specialty farms shown in Table A-Sa may encourage farmers in the Area to
enter some phase of specialty farming. However, success in this phase of
farming depends upon a number of factors, for example (1) market facili
ties, (2) soil adaptation, and (3) experience or ability of the operator.
The farner who contemplates any new type of agriculture will profit by ad
vice from state or county agricultural agencies.
Horticultural Specialty Farms: Horticultural specialties as defined
in the census include crops grown under glass and propagated mushrooms,
nursery products, flower and vegetable seeds, bulbs, and flowers and plants
grown in the open. In general, such farms are operated on an intensively
comeroial basis.
There were only eight horticultural specialty farms in the Northeast
Georgia Area in 1939- There seems to be no reason, however, why addi
tional horticultural specialties could not be developed in the Area,
since growing conditions can in large part be controlled. Possible op
portunities exist in the growing of cut flowers and the propagation of
fruit trees in Northeast Georgia for sale in the towns and cities in the
Southeast. limiting factors are market facilities and the experience and
ability of the operator. Such enterprises should not be undertaken unless
a careful study of conditions affecting the growth and sale of the products
proves them practical, or without the assistance of someone having a thor
ough knowledge of the businesses. Since individual farmers would probably
be hesitant to take on the risks involved, such an enterprise could be
promoted by agricultural agencies, if investigation proves the projects
practical.
Dairy Products: The 9k dairy farms in the Northeast Georgia Area had
an average income of $li,795 in 1939. Table A-8a indicates that dairy
farms produced S.'J- times their proportionate share of the income in the
Area, and ranked second in the number-income ratio of all types of faros
in the Area. These farms were concentrated in sections where the urban
market is large, 35 in Hall county, 11 in Stephens, 11 in Habersham, 8
in Jackson^ and 7 in Barrow. The prospects for expanding the dairy in
dustry in the Area lie in the production on farms which are not dairy
specialty fans ,of milk to be used for making ice cream mix, condensed or
evaporated milk, powdered ailk products, or butter. Anyone wishing to
promote such an enterprise should make a careful study of problems in- .
volved, asking advice of county and state agricultural agencies.
The opportunities for processing dairy products are limited, however,
until the farms, through the development of pastures and feed production,
will sustain more dairy cattle than are required to produce milk for the
wholei^ilk market alone.
Fruit and Nut Farms; The 75 fruit and nut farms in the Northeast
Georgia Area in 1939 produced an average income of $!»,795 and ranked first
in value of products of all types of farms in the Area. The chief items
—202—

to i
o
Table A-8
Average Value of All Products, Sold, Traded, and Consumed on Farms in the Northeast Georgia Area,
1539, by Type of Farm in Three Groups for Panels and Counties b^r Subsistence Groups
Group and Type of Farm
Group I, General
Purpose'
Field Crop Farms
Group II, Specialty
Horticultural
Dairy Products
Fruits and Nuts
livestock1
Forest Products
Poultry
Vegetables
Group III, Subsistence
Group I, General
Purpose
Field Crop Farms
Group II, Specialty
Horticultural
Dairy Products
Fruits and Nuts
livestock1
Forest Products
Poultry
Vegetables
Group III, Subsistence
Northeast Georgia Area
Average Value of:
Number
Farms
12,151 $ 622 t 173 $ U.9
8 713
9k 2,965
75 U,795
88 876
73 808
303 1,585
81* 969
10,531 koh
'
Prod
ucts
Prod
ucts
Used
*
229
272
181
160
210
229
265
Over 7055 Subsistence
868
599
1 *
21 2,733
50 5,100
31* 91U
50 651
50 951
75 1,032
5,661 389
199
__
201
326
212
155
196
21*5
261
Products
Sold,
Traded
»
2,736
1*,523
695
61*8
1,375
71*0
139
1*00
*
2,532
l*,77l*
702
1*96
755
787
108
Number
Farms
5,873
2
16
1
15
8
151*
U
1,51*8
Panel I
Average Value of:
Prod
ucts
t 661* * 171 $ 1*93
*
2,288
*
5oo
687
1,1*71*
195
1*53
Prod
ucts
Used
—
210
. —
133
137
193
*
251*
Under 70/6 Subsistence
11,283
7
11
51.
23
253
9
I*, 870
Ao^ 623
815
3,031
1*,181*
, 853
1,150
1,710
1*51
1*22
171
*
237
163
161
172
213
97
2lt6
Products
Sold,
Traded
*
2,078
*
367
550
1,281
*
199
1*52
815
2,79l»
I*, 021
692
978
1,1*97
351*
176
Number
Farms
Panel II
Average Value
Prod
ucts
6,278 $582 »175 $ U07
6 951
78 3,10U
71* 1*,860
73 951*
65 823
11*9 1,699
80 1,008
8,983 396
Prod
ucts
Used
it-
233
275
191
163
228
2(40
266
of:
Products
Sold,
Traded
*
2,871
It, 585
763
660
1,1*71
768
130
Source: U. S. Census,
Agriculture, Georgia
Third series, "TaBle 19.
, 191.0,
*Hhere less than three
farms reported, data are
not included.
1 "livestock" and
"Other Livestock." ,i
f ^ agS'B'g 1
§•5 E-i.| f i'i •
: 1" ••; Iff: |

in this classification are the apple and peach orchards concen
trated in Habersham, Jackson, Banks, and Rabun counties (see
Table A-13). In 1939, fruit and nut farms brought to Habersham
county an income of $183,1*52, representing 22.5) per cent of
that county's total farm income. However, census figures in
dicate an appreciable decrease in the planting of fruit trees
and in fruit crops harvested between 1920 and 19lt5.
The production of apples in northeast Georgia was promoted under the
leadership of a few enthusiasts about 1900, and plantings were very heavy
frnm 1917 to 1920. Plantings since have shown a steady decrease.
Counties
Over ^cef,
Subsistence
Farms
Towns . .
Union .
Rabun White . . .
.
Lumpkin.
Dawsoc. . .
Habersham .
Total. .
Under 70
Subsistence
Banks ....
Stephens ...
Hall. ....
Forsyth. ...
Jackson. ...
Madison. ...
Barrow ....
Franklin . . .
Hart. ....
Total. . . .
Area Total. . .
Panel I. ...
Panel n . . .
Table A-13
Number of Farms by Groups and Type of Farm for the
Northeast Georgia Area in 1939 by Panels and
Counties by Subsistence Groups
3 o
E-*
71*1
1,325
1,037
921*
81*1
611*
1,386
6,868
1,370
895
2,1(05
2,009
2,223
1,876
1,1*58
2,139
2,308
16,683
23,551
7,615
15,900
Tt
m +> "S
_
31 921
2
13
58
6
1
27
7
U*
10
11
82
86
il, 1,
30
111*
Group
r
3 0
m
Q) O
•ri C
E o
17
18
66
196
U*2
U*3
286
868
531
391
1,270
1,291
1,539
1,336
1,061
1,679
2,185
11,283
12,151
5,873
6,278
H a
1
rH
§
-H
.p
_
_
-
_
_
_
1
1
_
-
1*
_
1
1
1
__
7
8
•2
6
a
2
—
6
—
2
—
11
21
2
11
35 281716
73
91*
16
78
n
!
10
&.
3
—
i
e311
36
50
9
2
13
1
— __
25
75
1
71*
Group
II
•i
8
-P
to
g
a
6
5
n
2
1
1
8
31*
7 1
18
5
10
6
2
32
51*
88
15
73
-p nS
S.
_
8 1
2
16
10
13
50
1*
25313131
23
73
8
65
*>
PH
5
18
1It
10
it
8
50
8
9
57
121*
16
—
18
9
12
253
303
151*
11(9
CQ
3
0}
M
__
22
132
33 11*
75
1
—
3 1
—
—
3 1
Sources U. S. Census, Agriculture, Georgia, 191(0, Third Series,
Table 19.
a lncludes "Other Livestock."
—204 —
__
9
81*
1*
80
Group
III
I
I
.3
I
710
1,223
922
713
635
1(52
1,006
5,661
802
1*80
981*
576
622
519
353
1(31*
100
it, 870
10,531
1,51(8
8,983

The opinion now held is that northeast Georgia generally
is not well adapted to apple production. It is too far south
climatically, and the rainfall is badly distributed for satis
factory production. Apple insects and disease are more severe
than farther north, and the cost of their control is very high.
The rapid expansion of apple orchards in previous years on
an assumption of excellent adaptability resulted in the use of
Salt ....
Expirimtnt
Station . . .
Gtoeffia
Txh
Indnitriil . .
. . Eonomic
Rocuch .
unsuitable varieties in some localities where other varieties might have
prospered. There are locations in limited sites, especially in the higher
altitudes, where apples are doing very well, and it is possible that there
Table A-61
Counties
Over 70if
Subsistence
Farms
Towns
Union
Rabun
Unite
Lumpkin
Dawson
Habersham
Total
Under 70£
Subsistence
Banks
Stephens
Hall
Forsyth
Jackson
Kadison
3 arrow
Franklin
Hart
Total
Area Total
Panel I
Panel II
Georgia
Per Cent of Number of Farms by Groups and Type
of Farm for Northeast Georgia Area
3
a
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
•a
•rf to
CM
•H
CO tn
4J
o
2;
_
2.31*
0.87
0.22
0.12
0.33
0.91*
0.81*
0.1*1*
0.11
1.12
0.35
0.63
0.53
0.75
0.37
0.09
0.52
0.61
0.39
0.72
1.11*
Group
I
tfi
1 •o
£
2.29
1.36
6.36
21.21
16'.88
23-29
20.63
12.61*
38.76
1.3.69
52.81
61*. 26
69.23
71-22
72.77
78.1*9
9U.67
67.63
51.59
76.76
39.1*8
62.70
•a
1
g
H
•P
fH
&
. _
_
—
—
—
_
0.07
O.C1
—
—
0.17 _
_
o.c5
0.07
o.o5 _
o.ol*
0.03
0.03
0.03
Source: Calculated from Table A-13.
'•Includes "Other Livestock"
—205—
I £
s
£ •a
§
1
fa
0.27 0.13
—
0.58 0.77 — 0.32
0.21* 0.12
_ 0.16
0.79 2.60
0.31 0.73
0.15
1.23
1.1*6
0.10
0.36
o.c5
0.1*8
o.o5
0.26
o.tl*
0.1*0
0.21
0.1*9
0.66
—
0.08 —
0.58
—
0.07
——
0.15
0.32
0.01
0.1*7
i
osCO
O>
>
a
0.81
0.38
1.06
0.22
0.32
0.16
0.58
0.1*9
o.5i
0.11
0.75
0.25
0.1*5
0.32
O.U*
0.11*
O.C9
0.32
0.37
0.20
0.1*6
Group
II
«
§
fc.
_ _
0.60
0.10
0.22
1.90
1.63
0.91*
0.73
0.29
0.22
0.21
0.15
o.o5
0.16
0.07
0.11*
o.ol*
O.li*
0.31
0.11
o.io.
b
5
s
0.68
1.36
0.10
0.1*3
1.19
0.65
0.58
0.73
0.58
1.01
2.37
6.17
0.72
—
1.23
0.1)2
0.52
1.52
1.29
2.01
0.9k
W

are others where a wrong variety has discouraged growers and
where a different variety might prosper. A real advantage pos
sessed by the apple grower of northeast Georgia is his nearness
to the southern market.
The apple industry is a highly specialized business and,
for success, must be built around the right varieties in the
proper places.
The peach industry has held its own in northeast Georgia since its
beginnings, about 1900.
Livestock Fams: Livestock fanning as practiced in the Northeast
Georgia Area has not proved as successful as other types of specialty farm
ing. In 1939, the 88 livestock farms In the Area produced an average inccce
of $876 and ranked fifth in average income of the seven types of
specialty farms as listed in Table A-10. The average income of livestock
far^s for the state was $1767. However, low labor requirements make
livestock farrdng attractive, and, with improved and a better selection of
acreage for feed crops, it could become a good source of income for the
Kortheast Georgia Area. Fanners contemplating expansion in this type of
faming will profit by asking advice of state and county agricultural
agencies. Livestock is further discussed in the section beginning on
page 228.
Forest Products Farms; There were 73 forest products fams In the
Northeast Georgia Area in 1939. Of these, 16 were in Lumpkin county, 13
in Habersham county, and 10 in Dawson county. The average income was $808.
The presence of the Ghattahoochee National Forest in the Area limits any
appreciable expansion of this type of farming.
For further discussion of forest products in the Area, see Forest
Products in the Industry section beginning on page 101.
Poultry Faras; The Northeast Georgia Area has recently become the
center of a new agricultural industry—the raising of broilers on an in
tensively commercial basis. Beginnings of the industry are seen in the
census poultry figures for 19l»0, especially in Forsyth county, where there
were at that tine 12U poultry faras, comprising 6.17 per cent of the total
number of fams and producing 10.13 per cent of the total farm income of
that county. The greatest strides, however, have been made since 19JjO,
chiefly to satisfy wartime demands. In lUi, Georgia ranked second in
the United States in commercial broiler production, being exceeded only by
Delaware. In 19I»3, the state ranked fourth among the broiler producing
states, and in 1939 it ranked seventeenth. The industry is concentrated
in the Northeast Georgia Area in Forsyth, Hall, Dawson, Jackson, White,
and Habersham counties, and in adjoining Cherokee county. Production for
19UU is estimated at 2k ndUion broilers with a value of $19,116,000, or
a Itl per cent increase above the 17 million broilers raised in 19Ji3. The
139 production is estimated at 1,600,000 broilers, having an approximate
value of $676,000. The phenomenal growth of the industry in the Area is
indicated by the fact that income from broiler production alone in 19hh
is at least equal to the value of all farm products in 1939.
Although it is Impossible to say at what level the enterprise will
become stabilized, the prospects are favorable for its establishment as
2 Georgia Crop Reporting Service, April, 19U5-
—206—

a permanent peace-time industry, chiefly through the efforts of
cooperative organizations. An immediate goal is the reduction
of the cost of raising broilers.
Vegetable Production in Mountain Counties: The farms of
the mountain counties of North Georgia were, according to the
IJliO census, largely Subsistence farms. A recent study made by
N. K. Penny of the Georgia Experiment Station3 indicates that in
Sure ....
Engineering
Experiment
Station . . .
the last few years an appreciable number of farmers in these counties have
nadle a shift toward the production of vegetables for sale, a change which
tends to increase the cash incomes of the farmers, thereby removing them
fron the Subsistence category. The changes noted in the study are rel
atively recent, however, and are not as yet of such magnitude as to create
a noticeable change
Sunmary
aid
Counties
irsa Total
Panel I
Panel II
Table A-60
Fruits and Huts on Farms in the
Northeast Georgia Area, I9"39
Fruits and
Huts Farms
Dollar
Value
323,Wi
—
323,710;
Panel I Counties
Jarrow
Ha-t
Forsyth
Madison
Panel II Counties
Franklin
Sabun
Jackson
Shite
Hall
labersham
''JQpkin
Stephens
Banks
;nion
'owns
Dawson
U3,li30
75,987
1,100 __
183, U52
__
19,775
Per
Cent
2.U5
. —— .
3.89
Field
Crop Farms
Dollar
Value
36,83U
1U.330
22,501;
t _ _ _ 1,10U
——— — 5,066
— 5,738
— 2,U22
_ .
—
_ .
7.U6
5.52
0.2k
—
22.50
——
2,050
273
7,U05
5,260
2,281
753
699
7iii
3.03———
2, as
*
311
3UO
Per
Cent
0.23
0.29
0.27
0.21
0.32
O..V9
0.21
O.X6
0.05
0.5k
1.15
0.16
0.09
0.19
0.17
0.37 —
o.iu
0.16
Other Farms
Dollar
Value
37,897
5,5U5
32,352
1,059
k02
3,205
879
369
3,118
1,689
k,235
2,513
3,623
3,93U
1,136
5,855
769
U,W8
668
Per
Cent
0.29
0.11
0.39
O.Oli
0.03
0.28
O.OS
0.03
0.5!t
0.12
0.93
0.18
O.UU
1.06
0.27
0.90
o.u
1.93
0.30
Source: U. S. Census, Agriculture, Georgia,
9hO, Third Series, Tables 19 and 17. The per cent
igures are per cent of total value of products sold,
traded, and consumed in the Area, Panel, or County.
Col. 5 is calculated by subtracting Col. 1 and Col. 3
from the totals in Table A-17.
stess than three farms reported.
—207—
Intfostriil . .
. . Economic
Roejrcb . .
in the agricultural
or industrial struc
ture of the counties.
They are chiefly in
dicative of trends
and possibilities.
The study was
made of eight coun
ties, six of which
are counties having
highest subsistence
percentages in the
Northeast Georgia
Area—Towns, Union,
Rabun, Unite, Lumpkin,
and Habersham.
Two counties in
cluded in the study,
Fannin and Gilmer,
are outside the
Northeast Georgia
Area.
The estimated
acreage in the vege
table crops mentioned
in Table A-66 was
7,li87 acres in 19Ui.
The most important
crop in acreage and
production was snap
beans. Acreage in
snapbeans amounted
to 2,705 acres, and
total production was
3Mr. Penny's
report is in pro
cess of printing.
These comments are
based on a copy of
the manuscript
which he made avail
able.

3,753.2 tons, with an approximate value of $120,670. Acreage in
19iiO was 1,590 acres, and sales amounted to $70,703 (Table A-37).
IT. addition to the vegetable crops shown in Table A-67, 13 other
vegetable crops are named as being adapted to production In Nortl
Georgia. These are, in the order of importance, HIM beans,
Table A-67
Crop
Estimated Acreage and Production of Certain Commercial
Vegetable Crop's in Eight Counties, Georgia, 1944
Beans , snap
Beans, pole
Bell peppers
Cabbage
Collards
Corn, green
Cucumbers
Potatoes
Squash
Tonatoes
Turnips
Units
bushels
bushels
bushels
tons
dozen
bunches
dozen
bushels
bushels
bushels
bushels
dozen
bunches
Number
2,705
670
65
1,150
685
75
5
1,865
120
15
132
Average Yield
1932-19411
Units
92.5
92.5
171.4
4.2
156. 0
500.0
200.0
64.0
151.0
61.2
262.3
Production
Units
250,212
61,975
11,141
4,830
106,860
37,500
1,000
119,360
18,120
918
34,623
Tons
3,753.2
929.6
139.3
4,830.0
187. 08
243.7*
24.0
3,530.8
S62.43
24.3
6S7.83
Total
7.487
16.415.1.
Source: Penny, N. li. , Vegetable Production and Market
ing in Georgia Mountain Counties, Georgia Experiment Station
TJjriffin), 1946.
Agricultural statistics, 1944. The yields of collards.
green corn, scuash, cucumbers, and turnips were estimated by
agricultural leaders of the area.
Calculated on the basis of estimates made by wholesale
dealers on the Atlanta Fanners' Market: a dozen bunches of
collards as 35 pounds, a dozen bunches of turnips as 38
pounds, and a dozen ears of corn as 13 pounds.
'Calculated at 40 pounds per bushel, the Georgia stan
dard waight for one bushel of squash.
Area
Table A-37a
Experiment
Station . . .
Groeyia
Ttch
Indwtriil . .
. . Economic
Rocarch . .
Value of Vegetables (Bxcludir.K Potatoes) Per Kara and Per Acre, for
"" '
Itort'ieast
Georgia Area
Georgia
Total Farms
Reporting
1939
1,657
27,639
1929
1,926
26,U32
Acres of Vegeta
bles Produced
for Sale
1939
3,688
125,531
1929
1,782
109,921
Per Fara
1939
$90.20
129.51
Average Value
1929
$68.1U
213.37
Per Acre
1939
$1(0.52
28.57
Source: C. S. Census, Agriculture , Georgia, 19UO, Second Series,
Table 13-
—208-
1929
$73-65
51 -to

lettuce, beets, carrots, English peas, okra, spinach, rutabagas,
celery, cauliflower, green peas, brussels sprouts, and rhubarb.
Some of these are grown In negligible quantities, and some are
not grown for commercial purposes. Strawberries and sweet pota
toes are also mentioned as having commercial possibilities.
Sun ....
Experiment
Station . . .
Cfocyia
Tick
Indnmiil . .
..Eo
Rtttaith .
Only 1».3 per cent of the total cropland in the eight coun
ties included in the study is devoted to vegetable production. _ _.__
However, of the 173,886 acres of cropland, about 59 per cent is believed
to be adapted to the production of one or more vegetable crops. It is
further estimated that 18 per cent of the total cropland is available;
that is, it could be planted in vegetable crops without seriously changing
the farm organization. According to the findings of the study, the land
devoted to vegetable crops could be increased to three times the present
acreage with little change in farm organization. It is believed that most
of the acreage would be taken from acreage formerly devoted to corn.
Table 4-68 shows the types of buyers who purchased the vegetables
grojm in the eight counties. The chief types were buyers on the Atlanta
Farmers' Market, local cash buyers, and transient cash buyers. By far the
largest part of the produce was sold at the Atlanta Farmers' Market,
brought there by the growers.
Table A-66
Cropland1 Adapted, Available and Devoted to Vegetable
Production In Eight Countie's in GeorgTa, 1944
County
Fannin
Silmer
Habersham
Lujnpkin
Babun
Towns
Union
Tlhite
Total
Per Cent
of Total
Total
Acres
25,081
24,545
34,515
16,930
12,996
12,407
25,513
21,799
173,886
Adapted2
Acres
8,277
18,409
22,435
2,540
11,696
7,444
25,000
6,540
102,341
58.9
Avail
able3
Acres
2,069
3,682
7,852
1,524
1,754
1,117
12,000
1,308
31,306
18.0
1944
Actual
Acres
810
1,550
365
1,105
820
150
2,405
282
7,487
4.3
Per Cent
Avail
able
39.1
42.1
4.6
72.5
46.8
13.4
20.0
21.6
23.9
Source: Penny, N. 1C., Vegetable Production in
Georgia Mountain Counties, Georgia Experiment s¥a~
tion (Griffin), i55T
Cropland includest cropland land harvested,
cropland failure, and cropland idle. U. S. Census,
1940.
2 Cropland adapted to the production of one or
more of the commercial vegetable crops now being
grown in the area.
'Cropland that could be planted to vegetable
crops without seriously changing the farm organiza
tion of the area as a whole or of most individual
forms.___________________________________
—209—
The table indi
cates that only a
snail quantity (one
per cent of beans)
was sold to can
neries. These were
in Murphy, North
Carolina, and Grif
fin, Georgia. How
ever, the fact that
canning factories
as direct' purchasers
are insignificant
does not indicate
the quantity of
beans that go to the
canneries, because
local cash buyers
sell much of the pro
duce purchased to
them.
In many cases,
farmers sold the
whole field of pro
duce to a buyer for
a lump sum. This
practice should be
discouraged, since
the grower usually
sells without proper
information concern
ing market condi
tions.

Table A-68
Proportions of Certain Vegetable Crops Produood
in j!ighT Georgia Counties ThatTTer Sold
to the Various Typo Buyers 1, Ig44
Type of Buyer
Beans
Bell
Peppers
Cab
bage
Collards
Corn
Cucum
bers
Pota
toes
Squash
Toma
toes
Turnips
Units
bushel
bushel
tons
dozen
bunohes
dozen
bushel
bushel
bushel
bushel
dozen
bunches
Amount
318,187
11,141
4,830
106,860
37,600
1,000
119,56C
18,320
918
34,623
Per Cent of Crop Bought by Type of Buyer
Looal oash buyer
Transient oash buyer
Chain stores
Atlanta Farmers' Market
Itinerant truckers
Canneries
Other
Total
19
116
59
-_
1
4
100
17
26
--
57
__
--
__
100
6
7
14
44
3
_.
26
100
_„
—
~
100
__
__
__
100
„_
-.
—
100
...
_..
100
100
—
__
__
__
__
__
100
14
9
16
54
__
_..
7
100
28
6
„_
66
__
_..„
100
52
«
._
31
__
_
17
100
^^
..
_„
100
....
_
„.,
100
Souroei Penny, H. li., Vegetable Production and Marketing in Georgia Mountain Counties, Georgia
Experiment Station (Griffin), 1946. •' ""••• ~
Definitions of type buyers i Loop.l oash buyers are those who live in the marketing center the year round
and usually are engaged in some other business. Transient oash operate in the area only during the marketing
season and have their headquarters or business establishment in some other oity or state. Chain stores,
self-axplanatory. Buyers on the Atlanta Farmers' Market include all types operating on that market.
Itinerant truckers are buyers who may make one or more trips to the area in a marketing season.
Canneries, self-explanatory. Other includes retail stores, tourists, other farmers, farmertruokers,
etc.
-—. — i
f •„ I JgS^
! li|^|l"

According to recommendations made by Mr. Penny, the practio
of selling on the Atlanta Farmers' Market by individual farmers
should be discouraged because of (1) the time involved in the
trip to Atlanta, (2) transportation costs, (3) the tendency of
fanners to sell at a low price in order to make an early sale,
(li) the possibility that the farmer may have to accept a lower
price on the Atlanta market than he was offered locally, and
(5) the farmers' lack of knowledge of market conditions or abil
ity to estimate market trends.
Table A-37
Sales of Vegetables in the Northeast
Georgia Area, 1939T by ]
Vegetable
isparagus0
Beans1
Beets1
Cabbage6
Cantaloups 2 ^
Collards6
Cucumbers6
Dry Onions4
Green Onions*
Green Peas8
Lettuce*
liraa Beans
Mixed Vegetables
Okra
Pepperss> e
Spinach
Squash6
Sweet corri5
Tomatoes6
Turnips6
Turnip Greens6
Watermelons6
Totals
Area
Total
* -
70,703
158
2B,k02
1,109
5,627
158
38U
75
8,080
3U
9,COU
361,
16
601
251
2,987
1,892
li,028
682
181
8,591t
$1U3,330
Panel I
Total
$ -
U.2S8
160
79
57
2,3)43
5,ii02
5X3
275
515
3,7U9
$17,351
Panel II
Total
158
28,2*42
1,030
5,627
158
327
75
5,737
3U
3,602
36U
16
601
251
2, Wit
1,617
3,513
682
181
U.8U5
$125,979
Source: U. S. Census, Agriculture,
Georgia, 19UO, Second Series, Table 13.
iSnap, string, or wax.
E Includes muskmelons, honeydews, etc.
'Sweet and pimientos. *And shallots.
6 Data for counties where three or Less
farms reported a particular vegetable are not
shown by Census. For this reason, the totals
do not include data for the number of counties
shown: Asparagus, 1; Beets, 8; Cabbage, k;
Cantaloups, 2; Collards, 1; Cucumbers, 6; Dry
onions, k; Green peas, k; Lettuce, 7; Lima
beans, 3; Mixed vegetables, 5; Okra, 9j Pep
pers, 6; Spinach, k; Squash, kj Sweet corn,
3; Tomatoes, 3; Turnips, 7; Turnip greens, 5;
Watermelons, lu _____ _______________
--211--
The study indicates
that there was little grad
ing or packaging of produce
in the eight counties
studied. However, it is be
lieved that if the section
is to become an important
commercial producing area,
the produce should be prop
erly prepared for market
before leaving the area.
Grading and packaging
could be done by the
growers, by local buyers,
or by cooperatives, ac
cording to accepted stand
ards. The author of the
study believes that the
volume of production
justifies the location of
Federal shipping-point
inspectors in the area.
Each of the eight
counties included in the
survey, except Habersham,
has a farmers' cooperative
organization. Services
rendered by the coopera
tives include: providing
a place for assembling
produce, grading, packag
ing, transportation, and
selling.
Irrigation is sug
gested as a possibility
for increasing yields of
vegetable crops in the
eight counties, especially
those crops with short
growing seasons and early
harvest seasons. The
lakes and streams of the
area would provide ample
water. The yields per
acre indicated in Table
A-67 show that the crops
mentioned produce a better

^J
Table A-9
Per Farm Consumption of Farm Products
for the Northeast Georgia Area, by
Levels of Total "Production, 1939*
Value of
Products Sold,
Traded, or Used
Under $250
$250 to $399
$UOO to $599
$600 to $999
$1000 to $Ui99
$1500 to $2It99
$2500 to $3999
$UOOO to $5999
$6000 to $9999
$10,000 and over
Farms
Report
ing
3,787
5,U20
6,1^2
5,213
1,376
U39
127
UO
17
7
Value of Products
Used on Farms
Total of
All Farms
$ WJ2.289
91t7,369
1,U7U,075
1,U99,017
U66,635
155,781*
Ii8,l52
Ut,592
10,752
3,072
Average
Per
Farm
$109
175
229
286
31
379
365
632
U39
cash income than the
crops which they
probably displace,
but they are not
large enough per
acre to justify a
commercial canning
plant. They do in
Suit ..
Exp«nincat
Satkm . . .
r«*
Induitzu! .
. . Econooi
Rctcarcb . .
dicate, however, that atten
tion should be given to the
problem of greater tonnage per
acre, which could reach a level
high enough to make vegetable
growing for commercial canning
or freezing more profitable
than the fresh .market basis
which is developing.
Group III; Subsistence Farms:
The relatively low per
farm incomes of the Northeast
Georgia Area are due in large
part to the high proportion of
Subsistence farms. Over half
of the income of a Subsistence
Source: U. S. Census, Agriculture,
19UO, Third Series, Table 20.
Table A-62 farm is in products consumed by the farm house
hold. There are 10,531 such farms in the Area.
Kumber and Per Cent of Farms * comparisonof_Tables A-6l and A-15 indicate
Those Operators Are Not
Listed As Farmers in
Occupation Table
County
Rabun
Eabersham
Onion
Lumpkin
Towns
White
Jackson
Barrow
Stephens
Hall
Banks
Dawson
Forsyth
Hart
Franklin
Madison
Total
Number
28U
32li
260
162
96
88
196
101 56
136
77
2k
U5 ho
23
12
1920
Per
Cent
All
Farms
27-39
21.93
19-62
19.26
12-95
9-52
8.32
6.92
6.21
5-65
5.62
3-91
2.2k
1-73
1.07
0.61*
8.11
Source; Calculated
from Tables A-13 and IF-9.
—212—
that where Subsistence farms are most numerous,
farm incomes tend to be lowest. While Subsist
ence farms comprise Wi.72 per cent of the num
ber of farms in \he Area, with an average in
come of only $UoU, they contribute only 32.
per cent of the total farm income.
Highest percentages of subsistence are
for the most part in the northern part of the
Area where the mountains are highest and the
forests are densest, where unfavorable ter
rain offers greatest difficulties to the pre
vailing types of faming and, concurrently,
more attractions for retired living. Seven
counties (see Table A-61) have more than 70
per cent Subsistence farms. In Towns county,
95.82 per cent of the farms are Subsistence
farms; in Union county, 92.30 per cent; in
Eabun county, 89.91 per cent; in Unite county,
77.16 per cent; in Lumpkiii county, 75-51 per
cent; in Dawson county, 73.62 per cent; and
in Habersham county, 72.58 per cent. The
lowest Subsistence farm percentages are in
and south of the Cnattahooch.ee Valley, where
industrial influence is strong or cotton farm
ing is practical. Barrow county reported 2U-2
per cent Subsistence farms, Franklin county,
20.29 per cent, and Hart county only U.33 per
cent.

Hature of Subsistence Farms; As compared with most other
types of farms, Subsistence farms consume a_larger proportion of
what they produce, but their cash income is'low. In consequence,
their total value produced is relatively low. The reasons for
this lie in the nature of the Subsistence farm. It is not ac
curate to assume that all of them are merely poor producers and
cannot do any better. In some cases, the major income is earned
airay from the farm; again, the Subsistence farm may be the hone-
Sun....
EngiaMriflg
Eiptrimcnt
Station . . .
Gmgie
T«*
Iidmuul . .
. . Economic
Rftcaicb .
stead of a plantation. The farm then is a way of life rather than a live
lihood. It is only those farms which intend to be non-subsistence farms,
but, because of poor soil, small area, or misfortune do not produce enough
for an adequate Living, that need analysis and suggestion.
Kinds of Subsistence Farmers! Even though a Subsistence farm in it
self contriEutes little to general production and prosperity, the fact of
subsistence is not in every case an indication of the relative .wealth of a
household, nor does it necessarily imply a low standard of living. The
census classifies as a farm4 any tract of land, three acres or more in size,
on which some agricultural operations are performed and the agricultural
products of which are valued at not less than $250. Thus, a Subsistence
farm may be relatively small and the subsistence category may include a
number of types.
1. True Subsistence Farms; Subsistence farms may be
operated by people who want only subsistence, whose require
ments are simple, and who need cash only for taxes, clothing,
4According to the census, "A farm, for census purposes, is all the
land on which some agricultural operations are performed by one person,
either by his ovm labor alone or with the assistance of members of his
household, or hired employees. The land operated by a partnership is like
wise considered a farm. A "farm 1 may consist of a single tract of land, or
a number of separate tracts, and the several tracts may be held under dif
ferent tenures as when one tract is owned by the farmer and another tract
is rented by him. When a landowner has one or more tenants, renters, crop
pers, or managers, the land operated by each is considered a farm.
"Include dry-lot or barn dairies, nurseries, green houses, hatcheries,
fur farns, mushroom cellars, apiaries, cranberry bogs, etc.
"Exclude 'fish-farms, 1 fish hatcheries, 'oyster farms,' and 'frog
farms.'
"Do not report as a farm any tract of land of less than 3 acres unless
its agricultural products in 1939 were valued at $250 or more."
Thus, on a plantation, the land operated by each cropper, renter, or
tenant should be reported as a separate farm, and the land operated by the
owner or manager by means of wage hands should likewise be reported as a
separate farm.
The character of this definition tends to include in the census ta
bles many farms, particularly in Groups I and HI, General Purpose and
Subsistence farms, which distort averages. The further lack of separate
crop statistics for snare-croppers and other tenants who, from one point
of view, may be regarded as employees working on a share basis, or from
another as limited partners, also seems to obscure the picture. As a
pure description of economic function, is a plantation consisting of 40
acres of home place, 200 acres of pasture and woodlot, and ItOO acres of
fields (with ten share-croppers) one farm or the eleven which the census
records The ten hO-acre tenant farms could not exist without the service
provided by the pasture and the woodlot, yet this necessary land usually
is excluded from the so-called "farm" of the tenant.
—213--

and ether elementary necessities. This group may in
clude those who secure their entire income from the
farn or people of independent income who retire to Sub
sistence farns with the intention of producing only
enough for their needs. The scenic and recreational
features of the northern counties offer especial at
tractions to people who wish to live in retirement.
2. Farqs Used as Residences; Often professional
and business people, or industrial workers use the Sub
sistence farn as a place of residence and farm on a
snail scale without expectation of profit.
3. Plantation Home Places; In the Southeastern
States, particularly, some large plantation homeplaces
are classified as "Subsistence farms." Most of the
land on such a plantation is operated by tenants, leav
ing the pasture land, woodlot, and a small amount of
Table A-9a
Consumption of Products on Farms with Production of $250
and __ ___ Less _ in the __ Mortheast Georgia Area for 1939, for
Counties Cons'"'' ng Over HT

Oi
I
Type of Crop
All products
Products used
Field crops
livestock
Poultry
Fruits and nuts
Vegetables
Dairy
Forest products
Other livestock
All products
Products used
Field props
Livestock
Poultry
Fruits and nuts
Vegetables
Dairy
Forest products
Other livestock
dumber
of
Farms
10,531
10,531
6,71*3
2,897
6,757
1,113
891»
2,082
687
255
5,661
5,661
2.65U
1,637
3,761,
500
707
618
502
197
Table A-llt
Production on All Subsistence1 Farms in the Northeast Georgia Area
by Type of Crop of Enterprise by Panels and by Counties
Northeast Georgia Area
Value
of
Products
$U,257,51(0
2,785,637
959,166
113,879
196,751
29,11)2
58,823
67,0lt9
1(1,086
U.671
Per
Farm
Value
IUOU
265
11)2
393
291
262
658
322
598
183
Over 10% Subsistence
2,200,1(09
1,589,515
298,111
69,11(0
119,832
15,192
52,603
20,88k
30,819
3,51J(
389
281
112
h22
318
30U
7UU
338
6Ui
178
Per
Cent
Unit
Total2
32.20
21.07
7.25
0.86
1.1|9
0.22
O.U4
0.51
0.31
o.ou
67.71
1(8.91
9.17
2.13
3.69-
O.k7
1.62
0.6U
0.95
o.n
Number
of
Farms
1,51(8
1,51»8
1,386
389
1,119
ll,!.
6k
711
35
11
Panel I
Value
of
Products
$700,571
392, Ut
238,992
13,890
28,119
U,0li2
2,092
18,01(0
3,028
Farm
Value
$1(53
25U
172
31(2
251
281
327*
25U
865*
56U*
62
Per
Under 10% Subsistence
li,870 2,057,131
1»,870 1,196,122
U.089 661,055
1,260 1J(,739
2,993 76,919
613 13,950
187 6,220
1.U6U 1(6,165
185 10,267
58 1.-157
(Table continued on page 216 . )
1(22
21(6
162
355
257
228
333
315
555
199
Per
Cent
Unit
Total'
1U.31
8.02
U.88
0.27
0.57
0.08
O.Oli
0.37
0.06
0.00
20.63
11.99
6.63
O.lt5
0.77
O.lL
0.06
O.H6
0.10
0.01
Number
of
Farms
8,983
8,983
5,357
2,508
5,638
969
830
1,371
652
2hk
Panel II
Value
of
Products
$3,556,969
2,393,093
720,17U
100,589
168,632
• 25,100
56,731
1(9,009
38,058
U,609
r
1ft
l
^"11*
oSflir*
•
•!*•*:
K-- •
If:
~ '
Per
Farm
Value
$396
266
13U
U01
299
259
68U
357
581(
189
Per
Cent
Unit
Total2
1(2.71
28.73
8.65
1.21
2.02
0.30
0.68
0.59
O.U6
0.06
Source: U. S. Census, Agri
culture, Third Series, Table 19.
'Farms on which over half
the total value of products is
products consumed on the farms.
£ The per cent which the value
of products shown in the second
column is of the total value of
all products on all farms in the
area, panel, subsistence groups,
and county.
*Based on farms reporting.
iCWhere less than three farms
reported,data are not included.

Work Off Farm; In many cases, most of the total incone, of
which the farm income is only a small part, is earned by members
of the farm family, often the operators themselves, who work
away from the farm. Table A-65 shows the number and per cent of
fare operators who worked more than one hundred days off the
fare in 1939 » either at non-farm work or on some other farm, and
indicates that in counties having relatively low farm incomes
the farn families supplement them substantially by off-farm work
ype of Crop
Panel I Counties
3arrow
111 products
Products used
field crops
livestock
Poultry
Fruits and nuts
Vegetables
Dairy
Forest products
Other livestock
Hart
LL1 products
Products used
ield crops
livestock
Poultry
Fruits and nuts
Vegetables
Dairy
Forest products
Other livestock
Forsyth
111 products
Products used
Field crops
Livestock
Poultry
Fruits and nuts
Vegetables
Dairy
Forest products
Other livestock
Table A-lli - Continued
Number
of
Farms
Value Peiof
Farm
Products Value
Per
£:nt
Unit
Total2
353 $161,873 *U59 16.23
353 92,216 261 9.lt
310 55,881 180 5.60
83 3,781 U6 0.38
200 k,555 23 O.U6
li 399 29 O.OU
5 160 32 0.02
137 li,6UO 3U O.ltf
32 • 206 69i 0.02
# #
100 t Wi.iio $100. 2.82
100 2k,0h& ato 1.5k
83 16,068 191i 1.03
20 993 50 0.06
67 1,690 25 0.11
k1 127 32 0.01
# i i
31 999 32 0.06
2 #— #
—
— — #
576 $231,1415 $1*02 19.90
576 127,096 221 10.93
518 71;,212 Vj3 6.33
139 2*,2S1 31 0.37
U99 13,537 27 1.16
72 2,637 37 0.23
1.6 1,51U 33 0.13
372 6,756 18 0.58
132 1.2U2 96# 0.11
# #
(Table continued on page 217.)
—216—
Such work may be in the near
by forests, on roads or
public work, or in stores
in the nearest town. In
eight counties, all of them
having relatively low farm
incomes or with industrial
influence, more than ten
per cent of fana operators
themselves worked more than
100 days off the farm.
Farms Without Operators;
The non-farm characteristic
of the Subsistence farm
group is indicated by a
comparison of the figures
for the number of farms in
Table A- and for the num
ber of farmers in the
Fanners and Farm Uanagers
section of Table L-9
(page 31j ). There is an
apparent discrepancy be
tween the two. Since
there should be a farm
operator or manager for
each farm, one would ex
pect the two totals
to be the same. Ordina
rily the data on which
Table L-9 is based shows
only a small difference,
but in the Northeast
Georgia Area the differ
ence was 1,920, or 8.11
per cent of all farms, as
is shown in Table A-6U.
It is of course impossible
for that many farms to be
without operators. Hlhat
appears to be the case is •
that on 1,920 farms, when
the Population schedule
was filled out,"Farmer"
or "Farm Manager" was not
given as the occupation
of any member of the family.
This occurred to a much
greater extent in those

counties with many Subsistence farms. This would appear to re
flect that "retired" or some other non-farm occupation was re
ported, an indication that in such cases Tanning" was not
thought of in connection with such "farms. 11 In Rabun, Habersham
Union, Lumpkin, Towns, and TOiite, in all of which Subsistence
farms were more than 70 per cent of all farms, the per cent of
farms "without an operator" ranged from 27.39 down to 9.52 per
cent. In Jackson, Barrow, Stephens,and Hall counties in which
Type of Crop
Madison
JIT products
Products used
Field crops
Livestock
Poultry
Fruits and nuts
Vegetables
Dairy
Forest products
Other livestock
Panel II Counties
Franklin
All products
Products used
Field crops
Livestock
Poultry
Fruits and nuts
Vegetables
Dairy
Forest products
Other livestock
Rabun
ill products
Products used
Field crops
livestock
Poultry
Fruits ana nuts
Vegetables
.-.try
Forest products
Ot,her livestock
Table A-14 - Continued
Number
of
Farms
519
519
475
147
353
54
12
171
Value Per
of Farm
Products Value
$263,173
149,186
92,831
4,235
6,331
679
418
177
434
434
381
125
306
33 6
118
24
11
922
922
277
278
403
67
159
143
67
48
5,645
1,580
»195,635
112,856
68,424
3,827
6,385
353
187
2,713
511
379
$407,669
317,205
34,265
14,077
9,693
2,579
15,827
7,986
5,154
708
Per
Cent
Dnit
Total'
$507 22.52
287 12.77
195 7.95
29 0.36
24 0.71
16 0.08
35 0.04
33
939
62
$451
260
180
31
21
11
31-
23
21
34
$442
344
124
51
24
38
100
56
59
15
(Table continued on page 218.)
—217—
O.U8
0.14
0.01
15.66
9.03
5.48
0.31
0.51
0.03
0.01
0.22
0.04
0.03
70.00
54.47
5.88
.2.U2
1.66
0.44
2.72
1.37
0.88
0.12
the bulk of the Area's in
dustry is concentrated, the
same figure ranged from 8.82
to 5.65 per cent, while all
other counties in the Area
had lower per cents of farms
for which no operator was
indicated.
Sources of Income on
Subsistence Farms: Table"
A-14, which shows produc
tion on all Subsistence
farms in the Area by types
of crops, reveals the fol
lowing:
1. Banked by total
value of products, the
best sources of income are
(in order): (a) field
crops, (b) poultry, (c)
livestock, (d) dairy prod
ucts, and (e) vegetables.
2. Hanked according
to the number of farms re
ceiving cash incomes from
the types of farms listed
are (in order): (a) poul
try, (b) field crops, (c)
livestock, (d) dairy, and
(e) fruits and nuts.
3. Ranked according
to average farm income re
ceived, the best sources
are (in order): (a) vege
tables, (b) forest products,
(c) livestock, (d) dairy
products, and (e) poultry.
The high average farm
income of vegetables and
the low number of farms
reporting cash income from
them indicate a possible
source of income for more
Subsistence farms. Limit
ing factors are market
facilities and growing
conditions.

Tenure
Of the 23,551 farms in the Area in 191*0, 13,1)32, or 57.03
per cent were operated by tenants. Highest tenancy percentages
are found in the Panel I counties and in the first counties of
Panel II. In Hart county, 71.3 per cent of the farmers are
tenants; in Vadison county, 69.6 per cent; in Jackson county,
66.1 per cent; in Barrow county, 65.1 per cent; in Franklin
Suit....
Enfutcrinf
Experiment
Station . . .
Ctorgia
Txh
Indnatrial . .
. . Economic
Research . .
county, 61*.5 per cent; in Forsyth county, 62.1 per cent. The tenancy fig
ure for the Area is not as high as the state percentage of 60.1 per cent.
„ .. , _, „ .. . owever, when considered in
Tabl* A-ll* - Continued conjunction with the high
Type o" Crop
Jackson
All products
Products used
Field crops
livestock
Poultry
Fruits and nuts
Vegetables
Dairy
Forest products
Other livestock
White
All products
Products used
Field crops
livestock
Poultry
Fruits and nuts
Vegetables
Dairy
Forest products
Other livestock
Hall
All products
Products used
Field crops
Livestock
Poultry
Fruits and nuts
Vegetables
Dairy
Forest products
Other livestock
Number
of
Farms
622
622
505
109
309
1*8
35
131*
Value Per
of Farm
Products Value
$270,512
157,733
88,988
5,M2
9,768
1,580
1,H*3
12
8
1*,96
691
201
713 $299,907
713 203,277
1*07 68,802
138 7,1*97
379 10,812
81 3,825
31* 1,538
51* 1,287
hO 2,563
13 281
98U 1382,911
981* 221,900
778 1H*,313
2l4l 10,053
1*92 16,383
68 1,356
33 I,d67
235 13,631*
68 3,51*6
11 259
$1*35
251*
176
50
32
33
33
37
58
25
Per
Cent
Unit
Total2
19.65
11.1*6
6.U6
0.39
0.71
0.11
0.08
0.36
0.05
0.01
$1*21 65.56
286 kk.kk
169 15.01*
5k 1.61*
29 2.36
1*7 0.31*
1*5 0.31*
•21* 0.28
6k 0.56
22 0.61
$389
226
11*7
1*2
33 20
kk 58
52
21i
(Table continued on page 219.)
—218—
27.66
16.03
8.26
0.73
1.18
0.10
0.11
0.98
0.26
0.02
Subsistence farm rates, the
figure assumes more signif
icance. Ordinarily, nei
ther subsistency nor tenancy
is in general indicative
of a wholesome agricul
tural condition. A. com
bination of the two,
therefore, might be ex
pected to be doubly un
desirable. Because of the
nature of subsistence
farming, it is not gener
ally practised by tenant
farmers. 1 study of
Tables A-6l and A-12 shows
that subsistence and ten
ancy percentages taken to
gether are in nine coun
ties more than one hundred
per cent, indicating that
some tenant farmers are
also subsistence farmers.
In six counties, onefifth
or more of the farm
operators are both ten
ants and subsistence
farmers. This is due in
part to the fact that sone
Subsistence farms are
rented primarily as places
of residence.
In the Panel I coun
ties, the subsistence
figure of 20.23 per cent,
and the tenancy figure
of 67.26 per cent, taken
together, are 87.1(9 per
cent, indicating only a
possible 12.51 per cent
at the least,and 32.71;
at the most,of the oper
ators who farm neither
on a subsistence nor a
tenant basis. It is only
by increasing the estimate

of the most undesirable condition of tenancy-subsistence that
we can approach the maximum estimate of the number of owneroperators
who do not farm on a subsistence scale (see Tables
A-ll and A-12).
Cotton
Table A-39 indicates that a favorable elimination of mar
ginal cotton lands has taken place in the Northeast Georgia Area since 1929
In all counties in the Area there has been an almost drastic reduction of
type of Crop
Habersham
All products
Products used
Field crops
Livestock
Poultry
Fruits and nuts
Vegetables
Dairy
Forest products
Other livestock
Lumpkin
All products
Products used
Field crops
livestock
Poultry
Fruits and nuts
Vegetables
Dairy
Forest products
Other livestock
Stephens
All products
Products used
Field crops
livestock
Poultry
Fruits and nuts
Vegetables
Dairy
Forest products
Other livestock
Table A-lli - Continued
Number
of
Farms
1,006
1,006
501
279
582
75
82
120
73
26
635
635
1.87
123
1*80
169
138
Id
137
36
llSO
1*80
3U7
166
301*
28
32
121
20
10
Value Per
of Farm
Products Value
$386,596
283,022
57,W*6
11,999
16,51*2
3,1*13
2,91(1
5,158
i*,581*
1,01*7
$2t*3,l*71*
152,973
51,580
1*,758
12,798
3,271*
9,31*1*
767
7,671
309
«180,536
111*,157
U6,829
5,371i
6,91*2
1,111
827
1*,259
801*
58
$381*
281
115
1*3
28
1*6
36
1*3
63
1*0
$383
21*1
106
39 27
19
68
19
(Table continued on page 220 . )
—219—
Per
Cent
Unit
Total2
1*7.!*1
31*. 71
7.01*
1.1*7
2.03
0.1*2
0.36
0.63
0.56
0.13
65.1th
1*1.11
13.86
1.28
3.1*1*
0.38
2.51
56
9
0.21
2.06
0.08
»376 1*3.55
238 27.51*
135 11.30
32 1.30
23 1.67
1*0 0.27
26 0.20
35 1.03
1*06 0.19
0.01
cotton acreage, and in all
counties except Barrow and
Jackson an accompanying in
crease in yield per acre.
The Area as a whole de
creased its notton acreage
from 306,916 acres in 1929
to 168,2&5 acres in 1939,
a decrease of 1;5.18 per
cent. This removal of
land not well suited to
cotton from cotton acreage
resulted in the increase
in yield per acre for the
Area from O.U6 bales in
1929 to 0.57 bales in
1939, and has permitted
the development of other
enterprises which are
likely to prove better
suited to the Area, for
example, hogs and pigs,
and dairy cattle.
The "cotton" counties
of the Area are those
where the proportion of
Subsistence farms is low
est. Those having the
greatest acreages in cot
ton are, in order: Hart,
Jackson, Franklin, Madi
son, Barrow, and Hall.
Hart county decreased
its acreage from 1*3,056
acres in 1929 to 27,71(8
acres In 1939, or ap
proximately 36 per cent.
The concentration of
cotton on land better
suited to cotton resulted
in a favorable increase
in yield per acre from
0.37 bales in 1929 to
0.66 bales in 1939, the
highest yield in the
Area. Census figures show

Type of Crop
Banks
All products
Products used
Field crops
livestock
Poultry
Fruits and nuts
Vegetables
Dairy
Forest products
Other livestock
Onion
All products
Products used
Field crops
livestock
Poultry
Fruits and nuts
Vegetables
Dairy
Forest products
Other livestock
Towns
An products
Products used
Field crops
Livestock
Poultry
Fruits and nuts
Vegetables
Dairy
Forest products
Other livestock
Dawson
All products
Products used
Field crops
Livestock
Poultry
Fruits and nuts
Vegetables
Dairy
Forest products
Other livestock
Table A-1U - Continued
Number
of
Farms
802
802
692
230
U63
292
17
Iti5
26
7
1,223
1,223
380
512
995 52
2W
87
118
32
710
710
268
221
620
hk 8
69
30
36
Value Per
of Faro
Products Value
$326,966
196,932
103,509
6,783
9,322
5,508
50Jj
2,523
1,687
198
*50U,31i8
381,769
32,278
16,991
W.,036
680
20,308
2,089
8,3146
in
$202,856
U»9,lj5ij
1U.1U7
10,655
22,609
1,263
395
2,622!
1,261!
370
U52 $155,559
Jj52 101,815
33U 39,593
86 3,163
305 6,3U2
12 158
12 2,250
10k 973
17 1,237
6
—220—
$U08
21*6
150
29
20
19
30
17
65
28
Per
Cent
Unit
Total2
50.02
30.13
15. 8U
J..0ij
1.U3
0.8U
0.08
0.39
0.26
0.03
*1(12 87.16
312 65.98
85 5.58
33 2.9h
1*1 7.09
13 0.12
8U 3.51
2k 0.36
71 1.U*
2U 0.13
$286
210
53
hS
36
29
U9
38
U2
10
$33U
225
119
37 21
13
52
9
2£
90.28'
66.51
6.30
h.7h
10.06
0.56
0.18
1.17
0.56
0.16
70.95
U6.U*
18.06
l.UU
2.89
0.07
1.03
73
5
o.W.
0.56
0.01
that this de
crease in cotton
acreage has been
accompanied by
an appreciable
increase in the
nunber of pigs
and hogs in Hart _ _____
county and a small increase
in the number of dairy cat
tle.
j'ackson county, which
decreased its cotton acre
age by almost 50 per cent,
also decreased its yield
from 0.51 bales in 1929 to
O.U8 in 1939. Since Jack
son county had second to
the largest cotton acreage
in the Area, and the yield
was next to lowest, it is
possible that further ad
justment of cotton land
can be made. ' •
Franklin and Madison
counties each reduced acre
age by approximately US
per cent and attained a more
favorable yield per acre.
Barrow county, by re
ducing its acreage from
26,978 acres in 1929 to
15,678 acres in 1939, only
maintained its yield per
acre of 0.60. However,
Barrow county ranks high
in the Area and has prob
ably made the best elim
ination possible, and by
its reduction of cotton
land has helped to permit
a profitable increase in
the number of hogs and
pigs.
Hall county reduced
its acreage approximately
1»8 per cent and increased
its yield from Q.hk to
0.55 bales per acre.
Of the counties
having relatively small
cotton acreage, White
county has apparently

to
l->
I
Counties
Over 70*
Subsistence
Farms
Towns
Union
Rabun
White
Lumpkin
Dawaon
Fiabersham
Total
Under 70*
Subsistence
Banks
Stephens
Hall
Forsyth »
Jackson
liadison
Barrow
Franklin
Hart
Total
Area Total
Panel I
Panel II
All
Farms
50.8
71.5
51*.9
78.2
89.6
I0li.7
73.5
72.9
86.2
82.1
78.1
66.3
79.6
81.3
61*. 8
70.5
61*.7
7l*.l
73.8
69.2
75.9
Average Nurabur of
Acres Per farm in
Plowable
Pas
ture
5.8
l*.l
3.5
6.6
3.5
6.U
5.8
5.0
7.9
7.7
7.5
1*.9
6.7
lt.1*
3.1.
1*.0
5.3
5.7
5.5
l*.6
5.9
Wood
land
22.3
1*3.6
35.7
1*3.1
62.1
63.0
36.9
1*2.7
32.9
1.0.9
33.5
28.0
20.9
28.1*
15.1
19.6
ll*.6
2li. 9
30.1
21.6
3l*.2
Crop
land
11*. 2
15.0
11.0
2f
16.J
21.6
19.7
16.7
27.1
2l*.l
21*.)*
•»*.!*
37 !o
33.1
30.1*
33. 1*
30.2
26.3
31.9
23.6
Source: Calculated from Table A-l*.
Idle
land
2.5
1*.3
1.6
*.2
3.9
l*.7
5.2
3.7
7.0
U.6
5.2
2.6
6.k
3.3
3.6
5.0
2.1
1*.).
U.2
2.8
1».8
Land
IS
Hi
-

made the most favorable adjustment of cotton lands. By elim
inating 3li per cent of its land from cotton, the cotton yield
per acre was increased from 0.29 bales, the lowest yield in
the Area, to 0.65 bales, second to highest yield in the Area.
This adjustment has in part resulted in an appreciable increase
in hogs and dairy cattle, which are proving to be profitable
enterprises for the county.
Land and :
Suit....
Eactflffriaf
Experiment
Station . . .
Ctorgia
Tid,
toduitrul . .
. . EcoaMaic
Rorarcb . .
Land Distribution: In the Northeast Georgia Area there is an ap
proximate total land area of 2,7lt3,OliO acres, of which 63.3 per cent was
in farms in 1939. Hart county has the greatest percentage (90.8 per cent)
of land in farms. The other three counties of Panel I and the first coun
ty in Panel H have the largest percentage of land in farms, chiefly be
cause they con-
Table A-U tain more farm-
Farm. Acreage Operated by Owners in 1939 for Northeast
Georgia Area, by Pane3S, Counties by Subsistence
Groups, and bjr Type of Ownership
Counties
Over 70jt
Subsistence
Fams
Towns
union
Bahnn
White
Lurapldn
Dawson
fiabersham
Total
Full
Owners
23,037
62,962
35,1*99
to, 751
1*2,1*59
33,869
1*7,771
287,31*8
Acres Farmed by:
Part Owners
Total
3,679
9,11*7
1*,060
ii,871
3,81*9
1,095
7,301*
3l*,005
Owned
2,650
6,675
2,092
2,989
2,756
593
l*,l*33
22,188
Rented
1,029
2,1*72
1,968
1,882
1,093
502
2,871
11,817
Managers
*
1,311
*
*
2,726
1*,037
Under 70* •
Subsistence
Banks to, 173 5,793 3,U55 2,338
Stephens 26,671* 3,379 1,598 1,781
Hall 77,587 10,092 5,51*8 1*,5U*
Forsyth 52,783 i*,587 2,889 1,698
Jackson 57,51*6 16,521* 9,181* 7,31*0
Madison 1*2,930 12,606 6,371* 6,232
Barrow 31,299 6,890 3,61*7 3,21*3
Franklin 52,1,85 11,828 6,352 5,1*76
Hart
1*7,139 5,853 3,1*50 2,1*03
Total 1*29,616 77,552 1*2,1*97 35,055
Area Total
Panel I
Panel II
716,961*
171*, 151
51*2,813
111,557
29,936
81,621
61*,685
16,360
1*8,325
1*6,872
13,576
33,296
•»
5,711
1,177
2,692 it-
823
*
*
10,1*03
ll*,U*0
823
13,617
Sources U. S. Census, Agriculture, GeorgS.a, 191*0,
First Series, Table 2.
*where less than three farms reported, data are
not included.
—282—
able land (see
Table A-5). The
presence of the
Chattahoochee
National Forest
accounts for
the small per
centage of land
in farms in the
northern coun
ties.
Tables
A-l* and A-lia
give the dis
tribution of
farm lands ac
cording to use
in 1939. Panel
I shows an ap
preciably higher
percentage of
land in crops
than Panel II,
and a correspond
ingly lower per
centage of wood
land. This
again, however,
is due in part
to the fact that
there is more
plowable land
in the Panel I
counties.
Farm Ma
chinery: STthough
mechanization
has
made consider
able progress in

iH W
fl) H
O CD
71*1
1,325
1,037
921*
81*1
611,
1,386
6,868
1,370
895
2,1*05
2,009
2,223
1,876
1,1.58
2,139
2,308
16,683
23,551
7,651
15,900
0
£
•2> n
«H Q w B
&t»
710
1,223
922
713
635
1.52
1,006
5,661
802
1*80
981*
576
62
519
353
1.31*
100
M70
io,53i
1,51*8
8,983
•H M
w n
•§

No.
Farms
$1000-$lli99
Value
Prod
ucts
Used
6
31 a 5
33
13
3
21*
129
138
122
162
161*
131
235
UO
__ ""**
—
——
—
—
— •
—
$1*,227
15,1*68
25,1*68
26,995
U*,5U
5,275
16,920
11*, 280
7,730
1*3,857
1*0,815
35,766
61*, 878
53,791*
U»,361*
52,287
Over $10,000
—- .
Per
Farm
Value
1701*
1*99
1*72
1*91
1*39
1*05
1*31*
357
322
369
296
293
1*00
328
339
221*
—
• ——
""**"
ii ^ b i
P 5 re § as
(5 H 1 p. O
-"-o-fu / tr
39 a i-B
Q ffi **
is£.&» H.°8s.s
:H-*
&
4*2 a m 2
r~* W ^ r-f
Vn.4 fii vo H-
B> (D
g^ ff B8
w «££ e*-
o\o» o> *3
v • Sf* I* E
Fssg"
p. H p (ft
i ° 8 o S-
o o ft o 3
SJ 2. 2 M »
4o P
8&^i
"gfrgg Ss ' ff
^ . —
" J
f ml S0!f f f (1
§.§ 1. jj 8 B.| • II
: I- •': if: |
Table A-63
I
to
I
Counties
Over 70$
Subsist
ence No.
Farms Farms
Towns 383
Union 2«5
Rabun 180
White 185
Lumpkln 236
Dawson 229
Habershai 1278
Under 70j{
Subsistence
Banks 277
Stephens 217
Hall im
Forsyth 212
Jackson 290
Madison 19I|
Barrow 119
Franklin 175
Hart 96
Under $250
Value
Prod
ucts
Used
$50,995
1*2,530
25,550
23,173
27,661
2!*, 295
33.965
28,277
20,905
1*2,781*
19,026
2l*,38u
16,1*05
10,726
11*,657
6.956
Over 70$
Subsistence Sl500-$21*99
Towns
Rabun
White
Lumpkin
_Q«
11 5,387
26 15,1*62
69 3,1*20
U.590
Value of Products Consumed by Counties Classified by Per Cent
of Subsistence Farms for levels of Total Production
Per
Farm
Value
$133
11*9
11*2
125
117
106
122
102
96
99
90
81*
8
90
8U
72
1*90
595
1*28
510
No.
Farms
195
363
276
216
229
161*
1*17
378
21*9
566
1*81
1*1*9
1*19
199
1*16
1*03
|250-$399
Value
Prod
ucts
Used
$1*2,928
99,372
78,056
50,11*7
1*2,662
30,71*5
100,290
3 1,01*5
2,375
— —.
— —
Per
Farm
Value
$220
271*
283
232
186
187
21*1
No.
Farms
112
391
288
236
183
120
389
$l*00-$599
Value
Prod
ucts
Used
$36,752
ll*!*,907
116,681*
70,1*07
1*8,156
33,21*5
122,336
Per
Farm
Value
$328
371
1*05
298
263
277
311*
No.
Farms
1*0
200
182
216
13
71
192
$600-8999
Value
Prod
ucts
Used
$18,11*1*
90,536
8U.839
82,113
50,967
28,275
63,091*
66,007 175 385 91,250 237 260 87,968
1*3,861* 176 21*0 57,372 239 119 36,988
87,926 155 617 135,851* 220 513 Il*l*,l»'i3
67,560 11*0 596 110,358 185 1*65 118,31*2
59,062 132 61*1 120,088 187 51*3 11*0,185
51*,9l)6 131 1*88 95,705 196 519 11*3 ,971
27,91*8 11*0 373 78,127 209 1*72 129, 1*1*9
56,595 136 651 121,756 187 615 160,882
39,261 97 712 91,078 128 699 118,821
$2500-$3999 $l*000-$5999 $6000-$9999
—— •*- " «
3U8
1*75 3 1,51*0 513 ——
——
.— — ~ —— ——
——
— •— — •
— ~
— ~
Per
Farm
Value
$1*51*
1*51
1*66
380
372
398
329
338
311
282
251*
258
277
271*
262
169

O CO 4
13- H- 8.'
ci- 5 w c* g 5
>
re
S-
0
g
o
3
re
H-
(0
1 TO
p- !5 & " ft
B » n » C o
.0.0 P

Such increase may result from an Increased volume of crops
per worker, or from a shift to higher value crops. The first Stiu ....
Enfioccrittf
may call for more land per worker, a combination of crops per Experiment
mitting double cropping of the present land per worker, or
StJtion . . .
Giocgia
intensified soil building to increase the yield per acre. If a TrOl
shift to higher value crops is not practical, that is, if a
Industrial . .
• . Economic
field crop fans is now producing crops to which its soil, labor,
management, and markets are best suited, then the one best means
of increasing income is through the improvement of farm practices.
In Table A-7, the number of automobiles, trucks, and tractors owned
on farms in 1939 are shown. Automobiles and even trucks will be owned and
used by both Subsistence and non-subsistence fanes, but tractors are only
profitable when farming operations of size are carried on. Table A-62
analyzes the use of tractors on the assumption that an tractors will be
found on non-subsistence farms. Somewhat suprisingly, this shows that in
the seven counties with the highest rates of Subsistence farms (over 70
per cent) are found the smallest numbers of non-subsistence farms per
Table A-lil '
Counties
Over 70!t
Subsistence
Farms
Towns ....
Union ....
Rabun ....
Whit£ ....
Lumpkin. ...
Bawson ....
Habersham ...
Total. . . .
Under 70$
Subsistence
Banks ....
Stephens ...
Hall. ....
Forsyth. ...
Jackson. ...
Madison. ....
Barrow ....
Franklin . . .
Hart. ....
Total. . . .
Area Total
Panel I
Panel II
Farm Wages in the Northeast Georgia Area, 1939, by
Panels, and Counties by Subsistence Groups
Total
Wages
Dollars
3,21*2
11,279
27,91*8
2,52k
6,796
3,039
63,919
118.7W
21,1*91*
18,507
51*,735
10,173
119,029
90,625
Ii7,959
55,609
58,012
1*76,11*3
591*, 890
206,769
388,121
Uonthly Wages
Per
Dollars Cent
602
878
6,621*
1,10.7
2,696
18,806
31,023
11,968
7,1*61
22,571
5,705
U*,53i
57,022
16,277
15,151*
36,352
217,01*1
21*8,061*
115,356
132,708
18.57
7.78
23-70
56.11*
39.67
29.1*2
26.13
55.68
1*0.31
1*1.21*
56.08
37.1*1
62.92
33.91*
27.25
62.66
1*5.53
1*1.70
55.79
31*. 19
Daily or
Weekly Wages
Per
Dollars Cent
511
9,1*79
U*,51*9
61*5
815
3,031*
37,731
66,761*
7,983
10,030
25,116
3,193
52,1*05
27,615
27,008
31*, 038
20,751
208,189
271*, 953
78,567
196,386
15-76
81*-0l*
52.06
25-55
11-99
99.81*
59-03
56.22
37.11*
51*. 20
1*5-89
31-39
1*1*. 03
30. 1*7
56.31
61.30
35-77
1*3.73
1*6.22
38.00
50.60
Other Wages
Per
Dollars Cent
2,129
922
6,775
1*62
3,285
5
7,382
20,960
1,51*3
1,016
7,01,8
1,275
22,093
5,988
l*,67l*
6,367
909
50,913
71,873
12,81*6
59,027
Source: U. S. Census, Agriculture. Georgia. 191*0, Second Series,
Table 10. ——— — ——
—226—
65-67
8.17
21*. 21*
18.30
1*8.31*
11.55
17.65
7.18
5.1*9
12.38
12.53
18.56
6.61
9.75
ll.!*5
1.57
10.69
12.03
6.21
15.21

tractor. Thus, in Towns county there is one tractor for every
li.li of the 31 non-subsistence farms, while in Hart county there
is one tractor for every 36.8 non-subsistence farms. While
Table A-62 also shows the number of farms per tractor on a total
farm basis, where the proportion of Subsistence farms is so
overwhelming, the figure is distorted by including so-called
farms which could never use a tractor. Many tractors are of
course used on more than one farm. They will be used not only
on the owners' farm but for custom work as well, such as harrowing,
Exp
Station . . .
Grarna
T«h
hdutrul . .
. . Ecoaomk
Ratuch . .
threshing, and grain harvesting on neighboring farms. Therefore, some of
these tractors were of value to many more farms than to the 532 who owned
them.
Table A-65
County
Data on Work off Farm by Farm Operators in Northeast
Georgia Area by Counties, Arranged by Per Cen'
Working 100 Days or More
State
Rabun
Habersham
Towns
Union
lumpkin
Stephens
Hall
White
Jackson
Banks
Barrow
Franklin
Dawson
Forsyth
Madison
Hart
Number
of AH
Farms
216,033
1,037
1,386
7ld
1,325
81tl
895
2,1(05
92k
2,223
1,370
1,1*58
2,139
61U
2,009
1,876
2,308
V
Work off Farm
Number
1(8,01(0
1(1(7
663
329
515
278
269
571
300
U7U
396
378
1(63
181;
1(09
362
267
Per
Cent
Average Days
Worked by
Full
Own
ers
22.3 167
143.1 199
1(7.8 160
UuU 108
38.9 ru,
33.1 131
30.1 157
23.7 171*
32.5 113
21.3 166
28.9 120
25.9 126
21.6 . 126
30.0 88
20.U 100
19.3 123
11.6 118
Part
Own
ers
Ten
ants
12li 93
136 172
98 10k
9U 102
83 95
8U 113
81 81
122 Hd
75 97
130 89
26 61
99 63
111 69
86 60
96 63
UiU 57
99 70
Worked Over
100 Days
Number
22,09U
320
316
13U
227
121
116
297
108
193
103
101(
151
1(0
112
92
75
Source: D. S. Census, Agriculture, Georgia, 191(0, Sec
ond Series, Table 9.
Percentage figures are per cent of all farms.
Per
Cent1
10.23
30.36
22.80
18.08
17.13
li(.39
12.96
12.35
11.69
8.63
7.52
7.13
7.06
6.51
5.57
U.90
3.25
—227--

Dairy and Livestock
livestock in the Northeast Georgia Area has shown material
increases since 1930. Although the 1939 income from livestock am
dairy products (5-81 per cent of the total income) is at.ni. belor
the state average (11.5), the industry is presenting itself as
one of possibilities, and as a solution to many of the agricul
tural prcbleais of the Area (see Table A-28).
Suu ....
Enginccrinc
Experiment
Station . . .
Gneaia
Ttdi
Indonriil . .
. . Ecoaomk
Ruearcb . .
An increase in the near future of about 16 per cent over the 1939 to
tals appeai-s to be a reasonable expectation. This increase should be
fitted to the best individual feed pattern of each farm. In general, the
types of operation suitable for livestock expansion in the Northeast
Georgia Area are, in order of their probable importance: (1) beef cattle,
(2) poultry, (3) hogs, (It) dairy herds for urban consumption, (5) dairy
herds for processing, and (6) sheep.
Table A-5
Kumber and Average Size of Farms, 1939 and 1929, and Per Cent
of Land in Farms, 1939, for All the Counties in the
Northeast Georgia Area by_ Panels and
Counties by Subsistence Groups
Counties
Over 10%
Subsistence
Farms
Towns
Union
Eabun
Unite
Lumpkin
Dawson
Habersham"
Total
Under 10%
Subsistence
Banks
Stephens
Hall
Forsyth
Jackson
Uadison
Barrow
Franklin
Hart
Total
Area Total
Panel I
Panel II
Kumber
of Farms
1939
71*1
1,325
1,037
92k
8id
6114.
1,386
6,868
1,370
895
2,1.05
2,009
2,223
1,676
1,1*58
2,139
2,308
16,683
23,551
7,651
15,900
1929
663
1,117
769
921
817
685
1,216
6,188
1,667
1,230
2,832
2,169
2,979
2,601
1,861
2,631
2,593
20,563
26,751
9,221;
17,527
Total
Land
Area
(Acres)
1939
110,080
20l*,l60
236,160
155,520
186,880
136,320
181,120
1,210,21*0
12(7,81(0
115,200
272,61tO
155,520
215,680
179,81(0
109,1(1(0
172,160
161(,1(80
1,532,800
2,71(3,01(0
609,280
2,133,760
—228—
Per
Cent
Land
in
Farns
1939
31*. 2
1*6.1*
2l(.l
1*6.U
1(0.3
1*7.2
5U.7
1*1-3
79.S
63.8
68.8
85.6
82.0
8U.8
86.3
87.7
90.8
80.7
63.3
86.9
56.6
Average Size
of Farms
(Acres)
1939
50.8
71.5
5ii.9
78.2
89.6
lDlt.7
71.5
72.9
86.
82.1
78.1
66.3
79.6
81.3
6U.8
70.5
6U.7
7U.1
73.8
69.2
75.9
1929
72.1
90.0
66.5
91.1s
91.0
lOlt.2
85.7
86.2
73-9
61.1*
72.5
51*.o
57.5
53.0
1(9.0
5U.6
52.0
58.lt
61j.8
52.2
71-5
Source:
U. S. Census
Agriculture,
Georgia, 19UO,
First Series,
Table 1.

Greater opportunity for expanding livestock operations ap
pears to exist in the southern and eastern parts of the Area,
including Rabun, Habersham, Stephens, Hall, Banks, Franklin,
Hart, Barrow, Jackson, and Madison, and, to a less extent in
Forsyth, Bauson, Lumpkin, Unite, Union, and Towns.
While poultry is included in the above list, it is re
stricted to general farn poultry and laying flocks in the later
Stal. ....
Engineering
Experiment
Station . . .
Georgia
Tick
Industrial . .
. . Ecoaomk
Reaearch . .
discussion of feed, for the reason that the broiler specialty farms usually
buy most of their feed. In consequence of this, feed for broilers does
ncj; appear to be a burden on the feed production of the Area.
In general, the Area is short on hay, has an excess of pasture, and
is close to its needs for grains. The pasture and hay situation showed improvenent
in 1939.- and a continuation of this trend nay reasonably bring
about a oetter balance.
Table A-6
Counties
Over 1Q>%
Subsistence
Farms
Value of Farms, Land, Buildings, Implements, and Machinery
for the Northeast Georgia Area, 19UO, by Panels
and Counties by Subsistence Groups
Tonns .......
flhite .......
Total. ......
Under 70%
Subsistence
Banks .......
Hall. .......
Uadison. ......
Franklin ......
Hart. .......
Total. ......
Panel I. ......
Panel II ......
Source: U. S. Census,
Tables 1 and 2.
Value
of
Farms
$ 876,329
1,679,031
2,015,1,80
1,039,515
855,223
706,701
2,583,153
9,785,1,32
1,833,999
1,599,279
3,665,657
2,619,81,7
1,, 118,1,96
3,3^,1,75
3,219,560
3,675,1,26
1,,072,736
28,11,7,1,75
37,932,907
13, 251,, 618
21,, 678, 289
Land, Buildings
Per
Farm
$1,183
1,267
1,972
1,125
1,017
1,151
1,861,
1,1^5
1,339
1,787
i,52U
1,301,
1,853
1,782
2,208
1,718
1,765
1,687
1,611
1,732
1,552
Per
Acre
*23.30
17-72
35-90
11,. 39
11.35
10.99
26.05
19.55
15.51,
21.76
19.53
19.67
23.29
21.93
3l,.07
2k. 36
27.28
22.76
21.81,
25-03
20. U,
Machinery and
Implements
Total
Value
* 3U.U98
97,805
71,, 231,
59,761,
53,683
35,377
168,191
523,552
12U.072
88,263
21^,738
155,339
261,, 1A3
226,785
220,289
267.5U,
285,289
1,871,, 702
2,398,352
887,800
1,510,552
Agriculture, Georgia, 191,0, First Series,
—229—
Value
Per
Farm
*k7
7k
72
65
61,
58
121
76
91
99
101
77
119
121
151
125
121,
112
102
116
95

Hogs and Figs; Table A-39, which shows a marked decrease
in cotton plantings, indicates that there has been a favorable
elimination of marginal land fron cotton acreage. The indica
tions are that much of this land diverted from cotton will be
used for the production of feed for livestock, especially for
pigs and hogs, and if good land selection is made, and proper
feeding practices followed, the change will result in a more
wholesome balance.
Suu ....
EflfiBitriflf
Experiment
Suttoo . . .
Georgia
T«*
ladutriil . .
. . Economic
Reftarcb . .
The greatest livestock increases between 1930 and 191*0 have been in
pigs and togs, as is shown in Table A-6"9, which indicates such an increase.
in every county except two. Greatest percentages of increase were in Forsyth
county (126.L7 per cent); Hart (122.92 per cent); Jackson (63.37 per
cer.t); White (70.1>6 per cent); Habersham (63.60 per cent); Hall (60.77
per cent) and Franklin (55-97 per cent). Table A-39 shows that in all
counties in the Area there has been a substantial reduction in cotton
Table A-7
liunber of Automobiles, Trucks, and Tractors on Farms in the Northeast
Georgia Area, 1939, by_ Panels and Counties by Subsistence Groups
Counties
Over 70%
Subsistsr.ee
Farms
Towns
Union
Itobun
Tihite
Lumpkin
Dawson
Habersham
Total
Under 70!6
Subsistence
Banks
Stephens
Hall
Forsyth
Jackson
Zladison
Barrow
Franklin
Hart
Total
Area Total
Panel I
Panel n
Autooobiles
on Fanns
Faras
Heporting
13U
177
208
176
153
231
357
l,Utl
ii86
339
796
771
779
772
533
827
1,001*
6,357
7,798
3,130
1*,668
Number
11*0
180
221*
181*
173
21*8
380
1,529
510
359
853
797
836
826
611
856
1,01*0
6,688
8,217
3,271*
1*,3B
Motor Trucks
on Farms
Farms
.Report
ing
32
78
115
67
111
31
126
560
76
1»8
175
11,6
111
72
72
107
72
879
1,1*39
362
1,077
Number
35
82
12!*
70
120
31*
135
600
73
50
189
150
121
82
77
111
72
930
1,530
381
1,11*9
Tractors
on Farms
Farms
Report
ing
7
22
10
9
11
21
33
113
33
25
36
1*3
65
62
29
62
59
1*19
532
198
331*
Number
7
23
10
9
11
21
37
118
33
26
39
it9
73
68
31
66
60
1*1*5
563
208
355
Tractors
Farms . Aver
Report age
ing Date
1936-1*0 Latest
Model Model
2
10
2
5
h
2
12
37
19
7
10
7
1*0
35
12
20
13
163
200
67
133
Source: U. S. Census, Agriculture. Georgia, 191*0. Second Series,
Table 10.
———'
—230—
1931
1931
1930
1931
1931
1927
1932
1931
1932
1927
1929
1929
1935
1932
1932
1929
1928
1932
1931
1931
1931

acreage andjwlth the exception of Barrow and Jackson counties,
an increase in yield per acre.
Forsyth county, which shows the greatest increase in the
number of pigs and hogs since 1930, shows a decrease in cotton
acreage of approximately h2 per cent and a slight increase in
yield per acre. Production of cattle for milk and beef shows
little change.
State ....
Eaibuniv
ExjMnmnt
Surio. . . .
Gtorgia
Tid,
IndMtrul . .
Roaitb .
fiart county in 1939 showed an increase in hog production of approxi
mately 123 per cent. A small increase is reported for dairy cattle. These
increases are partly accounted for in the decrease in cotton acreage. Eart
county reduced its cotton acreage from. U3.056 acres in 1930 to 27,7U8 acres
in 19UO, or approximately 35 per cent. The elimination of marginal cot
ton land resulted in an advantageous increase in cotton yield per acre
from 0.3 bales to 0.66 bales, the highest in the Area, and permitted a
profitable increase in livestock.
Jackson county reduced cotton acreage 50 per cent, with only a
slight reduction in yield per acre from 0.51 to O.ljS bales. It the same
time there was an 88 per cent increase in the production of hogs and
pigs.
Unite county, in decreasing its cotton acreage, increased its yield
per apre from 0.29 in 1930 to 0.65 (the second highest yield in the Area)
in 191*0. This decrease was accompanied by an increase of over 70 per
cent in production of hogs.
county decreased its cotton acreage from 32, 390 acres in 1930
to 16,731 acres in 191*0 (approximately 1*8 per cent) and increased- its hog
production from 3^68 to 3^L6li (approximately 65 per cent). The conver
sion will probably prove advantageous since the cotton yield per acre was
increased from 0.1*1* bales to 0.55 bales.
Stephens county decreased its cotton acreage from 13,103 acres in
1930 to 5,383 acres in 191*0, increasing the yield per acre from O.lil'to
0.51 bales. The lumber of hogs and pigs increased from 97U to 1,1; 17.
Barrow county, while decreasing its acreage from 26,978 acres to
15,678 acres, a decrease of approximately 1*2 per cent, only maintained
its average yield per acre of 0.60 bales, which is above the Area aver
age of 0.57 and well above the state average of 0.1*9- A comparatively
small increase was made in cattle and hogs.
Madison county eliminated approximately 1*6 per cent of its cotton
acreage and thereby increased the yield per acre from 0.1*9 bales to 0.59
bales. An accompanying increase of approximately 50 per cent was made
in the number of pigs and hogs.
Franklin county reduced its cotton acreage approximately Ii5 per
cent from 1930 to 191*0 and increased its yield per acre from 0.1*1 bales
to 0,56 bales. An accompanying increase of 55.97 per cent was made in
number of hogs and pigs, and a smaller one in cattle.
Habersham county, having a total cotton acreage of only3,H3 acres
in 191*0, increased the yield per acre from 0.3U bales in 1930 to 0.58
bales in 191*0 by reducing its cotton acreage by approximately 1*1* per
sent. The number of pigs and hogs in Habersham county increased by
——231—

I
Counties
Over 70$
Subsiftence
Farms
Towna
Union
Rabun
White
Lunpkin
Devaon
ilabergham
Total
Under 70$
Subsistence
Banks
Stephens
Hall
Forsyth
Jackson
iadlson
Harrow
Franklin
Hart
Total
Area Total
Panel I
Panel II
Milk Cattle
Per
Cent
1939 1929 Change
1,238
1,771
1,570
1,253
1,018
730
2.016
9,596
1,052
1,560
1,203
890
785
729
1,1(95
7,711*
1,877 1,722
1.W7 1,319
3,1*71; 3,101
2,368 2,283
2,560 2,756
2,560 2,530
1,711 1,761.
2,9l*U 2,575
2,852 2,101
21,783 20,1(51
31,379 28,165
9,1.91 8,978
21,888 19,187
+17.68
+U.53
+30.51
+1)0.79
+29.68
+ o.m
+31..85
+2l|.liO
+ 9.00
+ 8.95
+12.03
+ 3.72
- 7.11
+ 1.19
- 3.00
+11.33
+18.78
+ 6.51
+11.1(1
+ 5.71
+1U.08
Beef Cattle
Per
Cent
1939 1929 Change
3
35
106
8k
68
25
52
373
30
29
112
11*
91*
1*3
31
11*6
258
757
1,130
31*6
781*
26
19
27
99
1.5
2
11»
232
6
6
85
1*
60
1*1*
13
86
30
331*
566
91
1*75
-88.1*6
-8!i.21
+292.59
-15.15
+51.11
41,150.00
4271.1*3
4. 60.78
+1*00. OC
+363.33
+ 31.7£
+250.0C
+ 56.67
- 2.7
+138. W
+69.77
+760.0C
+126.6J
+99.6!
4280.2J
+65.0J
Other Cattle1
Per
Cent.
1939 1929 Change
981
l.OU
1,210
691*
572
363
1,367
6,230
1,137
91*8
1,836
1,219
1,950
1,239
1,075
2,117
1,671*
13,195
L9,li25
5,207
m,2l8
817
1,091*
1,267
652
558
1*3 1*
1,157
5,979
1,108
633
1,833
1,21*8
1,516
1,251
812
1,1*58
1,225
ll,C81i
17,063
1*,536
12,527
+20.07
- (*.66
- a. 50
+ 6.14*
+ 2.51
-16.36
+18.15
+ li.20
+ 2.62
+1*9.76
+ 0.16
- 2.32
+28.63
- 0.96
+32.39
+1*5.20
+36.65
+19.05
+13.81*
+1U.79
+13.50
Ho zs and Pigs
Per
Cent
1939 1929 Chnnge-
1,61*1.
1,821.
2,785
1,258
908
861
2,333
11,613
1,856
1,1)17
3,161,
2,701*
3,21.2
2,981
2,256
2,71*2
3,609
23,973
35,586
11,552
2l*,03l*
2,058
2,573
1,91*8
738
719
.680
1,1*26
10,11*2
1,269
971.
1,968
l.WIt
1,768
1,999
1,962
1,758
1,619
ll.,5ll
2l*,653
6,771*
17,879
-20.12
-29.11
+1)2.97
+70.1*6
+26.29
426.62
+63.60
+1U.50
+1*6.26
+1.5.1*8
+60.77
+126.1*7
+83.37
+1*9.12
+15.09
+55.97
+122.92
+65.21
+ld*.3S
+70.53
+3l*.lk3
Sourcei U. S. Census, Agriculture, Georgia, 191*0,, First Series, Table 1*.
Other cattle represent animals under two years. The figures represent the difference between
"total cattle" and the sum of cattle kept for dairy use and cattle kept for beef.

S
T
H
H
S
1
E
§p.
c*
g01
H)
0)
i
CD
V*
>•
1
6a.
. Economk
Raeaich .
hj Jackson, Hall, and Franklin indmmui .
SX* greatest Hart, 1939. Area For- The
concentration is in
by A-35 Table shows the distribution counties swine
of Station .
Experiment
InSneeniit
approxinately per 35 cent, ised
Tables A-31 and A-32
Number of Cows and Heifers Two Tears Old and Over,
in 191,0, in~the Northeast Georgia Area,
by Panels and Counties
Number A-3~I
Counties
Over 70£
Subsistence
Farms
Towns
Union
Rabun
White
Lumpkin
Dawson
Habersham
Total
Under 10%
Subsistence
Banks
Stephens
Hall
Forsyth
Jackson
Madison
Barrow
Franklin
Hart
Total
Area Total
Panel I
Panel H
191*0
Total
1,238
1,806
1,676
1,337
1,086
755
2,068
9,966
1,907
1,1*66
3,586
2,382
2,651*
2,603
1,71*2
3,090
3,110
22,51*0
32,506
9,837
22,669
1930
1,078
1,579
1,230
989
830
729
1,509
7,91*1*
1,728
1,325
3,186
2,287
2,816
2,571*
1,777
2,661
2,1*31
20,785
28,729
9,069
19,660
Kept for
Milk
191*0
1,238
1,771
1,570
1,253
1,018
730
2,016
9,596
1,877
1,1*37
3,1*71*
2,368
2,560
2,560
1,711
2, 9t.lt
2,852
21,783
31,379
9,1*91
21,888
1930
1,052
1,560
1,203
890
785
729
1,1*95
7,711*
1,722
1,319
3,101
2,283
2,756
2,530
1,761*
2,575
2,1*01
20,1*51
28,165
8,978
19,187
• Kept for
Beef
191*0
*
35
106
81*
68
25
52
370
30
29
112
'Ik
9k
1*3
. 31
me
258
757
1,127
31*6
781
1930
26
19 '27
99
1*5
*
11*
230
6
6
85
k
60
1*1*
13
86
30
331*
561,
91
1*73
Source: U. S. Census, Agriculture,
Georgia, 191*0, First Series, Table 1*.
*Less than three farms reporting.
Per Cent A-32
191*0
Total
3.81
5.56
5.16
lull
3.31*
2.32
6.36
30.66
£.87
l*.5l
11.03
7.33
8.16
8.00
5.36
9.51
9.57
69.31*
100.00
30.26
69.71*
1930
3.75
5.50
1*.28
3.1*1*
2.89
2.51*
5.25
27.65
6.02
1*. 61
11.09
7.96
9.80
8.96
6.19
9.26
8.1*6
72.35
100.00
31.57
68. 1*3
Kept for
Milk
191*0
3.95
5.61*
5.00
3.99
3.21,
2.33
6.1*3
30.58
5.98
1*.58
11.07
7.55
8.16
8.16
5.1*5
9.38
9.09
69.1*2
100.00
30.25
69.75
1930
3.71*
5.51*
1*.27
3.16
2.79
2.59
5.31
27.39
6.11
U.68
11.01
8.11
9.79
8.98
6.26
9.11*
8.52
72.61
100.00
31.87
68.13
1 Kept for
Beef
191*0
*
3.11
9.1*1
7.1*5
6.03
2.22
U.61
32.83
2.66
2.57
9.91*
1.2U
8.31*
3.82
2.75
12.96
22.89
67.17
100.00
30.70
69.30
1930
U.61
3.37
U.79
17.55
7.98
2.U8
1*0.78
1.06
1.06
15.07
0.71
10.61*
7.30
2.31
15.25
5.32
59.22
100.00
16.1U
83.86

Sows and Oilts
Farrowing or
To Farrow
April
19liO
5.29
8.91.
13.61
6.51
3.55
1.90
7. 51.
1*7.31*
3.99
2.77
6.51
1..95
7.10
8.13
l*.l»2
9.28
5.51
• 52.66
100.00
23.01
76.99
April
1930
7.12
8.30
7.59
1).72
2.81.
1.17
U.3S
37.09
6.92
2.61.
3.65
US
9.63
5.95
5.59
10.07
13.71
62.91
100.00
30.00
70.00
pigs> sheep, 7 chickeng. 100 20 or
horse, dairy
cor.sxmed: cow, cattle,
hogs, 35
beef other 1 mature by quantity conaon measure. The number
unit is determined of feed reducing '"in. anjjnal unit is the result or animals 1' — J to a
1-3 a- tr
Stri
fc-S 0-^
BSSSS-g"
« M (9 PCS g
C* (U TJ t*1!
a o n 0 o"
1" p. 1 g c* ffl
HH j* 1 0
» rt ii Ho
v*» w TO o H- a
vn^ » 1^3 3
it. p.» oo
H- ^» o I
-i >/\ w oo g-
Tables A-31. and A-35
Numbers of Swine for 191.0 and 1930 in the Northeast
Georgia Area by Panels and CoutvETes
i lumber A-3li —————
Counties
Over 70!<
Subsistence
Faros
Towns
Union
Rabun
White
Lumpkin
Dawaon
Habershara
Total
Under 70£
Subsistence
Banks
Stephens
Hall
Forsyth
Jackson
Uadison
Barrow
Franklin
Hart
Total .
Area Total
Panel I
Panel II
Farms
Report
ing
April
191.0
1.78
682
725
631
1*92
028
932
U.368
9U1
670
1,533
1,537
1,1.79
1,1.00
1,000
1,1.70
1,81.9
11,879
16,21*7
5,786
10,1.61
Hogs and Pigs
Over k
Ho. Old
April
191.0
1,610.
1,821.
2,785
1,258
908
861
2,333
11,613
1,856
1,1*17
3,161.
2,701.
3,21.2
2,981
2,258
2,71.2
3,609
23,973
35,586
11,552
2lt,03!t
Over 3
Mo. Old
April
1930
2,058
2,573
1,91*8
738
719
680
1,1*26
10,11.2
1,269
97l*v
1,968
1,191*
1,768
1,999
1,962
1,758
1,619
11*, 511
2U,653
6,771.
17,879
Sows, Oilta
Farrowing or
To Farrow
April
191.0
170
287
U37
209
111.
61
21.2
1,520
128
89
209
159
228
261
Hi2
298
177
1,691
3,211
739
2,1.72
April
1930
213
263
227
HA
85
35
11*5
1,109
207
79
109
H.2
268
178
167
301
U10
1,881
2,990
897
2,093
Sources 0. S. Oensus, Agriculture,
Qeorgia,19l.O, First Series , Table 1..
Pur Cent A->5
Farms
Report
ing
April
191*0
2.9U
1..20
U.U6
3.88
3.03
2.6U
5.71*
26.88
5.79
U.12
9.U1*
9.1.6
9.. 10
8.62
6.15
9.05
11.38
73.12
100.00
35.61
61.. 39
Hogs and Pigs
Over 1.
Uo. Old
April
191*0
1..62
5.13
7.33
3.53
2.55
2.1.2
6.56
32,63
5.22
3.98
8.89
7.60
9.11
8.38
6.31.
7.70
10.11.
67.37
100.00
32.1.6
67.51.
Over 3
Mo. Old
April
1930
8.35
10.10*
7.90
2.99
2.92
2.76
5.78
1*1.11*
5.15
3.95
7.98
1*.8J«
7.17
8.11
7.96
7.13
6.57
58.86
100.00
'27.1*8
72.52

with subsistence rates below 70 per cent the order was the same,
hut the proportion of animal units represented by horses and
mules was higher, 33.83 per cent, while dairy cattle was 29.43
per cent. In the seven co-unties with subsistence rates above
70 per cent, dairy cattle' was first with 36.80 per cent, and
horses and mules were only 26.77 per cent. Table A-16 relates
the number of animal units to acres of farm land. For the whole
Area there was one animal unit for every 17.35 acres of farm
Table A-19
Counties
Over 70*
Subsistence
Farms
Towns
Union
Rabun .
White
Lurapkin
Dawson
Habersham .
Total. .
Under 70*
Subsistence
Banks ....
Stephens ...
UaT T
Forsyth. ...
Jackson. ...
Madison. . . .
Barrow ....
Franklin ...
Hart. ....
Total. . . .
Area Total. . .
Panel I. ...
Panel II ...
Feed Bequirements and 1939 Feed Production
Related to Animal Units in the Northeast
Georgia Area by Counties
Total
Animal
Units1
3,142
1,865
3,989
3,613
2,718
2,058
5,689
26,074
5,539
ll,027
10,755
10,328
9,342
6,047
6,008
9,'680
10,287
74,013
100,087
314,670
65, 417
1940
Requirements
Equivalent of
Corif
4,511
7,708
6,915
5,021
3,712
2,595
7,510
37,972
6,538
U,835
12,161
11,071
10,884
9,604
7,088
11,685
11,277
85,143
123,115
39,040
84,075
Ha/
4,820
6,494
5,710
4,899
3,793
2,942
8,073
36,731
7,790
5,563
13,553
7, 888
12,510
10,977
8,106
13,179
13,299
94,865
131,596
42,370
89,326
1939
Production
Equivalent of
Corn8
3,729
5,519
4,244
3,969
3,046
2,635
5,741
28,883
5,129
3,810
9,373
7,905
11,384
10,841
6,966
9,432
12,288
77,128
106,011
38,000
68,011
Ha/
1,009
1,704
2,625
795
660
280
2,213
9,286
1,685
963
2,273
1,609
6,428
3,081
3,079
2,49l<
3,618
25,230
34,516
11,387
23,129
Per Cent 1939
Production Was
3f 1940 Needs
Equivalent of
Corn2
62.66
71.60
61.37
79.05
82.06
101.54
76.44
76.06
78.45
78.30
77.07
71.40
104.59
112.38
98.28
80.72
108.97
90.59
86.11
97.34
80.39
Ha/
20.93
26.24
45-97
16.23
17.40
9-52
27-41
25-28
21.63
17.31
16.77
51.38'
16.27
28.07
37-98
18.92
27.21
26.60
26.23
26.94
25.89
lAp animal unit is the result of reducing all animals to a conraon
measure. The number of animals of various types needed to equal this com
mon measure is determined largely by the quantity of feed consumed. An
animal unit is 1 horse; 1 dairy cow; 1 beef cow; 3 other cattle; 5 nature •
hogs; a20 pigs; 7 sheep; or 100 chickens.
The corn equivalent, figure represents the amount of grain and simi
lar feed produced in the Area, (or needed), expressed as tons of com, ac
cording to its relative nutritive value. The hay equivalent figure repre
sents the amount of fodder produced in the Area, (or needed), expressed as
tons of hay.
—335—

Animal
Table A-22
tnniml Feed Requirements
1 Dairy cow
1 Beef caw
3 in "other cattle" group 1
20 Pigs
5 Sows
7 Sheep
1 Horse or mule
100 Ifature chickens
100 Chickens raised on farms
Corn
Zquiv.
in Tons
0.3755
0.2335
1.5000
10.0000
4.7750
0.4760
0.6678
3.8150
0.7800
Hay
Hquiv.
in Tons
2.00
1.27
3.00
• —
. —
2.10
1.60
—
~
^All cattle between three months and two
years of age.
Crop
Table A-25
Average Yields of Various
Forage Crops in Georgia •
Georgia Average
Tield Per Acre
Grainsj
Corn
Oats1
Barley2
.Ve1
Sorghum Grain
Hays and
Grazing Crops: 4
Peanuts
Conpeas
Lespedeza
Soybeans
Alfalfa
Small Grain
Velvet Beans
Silage: 2
Corn
Sorghum
Pounds
537-6
U83-2
792.0
390.0
711.2
Bushels
9.6
15.1
16.5
6.5
12.7
Tons
0.268
0.2it2
0.392
0.195
0.356
0.36
0.67
0.86
0.88
1.80
0.70
o.ia
U.25
5.25
Source: Calculated from data col
lected by the Georgia Crop Reporting
Service.
Average 1930-39 "Crop for 1939
%rop for 19U2-U3 * Average 1932-ltl
--236--
land. The nonsubsistence
counties had a
figure, 16.71
acres',slightly
less than the
Area figure,
while the sub-
State ....
EnfiKCriaf
Experiment
Sutioa . . .
Georgia
Tecft
Indoiteul . .
. . Economic
Research . .
sistence counties are
shown with 19.18 acres
per animal unit. The
largest amounts of land
per animal unit was in
Dawson county (31.25
acres), Lumpkin county
(27.73 acres), and Banks
county (21.31 acres).
Towns county (11.97 acres),
Forsyth (12.90 acres),
Rabun (lit.28 acres), and
Hart county (lti.51 acres)
had the lowest acres-per-
animal-unit index. In general,
it is believed that the favor
able percentages of the latter
counties may ultimately be at
tained over most of the North
east Georgia Area. .
The Feed Problem
In order to produce good
quality flesh and livestock
products at a satisfactory rate,
livestock must receive sertain
minimum quantities of feed. The
basic livestock feeds are corn
(or its' equivalent) and hay (or
its equivalent) plus the neces
sary protein and mineral sup
plements. Increasing the hay
and reducing the corn equiva
lent reduces the growth of beef
cattle and lowers quality.
Corn and Hay Requirements;
Table A-19 gives the estimated
quantities of corn and hay
needed to maintain the animal
units in the Northeast Georgia
Area in 19liO at a good growing
and producing level, the quanties
of these feeds produced
in the Area, and the per cent
that the 1939 corn and hay pro
duction was of the 19kO needs
for these feeds. Three coun
ties (Madison, Hart, and Dawson)
produced as much as 100 per

cent of production needs In corn or equivalent. All of the
others with the exception of Rabun county (61.37) produced more
than 70 per cent of the corn or equivalent needs. The Area
average is 86.11, which is well above the average of other sec
tions of the state.
The per cent that hay production was of needs, however, was
only 26.23 per cent for the Area. The highest per cent was in
State ....
Enfintcrimf
Exptrimtnt
Station . . .
Oorjw
Tidi
Indutiul . .
.
Rncarch .
Jackson county, which produced approximately half its needs. This appar
ently means that in all counties an increase in hay production is needed.
Since the available pasture will sustain, on a normal pasturage basis,
more animal units than are ultimately recommended, it seems probable that
such hay as is required can be cut from pasture. Probably, however, more
land should be producing hay and forage. Two sources appear available
for such an increase. A decrease of about 7,500 acres in cotton can ap
parently be made without affecting the total bales of cotton produced.
It is further estimated that about hai-r Of the 98,333 acres of idle or
fallow land can also become grass lands. These two adjustments would
increase the total for forage crops and pasture from 166,ltl.9 acres to
2U,317 acres (see Table A-ij9).
The requirement figures in Table A-19 are based on good feeding prac
tices, and their accuracy will be lessened in the case of poor feeding
practices, or the diversion of corn or other feed crops into unreported
channels.
Table A-2U
Improved
Practice
Estimated Effect of Specified Improved Practices
on Crop Yields inEdgefield County, S.C.
Liming
Fertilizer
Soil Adaption
Cultivation Methods
Per Cent
Increase
Over
Usual
Yields
Corn Oats
8
2S
20
65
8
25
9
20
Improved
Practice
Variety Selection
Seed Selection
Insect, disease control
(Probable increase from
an practices)
Per Cent
Increase
Over
Usual
Yields
Corn Oats
Source: Adapted from Table 11;, Land Utilization and Agricultural
'Adjustment in Edgefield County, S. C., South Carol! na Agricultural
Experiment Station of Clemson Agricultural College,
Bulletin 31*9, June 19U*.
Included in cultivation methods ares Use of cover crops,
time of planting and harvesting, and use of proper equipment for
tillage.
8Fossible achievement by 1950 with allowance for lags in ad
justments -by farm operators in overcoming customary or traditional
practices. The combination of all practices is not expected to
result in an increased yield equal to the sum of the individual
increases expected.
9
15
5
70
10
10
5
70
—237—

, 1
w
CO
1
• -
Feed Crop
Com, Acres
Bushels
Com Eq. Tons
Wheat, Acres
Bushels
Corn Eq. Tons
Barley, Acres
Bushels
Corn Eq. Tons
Rye, Acres
Bushels
Corn Eq. Tons
Small Grain Ikix, Acres
Bushels
Com Eq. Tons
Oats, Acres
Bushels
Corn Eq. Tons
Velvet Beans, Acres
Bushels
Corn Eq. Tons
Peanuts, Acres
Bushels
Com Eq. Tons
Sweet Potatoes
Feed Crop
Corn, Acres
Bushels
Corn Eq. Tons
Table A-20
Corn Sguiyalents liwdents of Feed Cro; Crops Produced in the Northeast Qeorgia Area
in~T3S[7 by. PaneliTand' (Jountles §£ guSsiatonce Qroups ~~
Area
Total
21i8,722
2,735, 1.56
76,591
36,126
362,711*
10,881.
21*5
3,361*
81
8,671
60,21*1
1,689
931.
11*, 278
286
60,890
1,107,308
15,91*5
2,335
81*9
535
1*83
79
Total
182,21*8
1,798,052
50,314.
Panel
I
Total
85,258
823,808
23,067
19,107
195,1.71
5,865
71
1,359
33
1,191*
12,786
358
1*01*
6,028
121
29,061
578,865
8,335
91.7
351
221
153
31.
66 28
Banks
15,329
135,968
Panel
Counties with Over 70* Subsistenc* Farms
II
Total Total Towns Union Rabun White Lumpkin Dawson
163, 1*

CA -
so cu co
Heeting the Area's Feed Needs
In view of the decrease in cotton acreage in the Northeast
Georgia Area and the increase in the number of animal units and
income from livestock
O\cn O C\J f\»
-rr\t^rH CJ «v •» •*

Cor two feed crops -utilized in the Northeast Georgia Area. Tlhile
the improvenent of the practices indicated will increase yields
Ln the Northeast Georgia Area, it does not necessarily follow
that increases will be the same as in Edgefield county, South
Carolina-
A-16
Farm Acreage Per Animal Unit in
the Kortheast jeorgia Area
for 1939 by Panels and
Counties
Counties
Over 70*
Subsistence
Farms
Towns
Union
Ba>min
white
TjffltplrT n
Dawson
fiabersoam
Total
Under 70$
Subsistence
Banks
Stephens
Hall
Forsyth
Jackson
Madison
Barrow
Franklin
Hart
Total
Area Total
Panel I
Panel U
Acres in
Farm Land
37,616
94,732
56,981
72,239
75,375
64,314
99,159
500,416
ne,o39
73,503
187,712
133,192
176,873
152,448
94,494
150,905
149,311
l,236;477
1,736,893
529,445
1,207,448
Anl null
Units1
3,142
4,865
3,989
3,613
2,718
2,058
5,689
26,074
5,539
4,027
10,755
10,328
9,342
8,047
6,008
9,680
' 10,287
74,013
100,037
34,670
65,417
Acres
Per
Anl mal
Unit
11.97
19.47
lit. 28
19.99
27.73
31.25
17. U3
19.19
21.31
18.25
17.'45
12.90
18.93
18.94
15.73
15.59
14.51
16.71
17.35
15.27
18.46
Source: Col. 1 U. S. Census,
igrieulture, 1940, First Series, Table
Ij Col. 2 from Table A-17; Col. 3 caljulated
by dividing Col. 1 by Col. 2.
1An animal unit is the result of
reducing all animals to a common neasire.
The number of animals of various
types needed to equal this common
neasure is determined largely by the
juantity of feed consumed. An animal
mit is 1 horse; 1 dairy cow; 1 beef
:ow; 3 other cattle; 5 mature hogs;
!0 pigs; 7 sheep; or 100 chickens.
Satt . . . .
EfifiaccriBC
Exptrimnt
Station . . .
Tftfc
Wuuial .
Crop Selection; Rocaftb .
The selection of the
crops to be produced on the in
dividual farm is of great value
in determining the income produced
Table A-21
Maximun Number of Anlnal Units
Which C, in Be Sustained 01i
Three 5Lfferent Bases-1- ii
the Northeast Georgia
Area , by Panels and
Counties
Over 70
Subsistence
Farms
Towns
Union
Rabun
White
Lumpkin
Dawson
Habersham
Total
Under 10%
Subsistence
Batiks
Stephens
Hall
Forsyth
Jackson
Madison
Barrow
Franklin
Hart
Total
Area Total
Panel I
Panel H*
Grazing
4,855
9,825
12,907
10,110
15,979
3,957
13,501
98,562
13,931
6,01.6
38,057
9,872
19,645
8,067
10,572
7,272
17,061
130,523
201,657
1*5,572
156,085
Grain
2,204
3,100
2,352
2,588
2,064
1,887
U,019
18,214
3,226
2,337
6,986
6,287
6,215
4,795
3,650
4,545
5,752
1^ ,793
62,007
20jU81|
M,523
Hay
659
1,281
1,836
585
Ii7l
196
1,558
6,586
1,195
698
1,804
1,676
4,797
2,265
2,281
1,834
2,805
19,355
25,941
9,027
16,914
The assumption in each case is
that in 1940 the particular feed
source could support the number of
animal units estimated, if the sup
ply of the other two sources were at
least sufficient to permit a normal
feeding program.
—240—

1
&*»
H
1
1
Counties
Over 70*
Subsistence
Farms
White .....
Habersham ....
Total. ....
Under 70*
Subsistence
Banks .....
Stephens ....
Hall. .....
Madison. ....
Franklin ....
Hart. .....
Total. ....
Area Total. . . .
Panel I. ....
Panel II ....
Tables A-17 and A-18
Distribution of Animal Units in the Northeast Georgia
Area In 191*0, ly Panels and Counties
Number A-17
Total
Animal
Units
3,11*2
1*,865
3,989
3,613
2,718
2,058
5,689
26,071;
5,539
!*,027
10,755
10,328
9,3U2
8,01*7
6,008
9,680
10,287
71*, 013
100,087
31*, 670
65,1*17
Dairy
Cows
1,233
1,771
1,570
1,253
1,018
730
2,016
9,596
1,877
1,1*37
3,1*71*
2,368
2,560
2,560
1,711
2,91*1*
2,852
21,783
31,379
9,1*91
21,888
Beef,
Other
Cattle
327
383
509
315
259
11*6
508
2,1*1*7
1.09
31.5
721*
1*20
71*1*
1*56
389
852
816
5,155
7,602
2,081
5,521
Type of Animal Unit
Pigs
and
Sows
131
221
336
161
88
1*7
186
1,170
99
69
161
123
176
200
109
230
136
1,303
2,1.73
568
1,905
Sheep
56
23
1.9
10
9
28
175
*
11
11
*
5
3
18
1*8
223
23
200
Horses
and
Mules
830
1,212
71.7
1,01*7
732
711
1,700
6,979
Chick
ens
560
1,255
778
827
621
1.15
1,251
5,707
1,907 1,21.7
1,136 1,01*0
3,069 3,316
2,610 1*,307
3,532 2,319
3,01*2 1,789
2,373 1,1*21
3,322 2,329
3,703 2,762
2&,69l* 21,030
31,673
11,728
19,91*5
26,737
10,779
15,958
Source :U.S. Census, ART!., Oa.,19liP, 1st Se
ries, Tables 1* & 5. Tess~Ehan 3 farms.
Per Cent A-18
Type of Animal
Dairy
Cows
39.1*0
36.1*1
39.36
31*. 68
37.1.5
35.1*7
35.1*1*
36.80
33.89
35.68
32.30
22.93
27.J*0
31.81
28.1*8
30.1*1
27.72
29.1*3
31.35
27.37
33.1*6
Beef,
Other
Cattle
10.1*1
7.37
12.76
8.72
9.53
7.09
8.93
9.33
7.38
8.57
6.73
1*.07
7.97
5.67
6.1*8
8.80
' 7.93
6.97
7.60
6.00
8.1*1*
Sows
and
Pigs
U.17
l*.51*
8.1*2
1*.1*5
3.21*
2.28
3.27
1*.1*9
1.79
1.71
1.50
1.19
1.38
2.1*9
1.81
2.38
1.32
1.76
2.1*7
1.61*
2.91
Sheep
1.78
0.1*7
1.23
0.28
0.1*1*
0.1*9
0.67
0.10
0.12
0.08
0.03
0.18
0.07
0.22
0.07
0.31
Horses
and
Mules
26.!*2
2U.91
18.73
28.98
26.93
3U.5S
29.38
26.77
31*. 1*3
28.21
28.51*
25.27
37.81
37.80
39.50'
3l*.32
36.00
33.36
31.65
33.83
30.1*9
Chick
ens
17.82
25.30
19.50
22.89
22.35
20.17
21.99
21.89
22.51
25.83
30.83
1*6.51*
2l*.82
22.23
23.65
2U.06
26.35
28.1*1
26.71
31.09
21*. 39

on the farm. In fact, under any given set of conditions, there
is one combination of enterprises which will prove the most
profitable. This combination will be influenced from year to
»
c o •*-<
•H -p -p
0 3
6CT3
I bC O
O
5£
North
§
•H
Ol -P
c m 3
. T
EH O
t,
PH
«S
«D •P -P
•H CO O
ff bCT3
3 hfl 0
O 3 >
F
the Nor c
x
t-4
CO
O t> -H
(, 4> •&
O 3
63 T3
.3 to o
t-, CO fc
o
o
•s
c
•p
IH
o
o
•r*
en -P
to c .
t-C TJ
ot
g
o> s
-"2
Pk

33,937
1,897
755 1*17
1,829
5
31
38,502
0 1
CO TO ( c+ 3"
fc
£ M
(0 fl» r
p £ p.
H- H-O
CO (u (IP
OOP
c«- O
ȣ{
•a g- (
ft £l
8S8
c* sf 5"
O hlS
Crop
Corn
Orain sorghum1
Wheat
Oats
Velvet beans1
Table A-27
Grain Production for 1939 in the Northeast Qeorgla Area and Suggested Reallocation of Acreage
Peanuts (solid)1
Peanuts (interplanted;
Rye1
Barley 8
Small grain
Totals
Corn
Grain sorghum1
Wheat
Oats
Velvet beans
Peanuts (solid)1
Peanuts (interplanted)
Rye1
Barley
Small grain
Totals
Northeast Georgia Area
Suggested Reallocation
Yield in Tons3
At 70 Per
1939 Cent In
1939 Production
Yield creased
Per Yield
Acres Tons Acres Acre Per Acre
21*8,722
%
36,126
60,890
2,333
1,31*3
102
8,671
21*5
931*
359,1*22
196,271 56
33,932
58,862
2,160
1,262
93
2,707
227
81*9
296,1419
76,591
18
10,881*
15,91*5
535
66*
1,689
81
286
106,095
Ten Soi
55,61*9
18
10,272
15,1*95
1*91*
60*
__
613
78
268
82,91*7
200,000
56
5o,ooo
80,000
1,000
500
100
9,000
21,5
1,000
61,588
18
15,061*
20,91*9
229
25
1,753 81
306
100,013
3l»l,901
ithem Counties
150,000 56
1*6,000
78,000
900
1*50
100
3,036
227
915
279,681*
1*1,625
18
13,91*8
20,505
205
21
_
677
78
288
77,365
10l*,700
31
25,609
35,613
389 1*3
2,980
138
520
170,023
1939 Production
Acres
52,1*51
. —
2,191*
2,028
173
81
9
5,961*
18
85
63,003
Six Northern Counties
Suggested Reallocation
Yield in Tons
At 70 Per
1939 Cent In
Yield creased
Per Yield
Tons Acres Acre Per Acre
20,91*2
_
612
1*50
1*1
6*
1,076
3
18
23,11*8
50,000
. —
1*,000
2,000
100
50
5,96U
18
85
62,217
19,963
1,116
1*1*1*
21*
1*
1,076
3
18
22,61*8
70,763
31 Source; U. S. Census, Agriculture
23,712 191*0, First Serles,Tables 6 and Y) Second
31*,858 Series, Table 12.
31*8 #This figure includes interplanted.
36 1 These enterprises are not important
— in Northeast Georgia Area.
1,1*1 E Barley is a very promising grain
.133 for livestock feeding. Due to very small
1*89 acreage grown,no recommendation is made.
131,521 'Expressed in corn equivalent(A-20) .

Tables A-28 and A-29
Live stack and Dairy Sales in Northeast Georgia
.rea '"by Oountloa ai7d"Typea of Farm
I
o
Counties
Over 70#
Subsistence
Farms
Toms
Union
Rabun
White
Lumpkin
Dawson
Habersham
Total
Under 70*
Subsistence
Banks
Stephens
Hall
Forsyth
Jackson
Madison
Barrow
Franklin
Hart
Total
Area Total
Panel I
Panel II
Livestock
and Dairy
Dollar
Value
* 19,891
2li,235
51,632
13,71*1*
1U.559
6,521
69,351
200, 1*33
33,223
1*2,670
180,672
50,01*7
68,706
1,3,686
W,96l
1*5,059
55,050
568,071*
768,507
197, 71*1*
570,763
Per
Cent
8.35
I*. 19
8.87
3.00
3.91
2.97
3.57
6.17
5.08
10.29
13.05
U.30
U.99
3.71*
1*.91
3.61
3.52
5.70
5.81
1*.0>*
6.85
Livestock
Dollar
Value
$ 11*, 1*99
21,790
31,038
10,951
8,213
5,069
31,079
122,639
19,323
ll*,017
1*U, 193
22,111
33,1*88
22,878
20,51*7
26,011*
25,339
cc. i f y ou
350,599
90,925
.259,6714
Per
Cent
6.1,5
3.77
5.33
2.39
2.21
2.31
3.81
3.77
2.96
3.38
3.19
1.90
2.1*3
1.96

Oats; In those cases vjhsre the production per acre of oats |
is comparable to that of corn, there ar*. certain advantages in
utilizing oats as a feed crop. At least two important adrantages
of oats under the above conditions are: (1} it gives an
opportunity for better soil protection, and (2) it gives an op
portunity for a grain crop and a hay crop to be made from the
land during the same year.
Sate ....
Enfinitiuif
Expcrimtnt
Station . . .
^ndutria] . .
Economic
Rtwarcb . .
Oats probably should be substituted for corn wherever the oat yield
on an individual farm appears likely to be twice the corn yield in bushels.
Silage; Fanners interested in heavy-forage-consuming livestock can
well supplement hay with silage. The utilization of silage will probably
fit in best with dairy farming. Three tons of silage is the rough equiv
alent of one ton of hay. On this basis, the average yield of corn silage
Counties
Over 70
Subsistence
Farms
Towns ....
Union ....
Eabun ....
White ....
Lumpkin. ...
Dawson ....
Habersham ...
Total. . . .
Table A-39
Cotton Acreage and Production in the Northeast
Georgia Area, for 1939 and 1929, by Panels
and Counties by Subsistence Croups
Acres
3,013
1.U7U
2,308
3,113
9,908
Under 10%
Subsistence
Banks .... 9,985
Stephens . . . 5,383
Hall. .... 16,731
Forsyth. ... U.,511.
Jackson. 25,535
Madison. . . . 20,961
Barrow .... 15,678
Franklin . . 21,802
Hart. . - . . . 27,71.8
Total. . . . 158,337
Area Total. . . 168,21,5
Panel I. ... 78,901
Panel H . . . 89,3U.
1939
Tield
(Bales)
1,955
778
1,329
1,806
5,868
It, 652
2,71.6
9,12li
8,588
12,363
12,303
9,372
12,239
18, la8
89,805
95,673
1.8,681
1.6,992
Per
Acre
(Bales
0.65
0.53
0.58
0.58
0.59
0.1*7
o.5i
0.55
0.59
0.1.8
0.59
0.60
0.56
0.66
0.57
0.57
0.62
0.53
Acres
39
l.,51.9
2,329
3,973
5,51.8
. 16,1.38
21,685
13,1.03
32,390
21., 960
50,115
38,652
26,978
39,209
U3,056
290,1.78
306,916
133,61.6
173,270
1929
lield
(Bales)
20
1,330
672
1,51.3
1,908
5,1.73
8,1.32
5,14.9
Hi, 170
13,678
25, ao
18,781
16,10.5
16,087
15,907
13!., 329
139,802
614,781
75,021
Per
Acre
(Bales)
0.51
0.29
0.29
0.39
0.3U
0.33
0.39
o.la
o.ia.
0.55
o.5i
0.1.9
0.61
0.1)1
0.37
O.lt6
O.lj6
0.1.8
0.1.3
Per
Cent
Decrease
(Acres)
33.77
36.71
la. 91
1.3.89
39.73
53.95
59.8U
U8.35
la-85
1.9.08
15.77
la.89
W..UO
35.55
15.li9
1.5.18
1.0.96
W.hk
Source: U. S. Census, Agriculture, Georgia, 191$, First Series,
Table 7, and U. S. Census, Agriculture, 1930, Volume n, Part 2, Table
5.
--245—

is equivalent to 1.1(2 tons of hay, while sorghum silage produces
the equivalent of 1.75 tons of hay. Sorghum silage also has
shown a higher feeding value than corn in silage feeding tests.
Pasturage; The cheapest livestock feed is produced in good
pastures. Improving pastures is not only an economical means of
producing feed, tut Improving pastures means less acreage per
animal, thereby enabling the farmer to produce more livestock on
Sut.....
ElfiiHcriif
Expcrincnt
Sntioti . . .
Grorpt
T«ft
Induniil. .
. . Ecoaoak
Rotarcb .
a given acreage. One of the first things farmers in the Northeast Georgia
Area should do to increase their livestock is to Improve their pastures.
Improved pastures are the foundation of both beef cattle and dairy
operations on the one hand and soil improvement on the other. By the
selection of the particular hay crop best suited to the individual farmer's
land, almost any land which is either not being otherwise used, or which
has become depleted through erosion or over-cropping may be restored to
usefulness and fertility. The greatest possibility of improving the live
stock phase of the Northeast Georgia Area's agriculture, seems to be in
Table A-33
Value of Dairy Products Sold in 1939 and in 1929 in the Northeast
Georgia Area by Ki-nd and by Panels' and Counties
Counties
Over 70*
Subsistence
Farms
Towns
Dnion
Habun
White
Lumpkin
Dawson
Eabersham
Total
Under 70*
Subsistence
Banks
Stephens
Hall
Forsyth
Jackson
Uadison
Barrow
Franklin
Hart
Total
Area Total
Panel I
Panel H
Total Value
1939
* 6,716
2,363
19,259
2,U73
6,905
2,326
1.1,001.
81,01.6
16,220
28.151
129,725
35,183
3lt,731
28,027
27,271
19,856
32,180
351, 3U.
U32,390
122,661
309,729
1929
* 6,532
5,553
16,088
U.137
5,225
i.,271
39,023
80,829
21,836
19,092
66,079
63,381.
51,1.60
1.0,502
1*0,689
lil,629
29,830
375,001
1(55,830
17U,905
280,925
Whole Milk Sold
1939
1929
* 1..079 * 1,606
769
15,672
1(63
6,202
200
35,01.7
62,1.32
10,667
21,187
111,360
1,681.
23,092
12,293
15,582
9,095
17,863
222,823
285,255
1.7,1*22
237,833
1,216
8,71(7
656
1,875
200
22,1(88
36,788
1,631
7,669
29,590
2,625
15,260
2,1(98
20,1(26
10,082
5,707
95,1(88
132,276
31,256
101,020
Cream Sold
1939
*2,181(
1,125
535
1,003
1,251
6,098
l,7U7
»
1,703
1,53*
5,1(11
532
1,397
3,228
15,551.
21,652
9,171
12,1(81
1929
>3,181
1,729
3,122
1,631
6,812
16,1(75
7,329
l,Urf
2,1(1(1
Id
1(,319
U(,250
1,01(6
8,81.9
9,21(9
1(8,971
65,1(1(6
2U,586
1(0,860
Butter Sold
1939
* 1(53
1(69
3,052
1,007
703
2,126
lu7Q6
12,516
3,806
6.63U
16,662
33,1(86
10,103
10,323
11,157
9,361.
11,089
112,621.
155,11(0
66,055-
59,085
Source: B. S. Census, Agriculture, Georgia, 191.0, Third Series,
Table 16.
•KWhere less than three farms reported, data are not included.
—246—
1929
1 1,71(5
2,608
U,219
i,85o
3,350
It, 071 9,723'
27,566
12,376
1
9,976
3U.01.8
61,218
31,881
23,751.
19,217
22,698
ll(,87l»
230,51(2
258,108
305,063
139,01(5

an increase in the production, of feeds of the right kind. This
will lead to the handling of more animals at a profit. Steps
which may improve the live«tock industry are:
1. Use of legumes more extensively to improve the
quality of feed and increase yields.
2. Maintaining or increasing the present yield of
corn.
3- Increasing the acreage of oats for feed.
Ij. Improving pasture lands by proper seeding and the
use of phosphates.
5. Bringing idle or fallow land into use by establish-
Table A-30
Dairy Products Sold and Traded in the Northeast
Georgia Area for 1939, by Type of Farm,
and by Panels and Counties
Counties
Over 70$
Subsistence
Farms
Towns
tlnion
Rabun
Hhite
Lunpktn
Bauson
Habersham
Total
Under 70*
Subsistence
Banks
Stephens
Hall
Forsyth
Jackson
Madison
Barrow
Franklin
Hart
Total
Area Total
Panel I
Panel II
Dairy Farms
Dollar
Value
» —
9,758
29,022
33,780
21,912
109,350
17,892
11,939
iii,3ii
175,U01*
2Ui,18l4
26,250
187,931*
Per
Cent
1.68
3.56
1.19
5.29
7-90
1.30
1.20
0.91
1.76
1.62
0.5U
2.26
Field Crop
Farms
Dollar
Value
( __
*
1,235
1,272
163
383
U,0l*9
7,102
3,181
2,1*77
11,557
16,51*7
11,831
11*,1*99
11,122
11,921
13,1*62
96,597
103,699
55,630
1*8.069
Per
Cent
*
0.21
0.28
O.Olt
0.17
0.50
0.22
0.1*9
0.60
0.83
1.1*2
0.36
1.2li
1.11
0.95
0.66
0.97
0.78
l.Ut
0.58
Other Farms
Dollar
Value
* 2,621*
2,231
7,986
1,287
767
973
5,1*53
21,321
2,582
U, 259
15,1*16
8,571.
5,1*37
5,972
5,21*9
3,263
1.55U
52,356
73,677
21,3l»9
S2.328
Per
Cent
1-17
0.39
1.37
0.28
0.21
0.1*1*
0.67
0.66
0.2)0
1.03
1.1:
o.7l*
0.1*0
o.5i
0.53
0.26
0.10
0.52
0.56
0.1*1*
0.61
Source: C. S. Census, Agriculture, Georgia, 19ltO,
Third Series, Tables 19 and 17^ The Census Items, ———
"livestock" and "Other livestock Products" have been
combined. The per cent figures are per cent of the
the Area, Panel, or Courty. Col. 5 Is calculated by
subtracting Col. 1 and Col. 3 from totals in Table 17.
«Less than 3 farms reporting, data not included. _
—247—
Exptwnt
Stirion . . .
bdwniil. .
..Eco
Rontth
ing soil conserva
tion practices
that will provide
additional pas
ture or feed for
livestock.
Eetail of
Crop Adjustment;
As previously
indicated, con
siderable ad
justment is
needed in feed
production in
the Northeast
Georgia Area in
order to maintain
the present num
ber of livestock
and to produce
good quality
animals. Farmers
in the Northeast
Georgia Area
should go as far
as possible to
-increase their
livestock feed
production.
Sweet
Potatoes; Sweet
potatoes have
not been con
sidered as a pos
sible livestock
feed in making
these estimates
for the Northeast
Georgia Area for
the reason that
the total acre
age is small and
is very largely
for taman con
sumption. It is

difficult under these conditions to estimate what sort of in
crease is practical. The najor limitation is the hand-setting
of slips. The expansion of sweet potato production appears to
be dependent upon finding implements and developing practices
asking it possible to plant "draws" with less labor than it
takes for hand planting, and to plant sweet potatoes whenweather
is clear and soil dry. The high feed value of sweet
potatoes per acre cannot now be capitalized because of a plant
ing practice of waiting on a rain to put out sweet potatoes.
If the use of planting machines* can be adopted in parts- of the North
east Georgia Area, it would then be possible and desirable to plant many
thousands of acres purely for feed in the southern counties.
In addition to being a good hog feed, the sweet potato offers -good
Table A-36
opportunities as a
source of carbo
Volume of Uilk Products Sold in the
hydrates for cat
Northeast Georgia Area, in 1939
tle feeds. The
by Panels and Counties
average per-acre
yield of corn in
Farms
the Northeast
Reporting
Sales in 1939
Georgia Area in
1939
1939 was 11.02
•hole
bushels. The corn
Hilk Butter Uilk Cream Butter equivalent of the
Sold Sold (Gallons) (Pounds] [Pounds) per-acre sweet
potato yield in
12 22 11,655 9,926 2,383 the Area was ap
21 Ik 2,198 5,355 2,1*68 proximately •' 25
83 131* 1*7,1*92 2,1*3!* 15,262 bushels. The
16 59 1,322 1*,557 5,299 production'of
12 1*9 17,720
3,698 twice the corn
7 138 570
11,190 equivalent in
62 160 103,080 5,685 23,532 sweet potatoes
213 (506 182*,037 27,957 63,832 agrees with data
on the produc
tion of pork
from com and
19 228 30,1*78 7,91*3 18,123 sweet potatoes
38 202 51*,326 # 30,156 reported by the
157 571* 278,399 7,71*2 83,312 Coastal Plains
7 1,367 6,013 * 167,1*32 Experiment Station.
80 h29 65,976 6,980 50,513 Recent studies in
51 kak 3fc,U*6 21..596 1.9,158 dicate than famars
53 h2k 1*5,829 2,1*19 53,130 could produce at
53 529 25,985 6,352 1*1*,592 least 200 bushels
33 1*25 57,621 lit, 035 50,1*01; of sweet potatoes
k91 1*,582 598,773 70,067 51*6,320 per acre if size
(quality) were of
70k 5,188 782,810 98,021* 610,652 no consideration.
H,l| 2,620 11*3,609 1*1,050 320,121* In the production
560 2,563 639,201 56,971* 290,528 of sweet potatoes
Counties
Over 70*
Subsistence
FanBs
Towns
Union
Rabun
white
Lumpkin
Dawson
Habersham
Total
tinder 70*
Subsistence
Banks
Stephens
Hall
Forsyth
Jackson
Madison
Barrow
Franklin
Hart
Total
Area Total
Panel I
Panel II
Source: U. S. Census , Agriculture, Georgia,
19i*0. First Series, Table U-
•Hlhere less than thre e farms reported, data are
not included.
—248—
2 See Fortune,
October, 191*5, page
178.

for hog and cattle feed, quality is of no consideration, and 200
bushels of sweet potatoes are equivalent, in terms of feed, to
about IjO or 50 bushels of com.
Reallocation of Acreage; Table A-20 shows the corn equlvalents
of feed crops produced in the Northeast Georgia Area in
1939- Table A-U9 shows suggested crop adjustments which may
improvp the feed situation in the Northeast Georgia Area. The _
Table A-49
Suggested Changes in Crops to
Improvo Feed Situation in
Northeast Georgia Area'
Principal
Crops
Cotton
Grain Crops
Forage Crops 2
Jfcsture
Acres
1939
168.345
359,422
37,445
128,974
1 From Table A-27
*From Table A-26
Suggested
Acres
1950
160,745
341,901
86,010
157,307
rough formula indicated by Table A-lj9
is (1) to increase permanent pasture
acreage, (2) to decrease slightly grain
acreage, and (3) to increase acreage in
forage crops. Tables A-26 and A-27 show
In detail suggested hay and grain ad
justments for the Area, for the six
northern counties, and for the ten
southern counties. These suggested
reallocations of crop acreage should.,
of course, in the case of any indi
vidual farm be modified by a consider
ation of the actual acreage available,
and by the types of livestock which
are to be produced on that farm.
Table A-27 shows grain production
for 1939 In the Northeast Georgia Area,
and a suggested reallocation of acreage.
A total reduction of grain acreage for the Area from 359,l£2 acres to
3ltl,901 acres is suggested. If the 1939 yield per acre remained the same,
there would be a resulting decrease of total tonnage from 106,095 tons to
100,013 tons. However, with the suggested 70 per cent increase in yield
per acre the total tonnage would be increased to 170,023 tons. This 70
per cent increase in yield per acre is believed to be possible if the
four practices Riven on page 239 are followed.
Number
of
Animal
Units
125,000
Of the 106,095 tons of grain produced in 1939, approximately lli,390
TatUe A-50
tons were used for
seed and human con
Livestock Goals for the Northeast
sumption. Sub
Georgia Area, X950 and 1955
tracting then, we
arrive at 91,705
tons used for animal
feed in 1939.
Tons of Feed
to be Hequired
in 1950
Corn
Bquiv.
118,080
Hay
Equiv.
162,500
Number
of
Animal
Units
144,000
Tons of Peed
to be Re
quired in 1955
Corn
Bquiv.
135,300
Hay
Bquiv.
187,200
Of the 100,013
tons of grain that
could be'produced from
the suggested real
located acreage, ap
proximately 15,717
tons would be needed for seed and human consumption, or (subtracting)
Bit,296 tons for livestock. Tilth a 70 per cent increase in yield per acre,
the total yield would be 170,023 tons. Of this, approximately 17,117
tons are used for seed and human consumption, leaving 152,906 tons to be
used for livestock, with the suggested reallocation of acreage and the
proposed 70 per cent increase in yield per acre.
According to careful estimates, (made on the asstmption of good feed
ing practices), the 1939 total corn equivalent could have supported 62,007
—249—

animal units (see Table A-21). With suggested crop reallocation,
the proposed 100,013 acres at the same yield per acre could have
maintained 53,U52 animal units. With reallocation and an in
crease of 70 per cent in yield, available corn and com equiv
alents could support 99,370 animal units.
In the preceding calculations, allowance has been made for
both seed and human consumption. Since it is a fact that a part
State .
Eipenanat
Station . . .
Ctarfif
Tich
IndmxrUI . .
. . Economic
Roan* . .
of the grain used for consumption is imported, these estimates represent an
understatement. The amount of this understatement of the animal units,
however, is small, ranging from perhaps four to ten per cent, and there is
no practical way of determining on a county or Area basis just what it is.
Maximum Animal Units in the Kortheast Georgia Area; Table A-21 sets
up the maxumaa number of animal units the Northeast Georgia Area could
sustain. There are three groups of calculations, grazing, grain, and hay.
It is assumed in each case that in 191iO the feed source mentioned could
support the estimated number of animal units, if the supply of the other
two sources were sufficient to penult a normal feeding program. The
table shows that grazing in the Northeast Georgia Area could maintain
201,657 animal units, if other feed sources were normal. However, the
Kortheast Georgia Area does not produce enough grain and winter feeds
(hay, ensilage) to feed adequately 201,657 animal units if they are
distributed in the same proportion as obtains now.
The 1939 hay production could have supported only 16,91L. Pasturage
is apparently out of proportion to other factors, and a much more favor
able balance is suggested.
Livestock Goals; Table A-50 presents livestock goals for the North
east Georgia Area for 1950 and 1955. It is an attempt to readjust the
existing proportions, and to achieve a more favorable balance. These
estimates, as others, are based on an assumption of improved feeding
practices. It is suggested that by 1950 the Kortheast Georgia Area should
Table A-28a
Counties in Which the Per Cent of Total Income Derived
from Dairy or Farm Livestock is Larger Than
the Area Percentage From These Sources
Counties
Fall
Stephens
Rabur.
Towns
Habersham
Livestock
and Dairy
Dollar
Value
$150,672
U2,670
51,632
19,891
69,351
Per
Cent
13-05
10.29
8.37
8.85
3.57
Livestock
Dollar
Value
lid., 193
114,017
31,038
H*,U99
31,079
Per
Cent
3-19
3.38
5-33
6.1.5
3-31
Dairy
Products
Dollar
Value
«L36,U79
28,653
20,59U
5,392
38,772
Per
Cent
9.86
6.91
3-51.
2.1»0
ii.75
Sources D. S. Census, Agriculture, Georgia, 19iiO,
Third Series, Table 17. (Cols. 2, k, and 6) percent
age figures are per cent of total value of products
sold, traded, and consumed. (Col. 3) livestock fig
ures include the Census items "livestock" and "Other
Livastock Products."
—250—
be able to carry
125,000 animal
units, and by 1955,
UiIijOOO. The
more immediate
goal of 125,000
animal units is
an increase of
25,000 over the
191tO total shown
in Table A-17.
This goal is at
tainable only
by increasing the
feed production
efficiency of the
Area. It has al
ready been noted
that in 191*0 both
the available
com equivalent
and the hay equiv
alent were less
than the theoretical

amount needed to provide a balanced ration for the 100,000 ani
mal units then owned. Only on the basis of pasturage was there
an excess. The "plowable" pasture available in 19liO was suf
ficient for approximately 110,000 animal units— somewhat in
excess of the total actually being carried. In addition there
was available about 72,000 animal units of grazing on farm woodlots,
and in a few counties about 9,000 units on land not in
farms. Apparently, then, grazing was being substituted for both
Expcri
Station .
Tid,
Indoitiul . .
. . Economic
Rnurcb . .
hay and grain with probably some buying of concentrates. The greatest lack
of balance in this apparent program seems to be the lack of available hay.
A sound policy for the Area appears to be the transfer of .as much idle and
fallow land as possible, and cotton land with low yield, to either hay land
or pasture. Wherever possible, hay should be cut from permanent pasture
in order-to make more grass available for winter feeding. In Table A-lt9
it has been estimated that a total of 56,666 acres (see page 3li9) can be
added to forage crops and pastures, and that more corn equivalent crops
can be produced on slightly less acreage. Details of these adjustments
are shown in Tables A-26 and A-27.
TtHT-y and Livestock Values; Table A-33 gives the value of dairy
products sold in 1939- and in 1929. However, since the factor of price
fluctuation was not considered, comparison of production for the two dates
cannot be used for accurate conclusions. Greatest gains were made in
Hall county, where the total value of dairy products sold was almost
doubled. Most of this increase was in thfi value of whole milk sold. For
the Area as a whole, there is a large decrease in the value of cream and
butter.
Table A-28 shows the per cent livestock and dairy sales were of the
total farm income. Hall^ Stephens, Rabun, Towns, and Habersham had the
largest per cent of livestock and dairy sales in the Area (see Table
A-28a).
Tables A-30 and A-36 give further details of value and volume of
dairy products in the Northeast Georgia Area.
Table A-32, which presents the per cent of cows and heifers in each
county, in 1930 and 19UO, shows that greatest concentration was in Hall,
Hart, Franklin, and Jackson counties.
Table A-29 presents the value of livestock sold and traded in the
Northeast Georgia Area in 1939 and the per cent of the total each county
produced.
—251—

Banks County
Population: 1940 Total: 8,733; white ma let 4,033; white
fenale: 4,039; Negro male: 324; Negro female: 332.
Principal Crops; Cotton, hay, sweet potatoes and yams.
Land distribution; Total land areai 147,840 acres; land*
Sou ....
Experiment
Smio. . . .
Indutriil . .
. . Ecownak
in farms: 118,039 acres; land in pasture: 10,798; land in woodlot: 45,112
acres; other land in forests: 48,817 acres.
Retail Trade Summary;
Total
Pood group
General stores with food
General merchandise
Apparel group
Furniture, radio group
Automotive group
Stores
50
2791
—
~~
Sales
(Add
000)
t 188
86
50*
~
—
""—
Filling stations
Lumber, building,
hardware
Bating, drinking
places
Drug stores
Other stores
Sales
(Add
Stores OOP)
—————
TTeather
————3
Surmary;
FM
A H J J A S
Station
Average Ifcucimum Temperature
Gillsville 52.5 53.7 65.3 71.3 81.3 «7.5 88.8 88.0 83.7 73.6 63.5 62.5
Average ViniTmim Temperature
32.8 32.6 42.6 47.3~57.7 64.3 SS.& 6.8 62.1 49.8 41.3 32.8
Homer, County Seat
1940 Population; 283.
Railroads:None.
Eighwa; State Highway 15, connecting Athens with Franklin, N. C.
Industries;
Manufacturer
1. Garrison, 0. 5.
Kind of Product
Lumber
Ifaysville
33
Number
Kmployees
1940 Population; 514.
Railroads: Southern, connecting Atlanta with Athens.
Highways: State Highway 98, connecting Jfeysville with TJ. S. Highway
23 and State Highway 15 to the north and with State Highway 15 to the
south.
24
*
Sourse: U. 3. Census, other official sources, and local sources.
•Withheld to avoid disclosure.
—252—

arrow Uounty
Population; 1940 Total: 13,064; white male: 5,195;
whiteTemale! 5,410; Negro male: 1,176; Negro female: 1,283.
Principal Crops: Cotton, hay, sweet potatoes, yams.
in farms: 94,494 acres; land in pasture: 5,009 acres; land in
woodlot: 21,997 acres; other land in forests: 19,130 acres.
Census of Manufactures: 1939
Number of establishments 15
Average wage earners for year 1,603
Wages $ 873,535
Cost of materials $3,398,813
Value of products $5,462,920
Value added $2,064,107
Retail Trade Summary:
Total
Food group
General stores with food
General merchandise
Apparel group
Furniture, radio group
iutomotive group
Wholesale Trade Summary;
Sales
(Add
Stores 000)
138 $1,688
52 490
4 60
7453 271
50
69
88
Number of establishments: 9
Total sales, 1939: $565,000
1937
13
1,102
464,697
$1,978,454
$2,754,412
$ 775,958
Filling stations
Limber, building,
hardware
Eating, drinking
places
Drug stores
Other stores
Sutc ....
Eniuucrwc
Expcriaunc
Sutioa . . .
Oocji.
Tidi
Indutiul . .
. . EoMOBic
Racaich . .
1935
12
863
t 373,697
$1,277,918
$2,196,434
t 918,496
Sales
(Add
Stores OOP)
34 f 226
4 120
10 4 58
90
11 166
Winder, County Seat
1940 Population: 3,974. Area of Municipality: square miles.
Railroads : Seaboard Air Line, connecting Atlanta with Athens.
Gainesville Mfdland, connecting Gainesville 'with Monroe.
Highways : U. S. Highway 29, State Highway 8, connecting Atlanta
with Athens. State Highway. 11, connecting Macon with Jefferson. State
Highway 53, connecting Winder with U. S. Highway 23, connecting Atlanta
and Gainesville.
Paved Streets: 12 miles; sidewalks ; 10 miles.
Tax Rate, 1943; 15 mills; tax rate. 1940; 15 mills.
Public WorTcsT Utilities: Fire and Health and Sanitary Departments
adequate. Electricity supplied by Georgia Power Company. Ho gas. Source
of T/ater system: creek.
Other Services: Grade schools: 1 white, 1 non-white; Eigh schools: 1
white, 1 non-white. Churches: 6 white, 4 non-white. Libraries.- 1 white.
Banks: 1, with total capital and surplus of $75,000. Airpurts: 1, with
runway of 3,000 feet.
Source: 0. S. Census, other official sources, and local sources.
—253—

Barrow
Industries:
Manufacturer
1. Harrow Manufacturing Co.
2. Bellgrade Manufacturing
Co.
3. Carwood Manufacturing Co.
£. Bnpire Manufacturing Co.
5. Superior Garment Manufac
turing Co.
5. Winder Oil Mill Co., Inc.
7. national Furniture Co.,
Inc.
8. Sumaerour, G. W. , ft Co.,
Inc.
9. Winder Creamery
10. Lanthier's Machine Shop
11. Beacon Manufacturing Co.
12. Southern Waistband
_ , Number State ....
Emmeerint
Kind of Product Employees |«P«:-»"
Men's work pants 165 T*A
Men's shirts, pants, coats and overalls 270 ££

Dawson County
Population; 1940 Total: 4,479; white malej 2,266; white
female: 2,149; Negro mala: 64; Negro female --.
Principal Crops: Cotton, hay, sweet potatoes and yams.
Land. Distribution; Total land area: 136,320 acres; land
in farms: ^4,314 acres; land ia pastures 3,957 acres; land in woodloti
38,703 acres; other land in forests: 83,316 acres.
Census of Manufacturesi
Nunber of establishments
Average wage earners
Wages
Cost of materials
Value-of products
Value added
Retail Trade Summaryi
Total
Food group
General stores -with food
General merchandise
Apparel group
Furniture, radio group
Automotive group
Sales
(Add
Stores 000)
40 4
24
7
1939 ———3
26
76 Filling stations
24 Lumber, building,
* hardware
Eating, drinking
places
Drug stores
Other stores
Da-wsomrille, County Seat
1937 1935
Sales
(Add
Stores OOP)
7 4
1940 Population; 319.
Railroads: Hone.
HighwaysT U. S. Highway 19, State Highway 9, connecting Atlanta with
Murphy, N. 0. State Highway 53, connecting Gaiuesville with Rome.
2
26
, *
Industriesi
Manufacturer
1. Haamer, A. E.
2. Sherard, B. A-
Kind of Product
Lumber
Lumber
Number
Employees
10
18
Sourcei U. 3. Census, other official sources, and looal sources.
"Withheld to avoid disclosure.
—255—

Forsyth County
Population: 1940 Total: 11.332; white male: 5,664; white
female: 5,617; Hegro male: 22; Hegro fenale: 19.
Principal Crops: Cotton, hay, sweet potatoes and yams.
land Distribution: Total land area: 155,520 acres; land
in farms: 133,192 acres; land in pasture: 9,872 acres; land in woodlott
56,343 acres; other land in forests: 2,460.
Retail Trade Summary:
Total
Food group
General stores with food
General merchandise
Apparel group
Furniture, radio group
Automotive group
Stores
104 t
39
335
—
1
1
Sales
(Add
000)
560
91
187
72
• —
*
*
Wholesale Trade Summary;
Number"of establishmentsi 6
Total Sales 1939s $168,000
dimming, County Seat
Filling stations
Lumber, building.
hardware
Bating, drinking
places
Drug stores
Other stores
1940 Population: 958.
Railroads: Hone.
Highways: U. S. Highway 19, State Highway 9,
Jttrphy, S. C.
Industries:
Banufaqturer Kind of Product
1. Forsyth County Hews
Freezer Locker Plant - 550 Lockers.
Stores
10 f
5
— •
1
9
Sales
(Add
000)
52
21
—
*
81
connecting Atlanta with
Number
Knployees
Source: U. S. Census, other official sources, and local sources.
^Withheld to avoid disclosure.
—256—

Franklin County
Suu . . . .
Population; 1940 Total: 15.612j white male: 6,657; white
Tie*
female: 6,685; Negro male: 1,105; Negro female: 1,165.
Principal Crops; Cotton, hay, sweet potatoes and yams.
Land Distribution: Total land area: 172,160 acres;Jand in
farms: 150,905 acres; land in pasture; 8,527 acres; land in woodlot:
41,892 acres; other land in forests: 41,277 acres.
Census of Manufactures; 193S 1937 1935
Number of establishments 785
Average wage earners for year 205 277 202
Wages $ 90,756 $107,262 $102,224
Cost of materials $214.661 $317.699 $346,115
Value of products $362,009 $481,754 $525,542
Value added $147,348 $164.055 $179,427
Ketail Trade S'
.ry:
Total
Pood group
General stores with food
General merchandise
Apparel group
Furniture, radio group
Automotive group
Tfooles&le Trade Summary;
Number "of establishmentsi
Total sales, 1939t
Sales
(Add
Stores 000)
174 $ 1.869
80 488
4 47
14 239
3 7
7 78
6 264
$1,474,000
Carnesville, County Seat
Killing stations
Lumber, building.
hardware
Eating, drinking
places
Drug stores
Other stores
Stores
Sales
(Add
OOP)
22 $ 210
8 189
7 27
6 60
17 260
1940 Population:
AltitnHeT 800 feet.
3S1. Area of Municipality; 1 square nile.
Railroads i None.
Highways: State Highway 67, connecting Commerce with Seneca, South
Carolina.STate Highway 106, connecting Carnesville and Toccoa. State
Highway 51, connecting Carnesville with Hartwell.
Paved Streets: 2 miles; sidewalks: & mile.
Tax Hate, 1943; 6 mills; tax rate, 1940: 6 mills.
Puolie Iforks and Utilities; Fire Department inadequate. Health
Department adequate. Sanitary Department inadequate. No gas. Electricity
supplied by Georgia Power Company. Source of water system: Artesian.
Other services: Grade schools: 1 white, 1 non-white; High schools:
1 white, 1 non-white. Libraries: 2 white, 1 non-white. Banks: 1,
(private bank) with total capital and surplus of $5,000. Churches: 4
white, 2 non-white.
Industries:
Manufacturer
1. Sinn Manufacturing Co.
Source:
Kind of Product
Number
Bnployees
U. S. Census, other official sources, and looal sources.
—257—

Lavonia.
1940 Population; 1,667. Altitude; 865 feet.
Railroads: Southern, connecting Atlanta with Elberton.
HighwaysT State Highway 17, connecting Toccoa with Hashingto'SI
State Highway 59, connecting Commerce and Seneca, S.C.
Industries:
Manufacturer
1. Rilcon Ifanufacturlug Co.
2. La-vonia Manufacturing Co.
3. Lavonia Novelty Yarn Co.
4. Lavonia Lumber Co.
Freezer Locier Plant - 300 lockers.
Eizid of Produot
Hen's Shirts and Pants
Novelty t Colored Yarns
Hovelty Yarns
1940 Population: 1,549. Altitude; 910 feet.
Railroads: Southern, connecting Atlanta and Elberton.
HighwaysT U. S. Highway 29, State Highway 8, connecting Atlanta with
Greenville. State Highway 17, connecting Toccoa with Washington.
Tax Bate, 1943: 1 mill.
Fucllc Worlcs and Utilities ; Fire, Health and Sanitary Departments
adequate. Electricity supplied by Georgia Power Company. Source of water
system: spring and wells.
Other Services; Grade schools i 1 white, 1 non-*hite; High schools:
1 white, 1 non-whitej
5 white; 2 non-white.
surplus of (30,000.
Colleges; 1 white-. Libraries: 1 white. Churches:
Hospitals: 2. Banks: 1, with total capital and
Industries;
Manufacturer
1. Jefferson Mills #3, The
2. Harbin Lumber Co.
3. Veal, Martin
Kind of Produot
Cotton Cloth, Dobbies & Specialties
Lumber
Humber
Bnployees
298
—S58—

Habersham County
Sun ....
Engintcriaf
Experiment 1
Station .
^•a
. Population; 1940 Total: 14,771; white male: 6,949; white
female: 7,155; Negro male: 305; Negro female: 362.
Principal Crops; Cotton, hay, sweet potatoes and yams.
Land Distribution; Total laud area: 181,120 acres; land
in farms: 99,159 acres; land in pasture: 8,083 acres; land in woodlot:
51,098; other land in forests: 72,283 acres.
Census of Manufactures;
Humber of establishments
Average wage earners for year
Wages
Cost of materials
Value of products
Value added
1939 1937
485
278,369
630,834
1,193,201
562,367
Txh
Industrial .
1935 ——12
397
Retail Trade Summary;
Total
Food group
General stores with food
General merchandise
Apparel group
Furniture, radio group
Automotive group
Sales
(Add
Stores OOP)
171 | 2,075 Filling stations
55 469 Lumber, building,
149367 204 hardware
168 Bating, drinking
89 places
89 Drug stores
329 Other stores
Sales
(Add
Stores OOP)
44 t 276
11 253
9 41
4 86
9 71
Wholesale Trade Summary;
Miimhar-"nf
Total sales, 1939i
12
$971,000
Weather Summary;
———J~ F MAMJJA S 0 N D
Station Average Max^nm Temperature
Cornelia 51.3 54.8 60.9 71.2 77.0 34.8 SB.9 55.2 81.6 70.3 59.2 52.8
Average M-ini'mnm Temperature
33.0 35.9 40.5T9 .1 56. 0 63.9 66.3 65.7 62.6 50.8 41.0 34.9
Clarkesville, County Seat
1940 Population: 850. Area of Municipality; 6 square miles.
Altitude; 1.365 feet.
Railroads: None
Highways Stata Highway 15 and DV S. Highway 23, connecting Atlanta
with Franklin, North Carolina.
Paved Streets; 6 miles; sidewalks: 4 miles.
Tax Bate, 1943; 1 mill; tax rate, 1940i 1 mill.
Public Works and Utilities: Fire and Health Departments adequate.
Sanitary Department adequate. No gas. Electricity supplied by Georgia
Power Company. Source of water system; Soque River.
Other Services: Grade schools: 1 white, 1 non-white; High schools:
1 whitei Colleges: 1 white. Churches: 5 white, 2 non-white. Libraries:
j white. Banks: 1, with total capital and surplus of J50.000.
Source: U. S. Census, other official sources, and local sources.
—259—

J
Industries:
Manufacturer
Number
of Product Baployees
1. Killer, C. 11. Fruit Packing
2. Kebro Manufacturing Co. Novelty Funliture
4 Tfooden toys
3. Hill Planing Co.
4. Tanner, W. A., Co. Limber
Freczoi- looker Plant - 250 Lockers.
Cornelia
50
13
15
30
Ex
Surkn .*. .
T«*
Iiuhuttut . .
Racarch . .
1940 Population: 1,808. Area of Municipality; 1 3/4 square miles.
AltituHeT 1,535 feet.
Pjtilroads; Southern, connecting Atlanta with Greenville, South Caro
lina.Tallulah Falls, connecting Cornelia with Franklin, Korth Carolina.
Highways: U. S. Highway 23, State Highway 13, connecting Atlanta
with Seneca, South Carolina. State Highway 15, connecting Athens with
Franklin, North Carolina.
paved Streets: 6 miles; sidewalks: 2 miles.
lag Rate, 1943: 15 mills; tax rate, 1940; 20 mills.
Public Works and Utilities; Fire and Health Departments adequate.
Sanitary Department adequate. Ko gas. Electricity supplied by Georgia
Power Conpany. Source of water system: creek.
Other Services: Grade schools: 1 white, 1 non-white; High schools:
1 white, 1 non-white. Churches: 3 white, 2 non-white. Libraries: 1
white. Banks: 2, with total capital and surplus of $145,000.
Industries;
Number
Manufacturer Kind of Product Baployees
1. Georgia Shirt Co.
2. Cornelia Hatchery
3. Cason, George H.
4. Cornelia Cabinet Co.
6. Cornelia Manufacturing Co.
6. Cornelia Machine Shop
7. Baldwin Lumber Co.
8. Cornelia Veneer Co.
9. Eabersham Broom Co.
10. Eaney Mop Co.
Men's Shirts
Novelty Furniture
Porch Furniture
Brooms
Hops
Denorest
'1940 Population: 820. Area of Municipality; 2 square miles.
Altitude: 1,365 feet.
Railroads: Tallulah Falls, connecting Cornelia with Franklin,
Korth Carolina.
Highways: State Highway 15, U. S. Highway 23, connecting Atlanta
with Franklin, North Carolina.
Paved Streets: 2.5 dies; sidewalks: 10 miles.
Tax"Rate, 1943: 14 mills; tax rate, 1940: 14 mills.
Public Works and Utilities : Fire and Health Departments inadequate.
Sanitary Department adequate. Uo gas. Electricity supplied by Georgia
Power Company. Source of water system: Soquee River.
Source: 0". S. Census, other official sources, and lo';al sources.
—260--
275
35
10
10
50
60
50
10

Other Services: Grade schools: 1 white; High schools: 1
white; Colleges: 1 white. Churches: 4 white. Libraries: 3
white. Banks: (Branch of Cornelia Bank.)
Industries:
Manufacturer Kind of Product
1. Cason Cabinet Works Wooden Toys
2. Flor, Edward, Co. Saddle Trees
2. Southern Novelty Co.. Clothes racks, mop and
broom handles
4. Demorest Broom Works Brooms
Eabersham
Number
Bnployees
I
65
33
85
Eabersham
;ountv
Succ ....
Eiptrimmc
SutioB . . .
Inchutriil . .
.. Ecrauric
Rotarch . .
1940 Population: 696.
Railroads; Tallulah Palls, connecting Cornelia with Franklin, North
Carolina"!
Highways: None.
Industries:
Manufacturer
1. Eabersham Hills
Kind of Product
Thread and yarn
Number
Bnployees
295
—261—

Hall County
Population: 1940 Total: 34,822; white male: 15,483; white
female: 16,000; Negro male: 1,529; Hegro fenale, 1,810.
Principal Crops; Cotton, hay, sweat potatoes, and yams.
land Distribution: Total land area: 272,640 acres; land
in farms: 187,712 acres; land in pasturet 17,932 acres; land in
woodloti 80,501 acres; other land in forests: 43,608 acres.
Census of Manufactures;
Number of establishments
Average wage earners for year
Wages
Cost of materials
Value of products
Value added
1939
27
3,080
$2,161,856
$4,417,345
$8,732,944
(4,315,599
1937 ——— 23
3,015
$2,196,578
|5,254,084
$9,956,247
$4,702,163
State ....
Enfraeerinf
Experiment
Station . . .
Gtetgim
T«h
Indutrial . .
. .Economic
Remicb . .
1935
26
2,498
.$1,576, '29
$4,416,137
$7,092,116
$2,675,979
Retail Trade Surmary:
Stores
Sales
(Add
000)
Stores
Sales
(Add
OOP)
Total
Food group
General stores with food
General merchandise
Apparel group
Furniture, radio group
Automotive group
375
153
12
10
21
13
14
$7,328
1,597
125
793
387
542
1,791
Filling stations
Lumber, building,
hardware
Eating, drinking
places
Drug stores
Other stores
69
7
$ 641
404
34 226
8 241
34 581
Wholesale Trade Sucmary
Number of establishments:
Total sales, 1939:
Weathe r Summary;
29
$4, 259,000
Station
Average IfrTimum Temperature
Gainesville 50.4 52.6 61.7 70.3 79.1 85.8 87.3 86.5 81.7 71.9 60.7 51.2
(Jillsville See Banks County for data.
Ave rage Minimum Temperature
32.0 32.5 40.6 47.7 56.1 66.7 66.1 61.5 44.0 39.0 33.2
Gainesville, County Seat
1940 Population; 10,243. Aroa of Municipality; 3 square miles.
Altitude: 1,200 feet.
Bailroads; Southern, connecting Atlanta with Greenville. Gainesville
Midland, connecting Gainesville with Monroe; Gainesvillo Midland, connect
ing Sainesvillo with Athens.
Highways; U-. S. Highway 23, State Highway 13, connecting Atlanta with
Toecoa. U. S. Highway 78, State Highway 11, connecting Gainesville with
Augusta. D. S. Highway 129, 0. S. Highway 19, connecting Gainesville with
Blairsville. State Highway 53, connecting Gainesville with Tate.
Paved Streets; 21 miles; sidewalks; 30 miles.
Tax Rate, 1943; 17.5 mills; tax rate, 1940i 17.5 mills.
Source:
U. 3. Census, other official sources, and local sources.
—252—

Ball
County
public Works and Utilities i Fire Department adequate.
Health Department inadequate, additions to sewer system needed, Stat. ....
Eifnucriaf
Sanitary Department inadequate, better garbage disposal system
needed. Construction of incinerator under consideration.
Surioa .
Butane gas. Electricity supplied by Georgia Power Company.
Source of water system: Dry Creek and Chattahoochee River. [ndutml . .
Other Services ; Grade schools: 3 white, 1 non-white; high ..Ecoraik
RfMuth . .
schools: 1 wKite, 1 non-white. Colleges: 2 white. Churches: _
12 white, 5 non-white. Libraries: 1 white. Hospitals; 1.
Banksi 3, with total capital and surplus of 1*52,500. Airports: 1, with
4,000 foot runway.
Retail Trade Summary;
Total
Food group
General stores with food
General merchandise
Apparel group
Furniture, radio group
Automotive group
Stores
218
73
1
7
21
13
13
Wholesale Trade Summary:
Number'of establishmentst 28
Total sales, 1939:
it-
Sales
(Add
000)
Stores
*6,628 Filling stations 25
1,245 Lumber, building.
* hardware
7
765 Eating, drinking '26
387 places
** Drug stores
7
Other stores
26
Sales
(Add
OOP)
t 473
404
179
*
534
Industries:
Manufacturer
1. Bellmore Manufacturing Co.
• .. Small t Estes Bakery
3. Gainesville Cooa-Cola .Bottling Co.
4. Dr. Pepper Bottling Co.
5. Tright Ice Cream Co.
6. Hewton Batohery
7. Jewell, J. D.
8. Piedmont Poultry Co.
9. Swift t Co.
10. Georgia Chair Co.
11. Vance, Earl, & Co.
12. Oainesville Iron Works
13. Slack, IT. H., Jr.
14. Brown Wire Die Co.
15. £agle Publishing Co.
16. Goforth Concrete Products
17. Massey Concrete Co.
18. Bellmore Ifanufaoturing Co.
19. Faoelot kfg Co. f6
20-. Owen Osborne, Inc.
21. Best Manufacturing Co.
22. Ohioopee Manufacturing Co.
to avoid disclosure.
—263—
Kind of Product
Overalls
Poultry
Chairs
Harnesses & Horse Collars
Concrete Blocks
Concrete Blocks
Chenille
Print Cloth
Ladies' Full-Fashioned
k Silk Hosiery
Silk Throwing
Surgical Gauze Ic Tobacco
Cloth
Number
Employees
75
.27
II
10
3
225
140
40
65
7
80
9
13
4
7
700
250
100
825

Industries:
Manufacturer
23. Chambers Lumber Co.
24. Davis-Washington Co.
25. Lawson, I. L.
.6. Strickland, Will D.
.7. Tanner Lumber Co.
28. Welchel, E. D.
29. Gainesville Coop Shop
30. Hudson, 1C. D., Coop Shop
Number
Kind of Product Bnployees
Lumber
Lumber
Lumber
Lumber
Freezer Locker Plant - 350 Lockers
Lu&ber
Chicken Coops
Chicken Coops .
Flowery Branch
16
42
119
25
5
B
3 to 8
Hall
County
ExpcnmcBt
Stirkm . . .
Ctorgig
1940 Population: SOS. Area of Municipality: 1 square mile.
Altitude: 1,110 feet.
Railroads: Southern, connecting Atlanta with Gainesville.
Highways: U. S. Highway 23, State Highway 13, connecting Atlanta
with Gainesville.
Paved Streets; 1 mile; sidewalks; 1 mile.
Tax Rate, 1943: 10 mills; tax rate, 1940: 10 mills.
PublTe~Wrorks and Utilities; Fire Department inadequate, no fire
engine. Health and Sanitary Departments adequate. Electricity supplied
by Georgia Power Company. Source of water system: springs.
Other Services: Grade and High schools: 1 white. Libraries:
2 whitel Churches: 2 white.
Industries;
Manufacturer
1. Eudlow Feed 4 Poultry Co.
2. Chattahoochee Furniture Co.
3. Mooney Mfg. Co.
4. Waterproof Leather Co.
5. High Acres Mt. Guild
Kind of Product
Household Furniture
Chests of Drawers
Harnesses, Dog Collars
Belts, Bill Folds, etc.
Rugs 4 Bags
Number
Snployees
50
40
35
18 to 20
1940 Population: 920.
Eailroads: Southern, connecting Gainesville with Atlanta.
Highways: U. S. Highway 23, State Highway 13, connecting Atlanta
with Greenville, South Carolina.
1940 Population: 1,308.
Railroads: See Gainesville.
Highways : See Gainesville.
1940 Population;
None.
None.
700.
Gainesville Cotton Mills
—264—
Murrayville

Sew Holland
1940 Population; 1,986.
Railroads:Southern, connecting Gainesville with Toccoa,
in Stephens County.
Highways: U. S. Highway 23, State Highway 13, connecting
Atlanta with Greenville, South Carolina.
Industries:
Manufacturer
1 1. Pacelot Mfg. Co.
Kind of Product
Sateen, Sheeting
Hall
County
Suit....
Emibuiii»l
Ezpcrimat
SutioB . . .
Grorgit
K umber
Bnployees
1800
—265—

hart County
Population; 1940 Total: 15,512; white male: 5,886; white
female 5,665; Negro male: 1,955; Hegro fenaler 2,006.
Principal Crops> Cotton, hay, sweet potatoes and yams.
lAnd Distribution; Total land area; 164,480 acres; laud
in farms: 149,311 acres; land in pasture! 12,335 acres; land in woodlot:
33,614 acres; other land in forests; 22,187 acres.
Census of Manufactures;
~Nu3Ee"r of establishments
Average wage earners for year
Wages
Cost of materials
Value of products
Value added
Retail Trade Summary;
Total
Food group
General stores with food
General merchandise
Apparel group
Furniture, radio group
Automotive group
Wholesale Trade Summary;
Kuncer" of establishments:
Total sales, 393S:
Stores
1939 ———5
154
1957
5
171
98 t 962 miing stations
34 256 Lumber, building,
12 89 hardware
5 166 Eating, drinking
1 * places
2 * Drug stores ,
3 40 Other stores
I565.0CO
1935
4
190
Sales
(Add
Stores 000)
Weather Suircary;
N
Statidn
Average Itoxisam. Teapera ti'
Hartvell 53.8 56.7 C5.T7373" 81.9 88.fi §6.4 89V5 65.0 74.6 63.* E4.3
Average Minimum Temperature
33.7 34.4 41.U48.5 57.2 65.0 68.2 67.5 62.7 E0.6 -40.0 34.0
HartKell, County Seat
1940 Population; 2,372.
Kailroads; "Hartwell, connecting Eartwell irith the Southern at
Bowersville.
Highways; U. S. Eighway 29, State Highway 8, connecting Athens and
Andersen, South Carolina.
Industi-jes
Manufacturer
Kind of Product
23
3
7
2
6
Number
Employees
1. EartBell Mfg. Co. Men's Fants ft Jackets 250
Source: D. S. Census, other official sources, and local sources.
•Withheld to avoid disclosure.
—266—
153
54
17
*
75

Industries;
Manufacturer
2. Eartwell Mattress Co.
3. Specialty Appliance Co.
4. Eartwell Bills, #1
Kind of Product
Number
Employees
2
125
Hart
County
Sure . . . . •
Experiment
Surion . . .
Gtorgia
T«A
Ittlutnil . .
. . Efomomtc
Rncjrcb . .
See Franklin County.
--267—

Jackson County
Populationt 1940 Total: 20,089; white male: 8,216; white
fscale: 8,333; Hegro male: 1,766; Hegro female: 1,775.
Principal Crops: Cotton, hay, sweet potatoes and yams.
Land Distribution: Total land area: 215,680 acres; land
in farms: 176,873 acres; land in pasture: 14,999; land in
woodlot: 46,464 acres; other land in forests: 49,996 acres.
Census of Manufactures;
Humber of establishments
Average wage earners for year
Wages
Cost of materials
Value of products
Value added
Betail Trade Summary
Total
Food group
General stores with food
General merchandise
Apparel group
Furniture, radio group
Automotive group
Wholesale Trade Summary:
Number of establishments:
Total sales, 1939:
Sales
(Add
Stores 000)
1939
1,445
1937
1,443
I 892,872
13,161,879
14,722,511
11,560,632
183 42,403 Filling stations
61 S44 Lumber, building,
11 183 hardware
13 404 Eating, drinking
5 21 places
5 67 Drug stores
6 361 Other sterns
15
11,247,000
Jefferson, County Seat
Son ....
Eflgiaemac
Ezpcriouat
Sutim . . .
CfOCaif
Tid,
bulucrol . .
.
Rcmitb .
1955
659
I 336,797
£-.,995,808
14,292,296
11,296,488
Sales
(Add
Stores OOP)
43
5
11
6
17
230
98
53
78
364
1940 Population: 1,839. Area of Municipality: 3 square miles.
Railroads: Gainesville Midland, connecting Gainesville with Athens.
Highways: State Highway 11, connecting Blairsville with Macon.
State Highway 15, connecting Cornelia with Athens.
Paved Streets; 4 miles; sidewalks- 5 miles.
Tai Bate, 1943: 2 mills; tax rate, 1940: 2 mills.
Public Tories and Ptilities: Fire, Health, and Sanitary Departments
adequate. Ko gas. Electricity supplied by Georgia Power Company. Water
frcm Turkey Creek. •
Other Services: Grade schools: 1 white, 1 non-white; High schools:
1 white, 1 non-white. Churches: 4 white, 3 non-white. Libraries: 1
white. Banks: 1, with total capital and surplus of $100,000.
Industries:
Manufacturer
1. Jefferson Implement Co.
2. Jefferson Mills #1, The
3. Haysville Mop Co.
4. Jefferson Frozen Foods Bank
Kind of Product
Flannels i Cotton Cloths
Hops
KuDber
Employees
Source: D. S. Census, other official sources, and local sources.
—268--
550

Commerce
Jackson
Sountv
Sure ....
Enfintcriac
Experiment
Stition . . .
1940 Population; 3,294. Area of Municipality: 2 square
iciles"Altitude-. 980 feet.
Railroads: Southern, connecting Gainesville and Toccoa
with Athens.
Highways; State Highway 15, connecting Athens with
Cornelia. State Highway 24, connecting Commerce with Athens.
State Highway 59, connecting Commerce with Carnesville.
Paved Streets; 10 miles; -sidewalksi 10 miles.
Tax Bate. 1943; 16 mills; tax rate. 1940; 16 mills.
Public Torts and UtilitiesiFire Department inadequate - need new
equipment.' Health Department adequate. Sanitary Department inadequate.
Indm.mil . .
. .Eamomic
Research . .
No gas. Electricity supplied by Georgia Power Company. Hater from'Turkey
creek
Ȯther Services; Grade schools; 1 white, 1 non-white; high schools: 1
Hospitals: 1. Bants:
white, 1 non-white. Churches: 4 white, 4 non-white.
Z, with total capital and surplus of $147.000.
Batail Trade Summary;
Total
Food group
General stores with food
General merchandise
Apparel group
Furniture, radio group
Automotive group
Industries:
Stores
Manufacturer
1. Slue Bell, Inc.
2. Commerce Kfg. Co.
3. Harmony Grove Hills, Inc.
4. Lumber - Rough A Dressed
Gorion, 11033, Lumber Co.
5. Frozen Food Lockers, Inc.
See Banks County.
70
19
3
8
3
3
5
Sales
(Add
OOP)
| 1,128
239
40
187
*
*
*
Filling stations
Lumber, building,
hardware
Eating, drinking
places
Drug stores
Other stores
Kind of Product
Overalls, Dungarees
Overalls, Dungarees
Sheeting and Drills
365 Lockers
Ibysvilla
S;toro(
11
•
3
6
3
6
33
60
63
Number
Employees
^20
'300
600
60 to 75
•Withheld to avoid disclosure.
--269 —

LurnpKin County
Population: 1940 Total: 6,223; -white male: 3,017; white
fenale: 2,286; Negro male: 120; Negro females 106.
Principal Crops; Cotton, hay, Irish potatoes.
Land Distribution; Total land area: 186,880 acres; land
in farms: 75,37b acres; land in pasture: 2,912 acres; land in
woodlot: 52,267 acres; other land in forests: 109,031 acres.
Census of Manufactures;
"HunEe'r of establishments
Average wage earners for year
TTages
Cost of materials
Value of products
Value added
1939 1937 1935
Betail Trade Sunnary;
Sales
(Add
Stores OOP)
Salee
(Add
Stores 000)
Total
Food group
General stores with food
General merchandise
Apparel group
Furniture, radio group
Automotive group
73
40
7
3
1
3
1
358
90
117
2*
12
Filling stations
Lumber, building,
hardware
Bating, drinking
places
Drug stores
Other stores
Wholesale Trade Summary;
Hunter of establishments: 1
Total sales, 1939: *
Tfeather Surmary:
J F 1IAUJJAS 0 KD
Station Average Maximum Temperature
Dahlonega 50.6 52.7 61.5 70.4 78.2 84.9 86.5 85.4" 80.2 70.6 60.0 51.2
Average Minimum Temperature
31.9 32.5 40.0 46.6 54.4 61.7 64.S 64.£ 60.2 48.7 39.0 32.7
Dahlonega, County Seat
1940 Population; 1,294. Area of Municipality; 3.5 square miles.
Altitude: 1,520 feet. ~
Railroads: None.
Highways: U. S. Highway 19, 129, State Highway 9, connecting Atlanta
with Murphy, H. C.
Paved Streets; 4 Biles; sidewalks: 3 miles.
.Tax Bate, 1943; 1 mill; tax rate, 1940; 1 mill.
Pualic Works and Utilities; Fire Department inadequate. Health
Department adequate. Sanitary Department inadequate. No gas. Electricity
supplied by Georgia Power Company. Source of water system: Chestatee River
and springs.
Source: U. S. Census, other official sources, and local sources.
•Withheld to avoid disclosure.
—270—

Other Services: Grade schools: 1 white, 1 non-white;
High schoolsi 1 white; Colleges! 1 white. Churches: 3 white,
1 non-white. Libraries: S white. Banks: 1, with total
capital and surplus of (850,000.
Industries:
Manufacturer
1. Foore, G. A.
Kind of Product
Lumber
Huniber
Employees
13
Lumpkin
County
Satt ....
Eafinmint
Expcriaat
Station . . .
Tldl
.
.. Ecounk
Rcturcb . .
—271—

Madison County
Populations 1940 Totali 13,431; -white male: 5,SOS;
white femalsj 5,321; Hegro male: 1,284; Hegro female: 1,320.
Prlnoipal Crops; Cotton, hay, sweat potatoes and yarns.
land Distribution! Total land area: 179,840 acres; land
in farms: 152,448 acres; land in pasture: 8,219 acres; land in
•iroodlot: 53,298 acres; other land in forests: 15,323 acros.
Census of Manufactures!
Hunber ~af establishments
Average wage earners for year
Wages
Cost of materials
Value of products
Value added
1939 1957
4
16
I 3,541
|51,081
(76,853
$25,772
Expgnmtnt
Satioo . . .
1935
15
I 4,826
$147,788
|184,471
t 36,683
TlA
Indutml .
Be tall Trade Smmary:
Sales
(Add
Stores OOP)
Total
107 | 823 filling stations
Tood group
General stores trlth food 39 24 101 253 Lumber, building,
hardware
Seneral merchandise
3 48 Eating, drinking
Apparel group
places
Furniture, radio group — Drug stores
Automotive group
5 156 Other stores
Danielsville, County Seat
Sales
(Add
Stores 000)
1940 Populations 333
Railroads; ffoM
Highways; U. S. Highway 29, State Highway 8, connecting Atlanta with
Greenville, 3outh Carolina. State Highway 26, connecting Danielsville
trith Cconaru.
Coiner
f«t7 1940 ———————— Population; 811. ——— Area — of Municipality: 4 mileo. ——————
Altitude;
575
Hailroads; Seaboard Air Line, connecting Atlanta with Elberton.
Highways; State Highway 72, connecting Athens with Elberton. State
Highway 36, connecting Comer with Danielsville
Paved Streets; Hone; sidewalks; 2 miles
Tag Bate, 1943; 8
Public Works and Utilities; Tire Department inadequate. So gas.
Electricity supplied by Georgia Power Company. Source of water supply:
wells
Ȯther Services; Grade schools: 1 white, 1 non-white; High schools:
1 white; Libraries: 1 white, 1 non-white; Churohesj 3 white, 1 non-white';
Banks: 1, with a total capital and surplus of 450,000.
Source: 3. S. Census, other official sources, and loo»l sources.
"Withheld to avoid disclosure.
--27Z—

Industries;
Manufacturer Kind of Product Employees
1. Monarch Co., The Boys' Pants & Jodhpurs 100
2. Whitehead & Gholston — 27
3. Luster - Rough & Dressed
Stone, J. 15
Ibdison
County
Exptriaott
Sario. . . .
Gnrgu
..
. .Eomuc
Rotinb .
See Franklin County.
—273—

Rabun County
Population; 1940 Totals 7,821; -white male: 3,878; -white
feaale: 3,808; Kegro males 68; Negro females 67.
Principal Crops s Hay, Irish potatoes, sweet potatoes and
Eipucriaf
Exptrinait
|] Station . . .
Gtorfia
T«*
Indunial . .
.Economic
II Raarch . .
yaits.
Land Distribution: Total land areas 236,160 acres; land in fannss
£6,981 acres; land in pasture: 3,657 acres; land in woodlofc: 36,998 acres;
other land in forests: 171,297 acres.
Census of Manufacturess 1933 1937 1935
Kunber of establishments 3
Average wage earners for year 25
Wages $11,015
Cost of materials 4l2,365
Value of products $35,716
Value added *23,351
Retail Trade Smar.s.rys
Total
Food group
General stores with food
General merchandise
Apparel group
Furniture, radio group
Automotive group
Wholesale Trade Surjne.ry:
NuEber'of establishments:
Total sales, 1S39:
Weather SuEEary;
50.7 52.5
30.2 30.1
Sales
(Add
Stores 000)
87 f
28
7
5
1
2
2
2 * '
1,012
178
48
87
*
*
*
Filling stations
Lumber, building;
hardware
Eating, drinking
places
Drug stores
Other stores
Sales
(Add
Stores OOP)
16 105
4 165
11 71
3 39
8 102
II A V J J A
Average Maximum Temperature
60.'5 69.4 77.3 83.3 85.6 84. 79.6 69.9 59.5 50.6'
Average Vlniinum Temperature
37.7 f 52.0 59.4 63.0 62.4 57.2 45.E 36.1 30.6
Clayton, County Seat
1940 Population: 1,088. Area of Municipality; 4 square miles.
Altitude: '2,000 feet.
Bailroads: Tallulah Falls, connecting Franklin, North Carolina -with
Cornelia (Southern from there).
Highways: C. S. Highway 76, State Highway 2, conrecting Chattanooga,
Tennessee with Anderson, South Carolina. IT. S. Highway 23, State Highway
15, connecting Atlanta with Franklin, Worth Carolina.
Fayed Streets: 4.5 miles; sidewalks: 4 miles.
lax Sate, 194"3; 1.75 raills; tax rate, 1940; l.EO mills.
Source: U. S. Census, other official sources, and local sources.
•Withheld to avoid disclosure.
__274--

Public Works and Utilities: Fire and Sanitary Departments
adequate.Health Department inadequate. Ho gas. Electricity
supplied by Georgia Power Company. Source of water system:
Chattooga River.
Other Services! Grade schoolst 1 white, 1 non-white;
High schools» 1 white, 1 non-white. Churches: 2 white, 2
non-white. Libraries: 1 white. Banks: 1, with total capital'
and surplus of $50,000. •
Industries:
Manufacturer
1. Kt. City Packing Co.
2. Seville, E. 3.
3. Tiger )tt. Orchard
4. Williams, Tf. X., Machine Shop
5. Clayton Dye Works
6. Cabin Handicrafters, Inc.
7. Lessund Engineering Co.
8. Chambers County Lumber Co.
9. Eeeves Lumber Co.
10. Kisinger, E. L.
11. five Counties Lumber Corp.
12. Jones Manufacturing Co.
Freezer Locker Plant - 254 Lockers
Kind of Product
Apples
Apples
Apples
Stokers
Mountain City
Airplane Accessories
Lumber
Barrel Staves
Miscellaneous Wood
Katun
ounty
State ....
Enfiaeninf
Experiment
Station . . .
Ttdi
Indutriil . .
. . Eeoaotaic
Rcmtch . .
Number
Snployees
5
10
7 to 15
3 to 8
4
18
12
11
7
35
50
7
194O Population: 524.
Railroads:Tallulah Bills, connecting Cornelia with Franklin, North
Carolina.
Highways; U. S. Highway 23, State Highway 15, connecting Atlanta
vith Franklin, North Carolina.
—275—

Stephens County
State .
Expcriaat
Station . . .
Cfocgit
Population: 1940 Total: 12,972; white male: 5,523; white T>th
Indnnrul..
female:"5,593; Negro male: 852; Hogro female: 1,004.
.. Ecomiic
Principal Crops; Cotton, hay, sweet potatoes and yams. Rntaitb . .
Land Distribution; Total land area: 115,200 acres; land
in farms: 7i5,bO!J acres; land in pasture; 6,885 acres; land in woodlot:
36,614 acres; other land in forests: 24,358 acres.
Census of Manufactures; 1939 1937 1935
HumBer of establishments 15 T2 13
Average wage earners for year 663 467 393
Wages I 463,988 | 286,724 (224,596
Cost of materials | 741,642 | 642,645 $502,353
Value of products fl>658,134 $1,213,922 $873,406
Value added $ 916,492 $ 571,277 $371,053
Retail Trade Sumnary;
Total
Food group
General stores with food
General cerchandise
Apparel group
Furniture, radio group
Automotive group
Wholesale Trade Summary;
Humoer'of establishments:
Total sales, 1939:
Sales
(Add
Stores OOP)
129 $ 2,114 Filling stations
35 478 Lumber,, building,
6 47 hardware
8 324 Eating, drinking
2 * places
5 134 Drug stores
6 483 Other stores
11
$846,000
Sales
(Add
Stores 000)
Weather Sunaary;
————— JFMA1IJJASOHD
Station Average Maximum Temperature
Toccoa" 52.3 54.7 63.£—72T3~80.fi 87.2 88.5 87.8 82.9 72.6 61.8 63.5
Average Minimum Temperature
32.2 32.8 40.8 47.7 56.1 63.9 67.0 66.4 61.5 60.0 39.7 33.4
Toccoa, County Seat
1940 Population; 5,494. Area of Municipality; 3 square miles.
Altitude; 1,050 feet.
Hailroadg; Southern, connecting Atlanta with Greenville, South
Carolina!Southern, connecting Toccoa with Abbeville, South Carolina.
Highways; State Highway 13, U. S. Highway 23, connecting Atlanta with
Seneca, South Carolina. State Highway 17, connecting with State Highway 15
to the Berth and connecting Toccoa with Washington, Georgia.
Paved Streets; 11 miles; sidewalksi 12 miles.
Tag rate. 1943; 2 mills; tax rate, 1S40; 2 mills.
Public Works and Utilities: Fire and Health "Departments adequate.
Sanitary Department inadequate. Ho gas, sor.e bottled gas used.
Source: U. S. Census, other official sources, and local sources.
^Withheld to nvoJr! disclosure.
—276—

Electricity supplied by Georgia Power Company. Source of water
system: stream to reservoir.
Other Services: Grade schools: 1 white, 1 non-white; High
schools: 1 white, 1 non-white; Colleges: 1 white. Churches:
7 white, 3 non-white. Hospitals: 1. Banks: 1, with total
capital and surplus of $115,000. Airportss 1, with runway of
3,130 feet.
Industries:
——————— . Hi
Stephens
County
Sun ....
Exp«riacat
Sario. . . .
7>e»*
IllluKcul . .
. . Ecoooaic
Rmardi . .
——
nober
Manufacturer Kind of Product Employees
1. Klassy-Klad Manufacturing Co. Rayon Underwear
2. Stephens Garment Co. Men's Cotton Pants
3. Currahee Furniture Co. Bedroom Furniture
4. Metal Furniture Co. Aluminum Chairs
5. Toccoa Manufacturing Co. Household Furniture
6. Toccoa lovelty Mfg. Co. Tables, Bookcases &
Smoking stands
7. Trogdon Furniture Co. Dining Room Furniture
t Coffee Tables
8. LeTourneau Company of Georgia Earth Moving Equipment
9. Tournapull Housing Corp. Metal Houses
10. North Georgia Processing Co. Bleaching i Dyeing
11. Hartwell Mills #2, The Sheeting
12. Toocoa Casket Co. Caskets
Retail Trade Summary:
6
160
132
30
125
Sales
Sales
Stores (Add
000) Stores (Add
000)
35
200
1250
71
800
150
140
Total 99 * 1,979 Filling stations 17 f 147
Food group 24 442 Lumber, building,
General stores with food 2 * hardware 5 139
General merchandise Apparel group 8 2 324 Sating, drinking
* places 17 • *
Furniture, radio group Automotive group 5 6 134 Drug stores 483 Other stores Z 11 *
121
Wholesale Trade Summary:
Number of establishments: 10
Total sales, 1939 i *
Source: U. S. Census, other official sources, and local sources.
•Withheld to avoid disclosure
—277—

Towns County State ....
Engineering
Experiment
Station . . .
Ctoryia
7«*
Indutria! . .
. . Economic
Retearth . .
Population; 1940 Total: 4,925; white male: 2,544; white
female: 2,381.
Principal Crops; Hay, Irish potatoes, sweet potatoes and
yams.
land Distribution; Total land area: 110,080 acres; land in farast
37,616 aoresj land in pasture: 4,265 acres; land in woodlot: 16,555 aoresi
other land in forests: 79,489 acres.
Retail Trade Summary;
Total
Food group
General stores with food
General merchandise
Apparel group
Furniture, radio group
Automotive group
Stores
47
9
19
2
1
1
Sales
(Add
000)
t 146
7
73
*
• —
*
*
Hiawassee, County Seat
Filling stations
Lumber, building
hardware
Bating, drinking
places
Drug stores
Other stores
Stores
5
__
7
1
2
Sales
(Add
000)
* 8
1940 Population: 163.
Pailroads:Hone.
Highways; U. S. Highway 76, State Highway 2, connecting Chattanooga,
Tennessee with Anderson, South Carolina.
_-
22
*
*
Sourcei U. S. Census, other official sources, and local sources.
•Withheld to avoid disclosure.
—279—

Union County
Statt ....
Enfnucriaf
Eipirimtat
Station . . .
Population; 1940 Totalj 7,660; white male; 3,919; white
femalei 3,750; Negro malex 4; Negro femalei 7.
Principal Crops; Bay, Irish potatoes, sweet potatoes and
TVrfi
ladutru! . .
. . ECOMOBU
Rourch . .
yams.
land Distribution; Total land areai 204,160 aores; land in farasj
.94,732 acres; land in'pasture: 5,399 acres; land in woodlot; 57,760 acres;
other land in forests: 121,873 acres.
Census of Manufactures; Number of establishments 1939 1 1937 — 1955
1
Average wage earners for year Wages • — — — —
—
• Cost of materials Value of products — •— —
•—
Value added
Retail Trade Summary;
Total
Food group
General stores with food
General merchandise
Apparel group
Furniture, radio group
Automotive group
Iholesale Trade Summary:
Stores
68
42
8
1
Number of establishments: 1
Total sales, 1939: *
Blalrsvllle, County Seat
1
1
Sales
(Add
OOP)
t 230
86
59
*
*
*
Filling stations
Lumber, building,
hardware
Bating, drinking
places
Drug stores
Other stores
Stores
1940 Population; 358. Altitude; 1925 feet.
Railroads: nonT.
Highways; U. S. Highway 76, connecting Chattanoofa with Andersen,
South Carolina. State Highway 11, connecting Blairsville with Murphy,
Horth Carolina. U. S. Highway 19 and 129, connecting Blairsville with
Gainesville.
8
1
4
1
1
Sales
(Add
000)
* 44
*
*
*
*
Source: U. S. Census, other official sources, and local sources.
"Withheld to avoid disclosure.
—279—

vThite County
Expcraat
Saticm . . .
Population; 1940 Total: 6,417; white Dale: 3,060; white
female: 2,990; Hegro male: 200; Hegro female: 167.
principal Crops: Cotton, hay, Irish potatoes.
Land Distribution; Total land area: 155,520 acres; land
in farms: 72,239 acres; land in pasture: 6,125 acres; land in woodlot:
39,853 acres; other land in forests: 90,029 acres.
. .
. . EcoaoMk
Ratucli . .
Census of Manufactures:
Humber~of establishments
Average wage earners for year
Wages
Cost of materials
Value of products
Value added
1939 1937 1935
Retail Trade Summary:
Total
Food group
Goneral stores with food
General merchandise
Apparel group
Furniture, radio group
Automotive group
Wholesale Trade Summary;
Mumber'of establishments: 1
Total sales, 1939: *
Sales
(Add
Stores 000)
64 * 265 Filling stations
34 86 Lumber, building.
18 120 hardware
— —• Bating, drinking
— — places
1 * Drug stores
1 * Other stores
Sales
(Add
Stores OOP)
27
Cleveland, County Seat
1940 Population: 471. Area of Municipality; 4 square miles.
Altitude: 1,555 feet.
ilroads; Bone. „
ays; U. S. Highway 129, State Highway 11, connecting Murphy,
H. C. with Gainesville.
Paved Streets: 1.5 miles.
Tax Bate, 1943; 7.5 mills; tax rate, 1940: 7.5 mills.
Public Worlcs and Utilities: Fire and Health Departments inadequate.
Sanitary Department inadequate. Ho gas. Electricity supplied by Georgia
Power Company and T.VJL. Source of water system: Chattahoochee River.
Other Services: Grade schools; 1 white, 1 non-whits; High schools:
1 white, 1 non-white; Churches: 2 white. Hospitals: 1.
Industries:
Manufacturer
Kind of Product
Number
Employees
1. Dairies, G. L.
Lumber
13
Source: U. S. Census, other official sources, and local sources.
•Withheld to avoid disclosure.
—280—

Publications of
State Engineering Experiment Station
"Georgia School of Technol'ogy
Circulars
Ho. 4. The Electron Microscope at Georgia Tech, by B. H. Well,
C-. A. Rosselot, and E. VfT~Koza. BVatis.
*
Bulletins
Bo. 1. Studies in the Cotton Drawing Process—I. Effect of Roll Speed on
Tensile "Strength of Spun Yarn, by B. E. Peacock, T53SI Twentyfive
Cents.
No. 2.
No. 3.
No. 4.
No. 5.
Ho. 6.
Bo. 7.
Ho. 8.
Empirical Specific Heat
R. L. Sweigert and H. W.
[uations Based on Spectroscopjc Data, by
.rdsley, 1938T" Twenty-five Cents.
Studies in the Viscose Rayon Process— 2. The Suitability of
Georgia Pine Pulp for the Production of Viscose Rayon--IT. The
Viscosity of Viscose Solution from Georgia Pine Pulp—III. The
Effect of Various Spinning Baths oa the Cross-Section and Physical
Properties of Viscose Rayon from 'Pine Pulp, by~Harold Hunger,
Edward Doud, and Nathan Suganaan, 1938. Fifty Cents.
Studies in the Utilization of Georgia Pecans—I. Composition,
Properties, and Uses of Hulls, Oils, and Ifeats'J by
Thomas H. Whitehead and Hilda Warshaw, 1938. Twenty-five Cents.
Testing the Abilities of Tortile Workers, by Willard Harrell,
1940. Twenty-five Cents.
Food Preservation Prospectus, by Joseph B. Hosmer, J. G. Woodroof,
Noah Warren, J. W. Mason, J. William Firor, R. L. Keener, and
Hyron C. Davis, 3.941. Seventy-five Cents.
Wool Industry Prospectus, by Joseph B. Hosmer, II. A. Strickland,
and associates, 1941.Seventy-five Cents.
Ceramic Whiteware Prospectus, by Joseph B. Hosmer and associates,
1945. ""Seventy-TTve Cents.
Ho. 5. The Effect of Attic Fan Operation on the Cooling of a Structure, by
W. A. Hinton and A. F. Poor, 1942. Twenty Cents. ~
Ho. 6. Spinning Plaic for Bags on Cotton Mill Machinery, prepared oy the
State Engineering Experiment Station of the Georgia School of Tech
nology, Atlanta, Georgia, June 1943.- Gratis.
No. 7. Modifications of the Relative Stability Test for Sewage, by Samuel
H. Hopper and Otto W. Briscoe, 1944. Twenty-five Cents.
No. 6. Density of Potassium Chloride, by Dwight A. Hutchison, 1944.
Twenty-five Cents.
—231 —

Reprints (continued)
DATE DUE
Ho. 9. Location of Line Faults, by H. A. Honnell,•1944. Gratis.. gj-^
Eafiocniaf
Ho. 10. A Statistical Study £f the Relations Between Flax Fiber SBtlon ' •
Humbers and tfiameters and STzes of Stems, by Julian H.
MillerJ H. Gwendolyn "Burton, andTroy Manning, 1945. bdutml . .
. . ECOWOBIC
Gratis.
Rtiorcb . .
Ho
11. ____ Molecular Weight Comparisons from Density and X-Ray Data.
The Atomic __ WeigEts of Calcium and Fluorine, by~Dwight A. Hutchison,
19451 Twenty-five Twenty-, Tjents'.
Ho. 12. A Direct Method of Estimating the Performance of a Helicopter In
Towered~K.ight, b"y Walter Castles, 1945. Twenty-five Cents.
Ho. 13. Efficiency of the Electrolytic Separation of Chlorine Isotopes. by
Dwight A. HuteEis~on, 1945. Twenty-five Cents.
Ho. 14. Single Sideband Generator, by II. A. Honnell, 1945.
Gratis.
Ho. 15. The Homographic Representation of Polynomials, by W. H. Burrows,
19461Twenty-five Cents.
Ho. 16. Thcmody"'''^ c Properties of Gases-- Carbon Dioxide, by R. L.
Sweigert, Paul Weber, and R. L. Alien, 1946. Twenty-five Cents.
Ho. 17. Construction of Homographs With Hyperbolic Coordinates, by
W. H. Burrows, 1946. Twenty-five Cents.
Special Reports
Ho. 1. Economic Study of Mtcon Area, by Industrial Economic Research Staff,
1943. JSoToOf
Ho. 2. Economic Study of Augusta Area, by Industrial Economic Research
Staff, 1944. 35.Sof
Ho. 3. Abattoir Prospectus, 1945* Ho. 7. Freezer-Locker Combination,
Ho. 4. Butter Manufacture, 1945* 1945*
Ho. E. Cheese Manufacture, 1945* Ho. 8. Dehydration Sumaary, 1945*
Ho. 6. Severance Taxes, 1945* Ho. 9. Canning Prospectus, 1945*
Ho. JO. Economic Study of Ifeyeross Area, by Industrial Economic Research
Staff, 1945. f28.OOf
Ho. 11. Economic Study of Yaldosta Area, by Industrial Economic Research
Staff, 1945.