Farm Size in 1860?

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

A comment in another thread got me wondering: how big was a typical family farm in the North and in the South in 1860?

A short internet search suggests 40 acres was considered subsistence farming and 160 acres (a quarter section), or close to it, was typical.

Of course, 160 acres of property doesn't mean 160 acres of farmland. Much of Louisiana, eastern Arkansas, Illinois, and of course the Great Plains are flat as a pancake. In contrast, as a child I lived on an 80-acre farm in West Virginia. You started on a ridgeline, went down into a creek valley, and up a second ridgeline before starting to descend the back side of that second ridge. Less than half the land had ever been cleared for farming, and probably half of that was too steep for crops - only livestock was practical. Without the construction of two ponds, created with the aid of a bulldozer, there probably wasn't enough water on the property to support the typical animals-per-acre rate. The creek valley area took about 15 acres and was too steep for any kind of agriculture. Four decades later and half the property is still forested - not good enough for commercial timber but plenty thick enough to make it useless for agriculture without extensive clearing and tilling. Almost ten miles over several hills and valleys on modern roads to the nearest railroad station that has ever existed, which is located in what is still today a modest county seat. Without paved roads and automobiles, commercial farming would probably be impractical because crops could not be reliably gotten to market. This is probably somewhat representative for the Appalachians and Ozarks.

Here in my part of Florida, postwar with the benefit of the Homestead Act and before Florida land prices started to skyrocket, homesteads were frequently 80-160 acres to start, but my research shows most homesteaders unloaded the vast majority of land once they got legal title. Pre-1920, there were a few citrus growers with over a hundred acres of property (though only a few tens of acres planted) and some ranchers, but this agricultural community had almost nobody with 10 acres of crops and many with no more than 5 acres. Maybe that was because there was a railroad through town so crops could get to market reliably and goods could be acquired somewhat reliably.

In 1860, away from the railroads and navigable rivers, maybe larger cultivation was a necessity for family farms?

 

[Reconstructed Rebel]

A short internet search suggests 40 acres was considered subsistence farming and 160 acres (a quarter section), or close to it, was typical.

After the war the number of farms increased, especially in some southern states, because of large plantations being subdivided into smaller holdings. Your estimate of 160 acres for a typical prosperous family farm (east of the Mississippi River) sounds reasonable for 1860, although I don't doubt a family could make a living on less than that if the soil was fertile. There was only so much land one family could work without tractors and other modern aids. Maybe my answer to your question would be "It depends."

In 1860, away from the railroads and navigable rivers, maybe larger cultivation was a necessity for family farms?

I'm interested in what others think, and perhaps I've misread your statement, but it seems to me that cultivating more crops when you have no reasonable way to transport them to a market is a waste of time and money.

Some other interesting statistics:

State by State | American Experience | PBS

Civil War and Reconstruction had a distinct economic impact on each state in the nation. See what happened state by state.

www.pbs.org

https://www.usda.gov/about-usda/news/blog/look-americas-family-farms

 

[damYankee]

There was a difference between farms and plantations;

A farm is a tract of land used for agriculture to produce a variety of crops and raise animals. A plantation is a large estate primarily devoted to a single cash crop, often requiring intensive labor.
Key differences;

A farm is a piece of land used for agricultural purposes, which can include the cultivation of various crops and the raising of animals. Plantations, on the other hand, are large agricultural estates that typically focus on the mass production of a single type of crop, like cotton, sugarcane, or rubber.
Farm sizes can vary from small family-owned plots to larger commercial operations. Plantations are generally larger and more specialized, often requiring significant labor and specialized equipment for mass production. Farms tend to be more versatile, allowing for crop rotation and diversified agriculture.
While farms often produce food for local consumption and may be family-owned, plantations are more likely to be part of larger corporate systems or owned by entities that specialize in large-scale agricultural production. Both terms imply agricultural activity, but their scale, specialization, and historical contexts set them apart.

 

[Sheltowee]

Just some Kentucky numbers-

In 1860, there were 83,689 farms in Kentucky. The majority were between 50 and 100 acres.

Kentucky ranked first in Southern states in production of rye, barley, horses, and mules.

Ranked second in hemp, tobacco, corn, wheat, and sheep.

Ranked third in production of hogs.

https://heritage.ky.gov/Documents/Outbuildings.pdf

 

[major bill]

My Michigan Civil War ancestor, with my same name, only farmed 360 acres but he also ran a lumber mill. He bought land, cleared the trees because cleared farm land sells for more than land with trees. He made money on the lumber as well.

 

[Reconstructed Rebel]

A farm is a tract of land used for agriculture to produce a variety of crops and raise animals. A plantation is a large estate primarily devoted to a single cash crop, often requiring intensive labor.

That is the way I would define it today as well, but will note that during the war quite a few northern soldiers in their correspondance wrote that "plantation" was what southerners in some states called farms. Mountain folk were more likely to refer to their homestead as a farm.

And being proudly descended from a long list of farmers, here is a bit I found interesting (and encouraging). Then and now, family farms still dominate in the US!

Per the USDA website:
Our research found that family farms remain a key part of U.S. agriculture, making up 98% of all farms and providing 88% of production. Most farms are small family farms, and they operate almost half of U.S. farm land, while generating 21% of production. Midsize and large-scale family farms account for about 66% of production; and non-family farms represent the remaining 2.1% of farms and 12% of production.

 

[damYankee]

The importance of Mills in relation to the success of farming can't be overstated. With out the Mill, farmers would not survive to become productive. And many small farming communities quickly fizzled out without a Mill.
Before the advent of steam powered machinery, predating the Roman Empire wind and water powered mills were the anchor for any farming community which is why rivers were so important to spread of what some call civilization, not just for transportation of the crops, the water powered Mill processed grain into flour, corn into corn meal, the Mill was a marvel of early machinery complete with reduction gears and belt driven grinding wheels, some powered saws and industrial hammers, and to pump water .

 

[Library Lady]

This might be of assistance, @Joshism .

https://agcensus.library.cornell.edu/wp-content/uploads/1964-Size_of_Farm-TABLES-745-Table-12.pdf

 

[DaveBrt]

When land was being made available to new settlers in early North Carolina, the usual amount of land for a new farm was 50 acres. This amount was to provide room for farming, a house and barn, room for supporting a few animals (horses/milk cows/pigs) and wood for constructing the house and fire wood. Most farmers made do for several years, then added another 50 acres. These farms were not side by side, but were located where the land, wood and water would support a family.

As settlers increased in the early 1800's, the new folks had to make do with the less desirable land in between the early farms. To be viable, the new farms needed more of the marginal land and holdings grew to the 150 acre size, side by side down the now established roads.

Every time my ancestors moved, they bought more land than they had sold. 1860 farms of 160 acres seems very likely.

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

it seems to me that cultivating more crops when you have no reasonable way to transport them to a market is a waste of time and money.

I readily admit my suggestion was paradoxical. I will elaborate.

If my farm has reliable access to market then I can reliably sell my crops every year. I can even grow crops aren't edible (flax, cotton, tobacco) or otherwise that don't personally benefit me. Market price may vary, but I will usually have money coming in that I can then take to the general store to buy what I need.

Conversely, if I have no reliable market access, I have no reliable source of money. There may not be a local general store to spend money at anyway - if crops can't reliably get out then other goods probably can't reliably get in either. I may even want sheep on my farm so I can make my own wool. I need more crops, both in terms of quantity and diversity, to guard against any loss because the alternative is starvation. This forces me to be more self-sufficient. Everything I need I have to grow myself or barter with a neighbor.

The rural areas probably also tend toward lower crop yield per acre due to soil conditions and lack of access to fertilizer (other than what your livestock produces).

I am admittedly speculating.

 

[Sheltowee]

Census reports for my ancestors read like a broken record- occupation "farmer", property value "$300". Virtually all of them.

This was subsistence farming- with limited market access. I suspect a lot of bartering with neighbors. Free-range hogs a primary meat source.

A significant area of the farm was untillable- so it stood in timber. There is where the limited cash flow originated.

Buying more land was a goal- but suspect it was not intended to farm more potatoes. But it better have good timber….or a decent tobacco base.

 

[RobertP]

Here in my part of Florida, postwar with the benefit of the Homestead Act and before Florida land prices started to skyrocket, homesteads were frequently 80-160 acres to start, but my research shows most homesteaders unloaded the vast majority of land once they got legal title. Pre-1920, there were a few citrus growers with over a hundred acres of property (though only a few tens of acres planted) and some ranchers, but this agricultural community had almost nobody with 10 acres of crops and many with no more than 5 acres. Maybe that was because there was a railroad through town so crops could get to market reliably and goods could be acquired somewhat reliably.

In 1860, away from the railroads and navigable rivers, maybe larger cultivation was a necessity for family farms?

In the late 1880's my grandmother's family moved to Lake Mary near Sanford, Fla. Her father was a CS vet from Miss. and though being a doctor decided to relocate there and grow oranges. A killing freeze in the 1890's killed his orchard and they moved back to their old home. He had 80 acres, I don't know how much was orchard, but it was kept in the family untended until the 1980's when it was sold to a developer.

 

[Reconstructed Rebel]

"Buy land, they're not making it anymore." - Mark Twain

Of all the things you can spend money on, land is something that time is unlikely to corrupt. Plus there is an amazing sense of satisfaction that comes from standing on a hill and in every direction you can look, from horizon to horizon, every tree, shrub, field and creek is yours.

If the land has been in your family for generations, knowing your great, great grandfather walked the same hills and bottoms, well, that is a plus too. You know who you are and where your place in the world is. Explaining this to someone who has never owned a farm is difficult.

 

[Sheltowee]

"Buy land, they're not making it anymore." - Mark Twain

Of all the things you can spend money on, land is something that time is unlikely to corrupt. Plus there is an amazing sense of satisfaction that comes from standing on a hill and in every direction you can look, from horizon to horizon, every tree, shrub, field and creek is yours.

If the land has been in your family for generations, knowing your great, great grandfather walked the same hills and bottoms, well, that is a plus too. You know who you are and where your place in the world is. Explaining this to someone who has never owned a farm is difficult.

Apologies if I've said before, but reminded of a Kentucky man traveling across Texas.

He pulled up next to a rancher mending his fence. Kentucky fella asked how big the spread was.

"Well" Tex said, "I can get in my truck and drive east all day. By nightfall, I still will not have reached the end of my farm".

"Understand" said Kentucky. "I had a truck like that".

 

[TnFed]

After the war the number of farms increased, especially in some southern states, because of large plantations being subdivided into smaller holdings. Your estimate of 160 acres for a typical prosperous family farm (east of the Mississippi River) sounds reasonable for 1860, although I don't doubt a family could make a living on less than that if the soil was fertile. There was only so much land one family could work without tractors and other modern aids. Maybe my answer to your question would be "It depends."



I'm interested in what others think, and perhaps I've misread your statement, but it seems to me that cultivating more crops when you have no reasonable way to transport them to a market is a waste of time and money.

Some other interesting statistics:

State by State | American Experience | PBS

Civil War and Reconstruction had a distinct economic impact on each state in the nation. See what happened state by state.

www.pbs.org

https://www.usda.gov/about-usda/news/blog/look-americas-family-farms

My story. Prior to the CIvil War most of my family lived well on their hilly land and didn't knock themselves out either. No, they didn't own black slaves, they raised hogs, didn't have much up keep because chestnut trees were all over the place. All the males drove them to market. War came and markets changed, then came the chestnut blight. Later on the government "paid" some of them to leave their farms for the Park. And yes I like to go to the park. A little later the TVA removed some more from their farms. And yes, I like electricity. But I sure don't care for some of the methods that were used to displace those who wanted to stay. Might want to Google that sometime.

Anyhow my dad like Abraham in the bible
decided to leave farming and move to the promise land..Cincinnati... Been in Southwest Ohio ever since. Guess what? Still surrounded by Appalachians. .

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

If the land has been in your family for generations, knowing your great, great grandfather walked the same hills and bottoms, well, that is a plus too. You know who you are and where your place in the world is. Explaining this to someone who has never owned a farm is difficult.

Yes, with a caveat. A multi-generational family farm (or family business) can be a passionate attachment and an admirable feat.

But just as one's views on the Civil War shouldn't be chained to which side your ancestors fought on, your place in the world shouldn't be chained to the place of your ancestors.

 

[Sheltowee]

Yes, with a caveat. A multi-generational family farm (or family business) can be a passionate attachment and an admirable feat.

But just as one's views on the Civil War shouldn't be chained to which side your ancestors fought on, your place in the world shouldn't be chained to the place of your ancestors.

Explain that to my mom

 

[archieclement]

Indeed the idea of size is interesting for single family farms, would imagine the size of tillable acres would been rather comparable.....but one could owned any amount of non tillable acres.

If looking more ranch then crop farms.....in low quality land areas the number of acres to one cow and calf can be quite substantial. The reason western ranches are so huge, is generally ratio varies from 10 to 50 acres per cow and calf on native grasses. (ratio for texas). See ratio of 4-30 acres gave for South Dakota.

As well for reference 1862 homestead grant allowed 160 acres, of which i would doubt half would very rarely been in crop production in that era.

 

[WinterLeia]

I've done some research on farming in Illinois, especially Southern Illinois, for a book I'm writing. Up until the start of the Civil War, there were a lot more subsistence farms than later on. And even if the land was owned by a single family, often that family included more than just the nuclear family. And they would all work the land; brothers, cousins, aunts and uncles, grandparents, etc. Unfortunately, for a lot of what you might call the small mom and pop farms, the secession of the Southern states pretty much did it for them, because the major market at the time was New Orleans, via the Mississippi River. And that trade route was cut off completely by August of 1861. Obviously, though, with the war and the fact that Union soldiers needed to eat, the farming industry in Illinois recovered fairly quickly, with Chicago replacing New Orleans in the supply chain. But many of the smaller farms had already went out of business, and farming became far more industrialized and commercialized after that. It probably was bound to happen as the Industrial Revolution finally made its way to America's heartland. The war just sped up the timetable, at least in my opinion.

 

[MWood1841]

researching records for my ancestors who resided in the Massie Mills, Piney River area of SW Virginia just north of Lynchburg, a majority land records show 60-100 acres. These were family farms and by no means 'plantations'. Everyone farmed to some extent, or you went hungry. Family farms produced enough yield to feed your family and perhaps some extra crop or livestock to barter with or make a little extra money with. Most of the folks on my Nanny's side worked in local saw mills, apple orchards or moonshined in addition to working their family farms. My great grandfather who I'm named after spent time incarcerated after being caught by the 'revenue men' for running stills. How they made ends meet back then.
I was Blessed enough to also grow up on my grandparents farm, Virginia piedmont land. Hat tip to you and your people @Joshism for farming WVA ridges. Thats some tough sledding, working land like that. We periodically drive through the Shenandoah Valley and Blue Ridge Mtns and I see livestock scattered on steep hillsides. It's impressive and appreciative to still see.